I suspect vaccinations because...
POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Saturday, January 13, 2024 18:35
VIEWED: 11985
PAGE 11 of 17
Oh, where is Rue when she would be so helpful?
So anyways, I did some quick research. There is apparently a recorded increase in diabetes I beginning roughly in 1955 which appears to be leveling off in many nations, but not all*. Back to that later.
There are a few interesting points that the studies make:
First, it is very difficult to assess records before 1950, and also very difficult in many places of the world, because record-keeping was either nonexistent, fragmentary or destroyed in WWII. Thus, the early studies are limited mainly to Nordic countries, Sardinia, Britain and the USA. Those studies which estimate the pre-WWII diabetes Type I rates tend to produce higher variability among them than the increase they purport to show. In other words, the rates before 1950 range from 4 per 100,000 to 15 per 100,000. When you are trying to demonstrate an increase of 10 per 100,000 that is within the range of error of the methods. That doesn't give me a warm, fuzzy feeling about the methods used to estimate diabetes rates.
Nonetheless, let us assume that the studies are roughly correct because they are longitudinal.
What happened after about 1950?
First of all, the 1930-1950 time period saw a worldwide depression followed by a world war. Nutrition was much poorer in those 20 years... people were visibly thinner, they ate less, and moved more. Then there was the introduction of cars in 1950.
*Back to where not all countries are seeing a leveling off. SOME nations... Eastern European nations in particular... saw a later increase in diabetes type I. East Germany, for example, didn't experience as big a bump in incidence until it was incorporated into West Germany. They are still on the rising side of the diabetes curve. The same appears to be happening in less developed nations.
Eastern Europe, and East Germany, definitely vaccinated. So there is some OTHER lifestyle change or exposure that occurred. It may have to do with the wider use of cars... or the introduction of more milk into the early diet. It could be related to better nutrition and early growth velocity. It may have to do with mum sitting on her bum while pregnant. Or the mixing of population subgroups, causing in utero immune responses.
The point is, at this moment, nobody really knows. Whatever factor is operating now was operating thousands of years ago, just more so.
So... this is not something to beat yourself up over, Chris. That makes as much sense as someone beating themselves up because their child has autism. Eventually the cause will be found, and stem cell therapy will be developed. But at this point, the best thing to do is take a deep breath and move forward from where you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Mercury is yucky, I wish that they'd put their thinking caps on and figure out how not to have anything with mercury in the name or the product in vaccines. Again yucky, this is the 21st century people. And I do believe that usually vaccines are a good thing, so lets make it better and better.
"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yes, mercury is yucky. :) I couldn't have said it better myself.
Originally posted by RionaEire:
Mercury is yucky,
http://www.epa.gov/hg/health.htm
"Mercury is a neurotoxicant." Nitrogen is not.
Although most of the studies on neurotoxicity are done with methylmercury, it does NOT mean all other mercurial compounds are safe.
Here is a presentation by the National Toxicology Program. Now this is a a conventional source that even the most die-hard establishment defenders should accept. Note the link is at the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies.
http://www.iom.edu/~/media/Files/Activity%20Files/PublicHealth/Immuniz
ationSafety/Lucier.pdf
It is only 17 pages, worth reading through. Discussion of ethylmercury specifically starts on pg 9. Please note the conclusion on page 17.
Even THEY say both ethylmercury and methylmercury is neurotoxic. It doesn't matter that ethylmercury is in lower concentrations in the brain or has a shorter half-life. It doesn't matter if ethylmercury is "slightly less toxic" than methylmercury. Anything toxic at all shouldn't be anywhere near a brain to begin with, let alone infant and developing brains.
Why anyone would defend any type of mercurial compound as safe for infant development is beyond me.
Mercury. Is. Yucky. (I need that on a t-shirt.)
-----
Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth. -- Lucy Parsons (1853-1942, labor activist and anarcho-communist)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Nitrogen isn't toxic? So cyanide is OK? Just asking.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ahem. I didn't say that thimerosal, or methyl mercury or ethyl mercury were non-toxic. What I DID claim was that the chemical FORM of mercury affects its toxicity - which BTW is a fact. Also, any link between thimerosal and autism has been fairly conclusively disproved through large meta-analyses both in the US and Europe.
Rather than post extended quotes, here's a WIKI link relating the forms of mercury to its toxicity:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_poisoning
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Nope. Not in gaseous form. Elemental nitrogen is very dangerous.
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Nitrogen isn't toxic?
Kind of like oxygen. We breathe it, we need it. It is not toxic. But in certain forms, it is very dangerous.
Quote:Nope.
So cyanide is OK?
Quote:Happy to be consulted.
Just asking.
-----
Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth. -- Lucy Parsons (1853-1942, labor activist and anarcho-communist)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Then we agree.
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Ahem. I didn't say that thimerosal, or methyl mercury or ethyl mercury were non-toxic.
Quote:Look, we agree again!
What I DID claim was that the chemical FORM of mercury affects its toxicity - which BTW is a fact.
Quote:Meta-analyses that are flawed. For an example, see the link that I posted above. The one M5Nickerson said she didn't read because it read, "thimerosal (mercury)." She said that ethylmercury was not "mercury," as in the toxic kind, methylmercury. I was simply straightening her out.
Also, any link between thimerosal and autism has been fairly conclusively disproved through large meta-analyses both in the US and Europe.
[ETA: Let me try a different explanation. Mercury, in its inorganic form (be it elemental mercury or ionic mercury), fries brain cells as we see in the U Calgary video. So, mercury = neurotoxic.
Ethylmercury and methylmercury are organic compounds of mercury, with either a ethyl group attached or a methyl group attached. The concern here is that both ethyl and methyl groups are like gnats on an elephant's ass so to speak. The gnats get detached easily, and what are you left with in the body? Inorganic mercury, the elephant.
Ethylmercury is actually more easily converted into inorganic mercury than methylmercury, resulting more of the bad stuff running loose. Where does this bad stuff go? That is still being decided because as far as I can tell, no one has done a good pharmokinetic study on ethylmercury. Big pharma likes to ASSUME the inorganic mercury all gets excreted, but I personally call bullshit on that.
But that ethylmercury and methylmercury gets converted easily into mercury the neurotoxin, no one disputes.]
Redirect.
It doesn't matter if ethylmercury is differently toxic than methylmercury. Both forms are toxic. It shouldn't be injected into babies or anyone.
It doesn't matter if ethylmercury caused autism or not. It STILL shouldn't be injected into babies or anyone
Mercury is yucky. Don't put it in vaccines. Not hard to understand.
What makes me curious is, why aren't you calling for corporate accountability and liability for putting a known neurotoxin into children's vaccines just so they could make a profit? Aren't you against that sort of thing?
-----
Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth. -- Lucy Parsons (1853-1942, labor activist and anarcho-communist)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Meta-analyses that are flawed. For an example, see the link that I posted above. The one M5Nickerson said she didn't read because it read, "thimerosal (mercury)." She said that ethylmercury was not "mercury," as in the toxic kind, methylmercury. I was simply straightening her out.
I said they are not the same, not that it is not toxic. Damn near everything is toxic at certain levels. Websites do stuff like that to invoke fear, because after all mercury is yucky.
As for the rest of the website climing that the study is pseudoscience even though it appeared in a reconised peer-reviewed journal, let look at it's claims.
"1. Vague definitions / Lack of transparency and critical details: Pseudoscience does not use precise, objective, and transparent definitions that can be independently evaluated for as valid."
You mean like suggesting that thimerosal is just another name for mercury?
The site takes issue with the criteria used to define autisum in Denmark and how that may have increased the number of cases. The reason for this si explianed in the study, "which eliminates the risk of double-counting of cases."
Also the criteria was used becasue it is very difficult to be certain of autisum in children under 2.
"2. Changing definitions. Pseudoscience lumps inconsistently defined measurements all together. At best, it is sloppy and unreliable. At worst, it constitutes a sleight-of-hand."
"Denmark removed thimerosal in 1992. In 1994, Denmark changed its diagnosis of autism from ICD-8 299 "psychosis proto-infantilis" to ICD-10 F84 "infantile autism." Before 1995, Denmark's autism rates counted only inpatient autism cases, those severe enough to be admitted for hospitalization. After 1995, Denmark started counting both hospitalized cases and outpatient cases. So autism rates skyrocketed after thimerosal was removed. Did they really skyrocket, or did it look like that because the definition of autism changed to count a lot more kids? We will never know. The data don't say.
Yes, before 1995 the data was for inpatient cases, the study tells us that inpatient cases were "refer both to children who stay at the hospital overnight and to children who come to the hospital on a daily basis for evaluation and treatment." It als states that outpatient activities were 4 to 6 times higher. Now that says activities, not diagnosis. So the data they where pulling from is from treatment of children that had been diagnosed with autisum.
"3. No real or actual data provided / Insufficient or adjusted statistics....Any 5th grader who has watched PBS's Cyberchase can tell you that graphs can imply statistical significance, or a sharp rise or fall, where there is actually none."
The graph they are attaching is this one...
http://www.pediatricsdigest.mobi/content/112/3/604/F1.expansion.html
We can see a rise in the number of autium cases after 1992 and on. Including increases after 1992 and before 1994 when Demark started to include ICD-10. The website asks if the graph is just a random flucuation or something else, but then says the data does not say. The data sure seems to indicate a raise in autium rates.
I could go on but people realy should read the study instead of a site picking apart the study...
http://www.pediatricsdigest.mobi/content/112/3/604.full#ack-1
I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:The author did no such thing.
Originally posted by m52nickerson:
You mean like suggesting that thimerosal is just another name for mercury?
Thimerosal (mercury) was simply highlighting the neurotoxic element mercury as the most biologically significant substance in thimerosal.
Similarly, "paint chips (lead)" would simply be highlighting the neurotoxic element lead as the most biologically significant substance in paint chips.
In both thimerosal and paint chips, the compounds get converted easily into the toxic elements in the body.
Nitpicking about thimerosal and mercury not being the same substance misses the point.
Quote:Yes, indeed, they should read the study. You're just parroting what the study already said instead of offering counterpoints to the critique. You're not adding anything new, just like you didn't add anything new to my critique of the monkey brain study.
I could go on but people realy should read the study instead of a site picking apart the study...
-----
Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth. -- Lucy Parsons (1853-1942, labor activist and anarcho-communist)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Thimerosal (mercury) was simply highlighting the neurotoxic element mercury as the most biologically significant substance in thimerosal.
Similarly, "paint chips (lead)" would simply be highlighting the neurotoxic element lead as the most biologically significant substance in paint chips.
In both thimerosal and paint chips, the compounds get converted easily into the toxic elements in the body.
Nitpicking about thimerosal and mercury not being the same substance misses the point.
As do many of the nitpicks of the stuides. Regardless both Thimerosal (mercury0, and paint chips (lead) are wrong. Paint Chips may contain lead but they are not lead in an of themsleves nor do all paint chips contain lead.
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Yes, indeed, they should read the study. You're just parroting what the study already said instead of offering counterpoints to the critique. You're not adding anything new, just like you didn't add anything new to my critique of the monkey brain study.
Nothing new is needed. The counterpoints and responces to the critiques are already there. Just as the answers to your critique of the monkey brain study were already there.
I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME