Re: twoweasleys; question from last year

[Guest guest]

Twoweasleys -- Hi, Last year you made a lot of posts to this list. I asked you a direct question about one year ago, but I do not believe you ever answered the question, or if you did I must have missed it. I would like to politely pose the same question again and I will refresh your memory. The question I asked: Given the 2000 article in Pediatrics which stated that Thimerasol when used as a perservative in ear solutions, caused mercury poisoning, do YOU TwoWeasleys feel it is appropriate to use Thimerasol as a preservative in vaccines? Twoweasles, you never answered the question. Instead you asked for the article and I sent it to you. You said you would first read the article and then answer my question regarding the use of thimerasol as a preservative for vaccines. I would very much like to

hear your response. This year, I will make it a little easier. Given the MSDS for Thimerasol from the inventor of Thimerasol, do you think it is appropriate to use thimerasol as a preservative in vaccines and if you do believe it is okay to use Thimerasol, should exceptions be made for infants under 6 months of age and pregnant women? ************************** To help you answer the question, I thought I would provide the MSDS for thimerasol from Merck and and from the inventor Eli Lily. Here is Merck's MSDS for Thimerasol. It clearly states that thimerasol must be disposed of as hazardous waste. It is illegal to flush hazardous waste material down the toilet. http://chemdat.merck.de/pls/pi03/web2.search_page2?text=817043 & lang=4 Here is the MSDS from Eli Lily, inventor extroardinaire, for thimerasol. It reiterates the part about thimerasol being a neurotoxin etc, but my favorite part are the sections where it states that a side effect of thimerasol is mercury poisoning and that no safety level of exposure has ever been established. http://www.909shot.com/HgNo/msds.pdf I posed the question to Mike Wagnit, a senior chemist from the University of Wisconsin, Madison. Here is the response I got. Thimerosal is listed at a concentration of 1:10000. This is equivalent to a concentration of 100,000 parts per billion (ppb).

Since thimerosal is 50% mercury, this puts the mercury concentration, in the multi-dose vial, at 50,000 ppb. According to EPA regulations, if liquid waste exceeds 200 ppb mercury, it needs to go to a special hazardous waste site. This is 250 times higher thanhazardous waste levels." I also posed the question to King and I got basically the same response. So TwoWeasleys, if you are still with us, please answer the question. In your opinion, is it appropriate to use thiemrasol as a preservative in vaccines? Sincerely, Vera twoweasleys <twoweasleys@...> wrote: .

[Guest guest]

>

> Twoweasleys -- Hi,

>

> Last year you made a lot of posts to this list. I asked you a

direct question about one year ago, but I do not believe you ever

answered the question, or if you did I must have missed it. I would

like to politely pose the same question again and I will refresh your

memory.

>

> The question I asked:

>

> Given the 2000 article in Pediatrics which stated that Thimerasol

when used as a perservative in ear solutions, caused mercury

poisoning, do YOU TwoWeasleys feel it is appropriate to use Thimerasol

as a preservative in vaccines?

Hi Vera,

sorry not to have answered your question back then.

No, I do not think that it is ok to include thimerosal as a

preservative in vaccines. Quite obviously a lot of countries took it

out of vaccines when it became technically possible (like Denmark) and

the " oh, butbutbut, we will not be able to make enough vaccines if we

cannot put thimerosal in them " that is still being sung by the vaccine

manufacturers is a lame try to hide that they don't want to make the

investment to adapt their production facilities to produce clean

single dose vials. It may not be a coincidence that in Denmark, the

vaccine manufacturer is associated with the state (so potentially less

interested in profit). As far as I have seen, thimerosal is not a

substitute for good manufacturing practise anyway, judging from

stories of preserved lots that went bad anyway.

Still, the one thing that thimerosal in vaccines seems to be

unambiguously causing in some is sensitization to the compound. I am

not at all convinced that the amount of thimerosal contained in

vaccines has caused autism, especially since the epidemiology (with an

ever increasing incidence while fewer and fewer vaccines contain

thimerosal) speaks so strongly against it.

I hope that answers your question.

[Guest guest]

, my question is, what is the current level of thimerosal in

vaccines? I agree that it's not *as high*, but there is evidence that

thimerosal is still in vaccines, even those deemed " perservative

free " . It's my understanding that it's still being used as a

sanitizing agent and cannot be fully filtered out. It's also my

understanding that autism did drop until the flu vaccine was ordered

into the series, and when age is considered, the increase begins the

same time those infants initially given the flu vax would have been

old enough to enter " autism dx age " .

What are your thoughts? I believe thimerosal is not the only

component, I personally think it's the immune assault combined with

thimerosal and aluminum, but that's my personal opinion from personal

experience and biochemistry understanding, which might not be very

understood, lol. I believe if all the thimerosal were removed, the

vaccines were delayed and spread out over a longer time frame, and

only given when absolutely necessary there would be very, very little

autism. If I were to advise of a vaccine schedule (which of course I

can't, so I'm just brainstorming here), it would be:

pertussis (*ONLY*, no d, no t) 3 mos

hib 6 mos

tetanus 1yr

polio 5 yrs (we have a LOT of kids at our school from places like

Liberia who get the oral one day, hop a plain and start school the

next day.)

mumps 12yr

rubella 13yr

hepB 14yr

and if not contracted by adulthood, varicella and measles at least 6

mos apart. forget the rest of them unless there was a real reason

specific to that person, location, etc to get one.

Debi

[Guest guest]

Debi,

IMO, thimerosal should not even be used in the production process.

From my understanding, the trace amounts of thimerosal are not

" biologically active " , but I have not bothered to look up the original

JAMA paper on which that assessment is based. The test would be easy -

take someone with a thimerosal allergy, vaccinate them with such a

" trace amount " vaccine and if that person reacts, the trace is

" biolgically active " .

Looking at the autism numbers and their non drop after the removal of

the " high " amount of thimerosal from vaccines, I am really quite sure

that thimerosal is not it. Yes, some children may have gotten

thimerosal containing flu vaccine, but how many and at what ages

overall, under 10% in 2002/2003

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5337a1.htm#tab and around

15% in 2003/2004

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5504a3.htm#tab - those are

the kids who are 3 to 5 now). Additionally, there were several million

thimerosal free doses distributed that would have gone to children

preferentially and wasn't Flumist around already?

If you believe that the *increase* in autism numbers is due to the

increase in vaccines in the infant schedule, you have to look back to

" before the increase " . Children got 3 thimerosal containing shots of

DTP in the first 6 months of their lives and autism incidence

officially was the infamous 1 to 5 in 10'000. Even with the flu

vaccine on the schedule, NO child sees thimerosal before age 6 months

and the maximum (high) thimerosal exposure for a 1 year old would be

2x flu vaccine. The numbers should be caving in big time, but they are

not.

It is no wonder that aluminum and other vaccine components are being

brought into the discussion more and more. Autism rates are *never*

going to go back to the 1 to 5 in 10'000 (if they ever really were

that low), so an alternative " cause " must be found.

Aluminum as an adjuvant can lead to nasty local reactions in people

with the right predisposition - from what I hear, new vaccines with

alternative routes of application are under development (like a nasal

whole cell pertussis vaccine sans toxin gene), which I find very exciting.

In general, while combination vaccines are great to limit the amount

of additives (as one gets less shots), they do force everyone to stick

to the same vaccination schedule. Indeed, in the developed world, an

infant tetanus, diphtheria and polio vaccination makes little sense.

Pertussis and hib would be my first year favorites as well -

alternatively or even additionally), mum could get a booster before

trying to conceive to enhance maternal immunity. There are schemes to

vaccinate mothers during pregnancy, which I am not very comfortable with.

I guess eventually there will be enough unvaccinated children with

autism to prove that vaccines have nothing to do with the etiology of

autism.

>

> , my question is, what is the current level of thimerosal in

> vaccines? I agree that it's not *as high*, but there is evidence that

> thimerosal is still in vaccines, even those deemed " perservative

> free " . It's my understanding that it's still being used as a

> sanitizing agent and cannot be fully filtered out. It's also my

> understanding that autism did drop until the flu vaccine was ordered

> into the series, and when age is considered, the increase begins the

> same time those infants initially given the flu vax would have been

> old enough to enter " autism dx age " .

>

> What are your thoughts? I believe thimerosal is not the only

> component, I personally think it's the immune assault combined with

> thimerosal and aluminum, but that's my personal opinion from personal

> experience and biochemistry understanding, which might not be very

> understood, lol. I believe if all the thimerosal were removed, the

> vaccines were delayed and spread out over a longer time frame, and

> only given when absolutely necessary there would be very, very little

> autism. If I were to advise of a vaccine schedule (which of course I

> can't, so I'm just brainstorming here), it would be:

>

> pertussis (*ONLY*, no d, no t) 3 mos

>

> hib 6 mos

>

> tetanus 1yr

>

> polio 5 yrs (we have a LOT of kids at our school from places like

> Liberia who get the oral one day, hop a plain and start school the

> next day.)

>

> mumps 12yr

>

> rubella 13yr

>

> hepB 14yr

>

> and if not contracted by adulthood, varicella and measles at least 6

> mos apart. forget the rest of them unless there was a real reason

> specific to that person, location, etc to get one.

>

>

> Debi

>

[Guest guest]

" I guess eventually there will be enough unvaccinated children with

autism to prove that vaccines have nothing to do with the etiology of

autism " .

I imagine that you would be in favor then of a comprehensive study

on vaccinated vs. unvaccinated children, right? I think this is the

only way to go at this point. Can you ask Seidel if she'll write up

a little blog post on the idea?

Sue M.

> >

> > , my question is, what is the current level of thimerosal in

> > vaccines? I agree that it's not *as high*, but there is evidence

that

> > thimerosal is still in vaccines, even those deemed " perservative

> > free " . It's my understanding that it's still being used as a

> > sanitizing agent and cannot be fully filtered out. It's also my

> > understanding that autism did drop until the flu vaccine was

ordered

> > into the series, and when age is considered, the increase begins

the

> > same time those infants initially given the flu vax would have

been

> > old enough to enter " autism dx age " .

> >

> > What are your thoughts? I believe thimerosal is not the only

> > component, I personally think it's the immune assault combined

with

> > thimerosal and aluminum, but that's my personal opinion from

personal

> > experience and biochemistry understanding, which might not be

very

> > understood, lol. I believe if all the thimerosal were removed,

the

> > vaccines were delayed and spread out over a longer time frame,

and

> > only given when absolutely necessary there would be very, very

little

> > autism. If I were to advise of a vaccine schedule (which of

course I

> > can't, so I'm just brainstorming here), it would be:

> >

> > pertussis (*ONLY*, no d, no t) 3 mos

> >

> > hib 6 mos

> >

> > tetanus 1yr

> >

> > polio 5 yrs (we have a LOT of kids at our school from places like

> > Liberia who get the oral one day, hop a plain and start school

the

> > next day.)

> >

> > mumps 12yr

> >

> > rubella 13yr

> >

> > hepB 14yr

> >

> > and if not contracted by adulthood, varicella and measles at

least 6

> > mos apart. forget the rest of them unless there was a real reason

> > specific to that person, location, etc to get one.

> >

> >

> > Debi

> >

>

[Guest guest]

> I imagine that you would be in favor then of a comprehensive study

> on vaccinated vs. unvaccinated children, right? I think this is the

> only way to go at this point. Can you ask Seidel if she'll write up

> a little blog post on the idea?

>

> Sue M.

Why should I? This is not an idea that I particularly endorse - it is

just something that is likely to happen eventually.

[Guest guest]

Dear ( " twoweasleys " ),

1. Please provide the published reference(s)

that support your:

>

>From my understanding, the trace amounts

>of thimerosal are not " biologically active " ,

>but I have not bothered to look up the

>original JAMA paper on which that assessment

>is based.

>

because the reality is that from the 1930s

onward, published peer-reviewed papers,

including at least one comprehensive paper

published in JAMA have shown that Thimerosal

is biologically active at levels below

0.03 ppm (more than 3000 times lower than

in a 0.01% Thimerosal-preserved vaccine and

" 33+ " times lower than the FDA's " trace "

definition (not more than 1 microgram

per dose) allowed in childhood vaccines.

[NOTE: The supporting references for my

statements are published in the articles

available in:

http://www.mercury-freedrugs.org/docs

with the most recent article having the

more recent references that have been

published which address this issue.]

2. With respect to your:

>

>The test would be easy - take someone

>with a thimerosal allergy, vaccinate

>them with such a " trace amount " vaccine

>and if that person reacts, the trace is

> " biolgically active " .

>

apparently you believe experimenting

on vulnerable humans is an acceptable

practice.

In addition, your statement indicates

that you have little or no understanding

of toxicology.

All that is needed is to take some

growing cells of any kind and treat them

with a given level of Thimerosal in

steriles isotonic saline and observe the

effects, if any, on the any aspect of the

biological activity within the cell system

in comparison to a control set where only

the same amount of sterile isotonic saline

is introduced.

Again, recent studies have shown " biological

activity " in such cell lines at levels below

0.03 ppm and, to my knowledge, no level of

added Thimerosal (other than NONE) has been

PROVEN to have no short-term (<48 hours)

activity. [NOTE: The pertinent references

can be found in the last two articles

published in www.mercury-freedrugs.org/docs/.

3. With respect to your statement:

>

>Looking at the autism numbers and their

>non drop after the removal of the " high "

>amount of thimerosal from vaccines, I

>am really quite sure that thimerosal is

>not it.

>

you have obviously NOT read the recent

papers that clearly establish that, in

the United States of America (US) the

incidence of diagnosed neurodevelopmental

disorders, including autism, has dropped

starting in " 2002 " (about 3 years after

most of the Thimerosal was removed from

the childhood vaccination schedule and

before the " flu " shot was recommended for

universal administration to PREGNANT

WOMEN and children in the US vaccination

schedule in December of 2003). [sEE: The

2 articles published in recognized peer-

reviewed journals in 2006:

a. Geier DA, Geier MR. An assessment of

downward trends in neurodevelopmental

disorders in the United States

following removal of thimerosal from

childhood vaccines. Med Sci Monit.

2006 May 29; 12(6): CR231-239.

b. Geier DA, Geier MR. A meta-analysis

epidemiological assessment of

neurodevelopmental disorders following

vaccines administered from 1994

through 2000 in the United States.

Neuro Endocrinol Lett. 2006 Jun 29;27(3)

(Epub ahead of print).]

[NOTE: Articles published on studies in

countries other than the US have no

bearing on US experience and, based on

a review of the all the INITIAL

epidemiological studies done on US

children (including the unpublished

unmanipulated study findings by the

Verstraeten group {obtained under FOIA}),

the causal link between Thimerosal level

and autism incidence and the incidence of

other neurodevelopmental disorders (NDDs)

has been established. The non-US studies,

including the recent small-scale Canadian

study by Fombonne (which: a) mistakenly

" interperts " vaccines being withdrawn as

if they were recalled (when they were not)

and overlooks the fact that a Thimeorsal-

preserved hepatitis B vaccine was also being

given at birth and in grade school in Quebec

during that part of the study period where

he erroneously claims " nil Thimerosal "

exposure), have been shown to be knowingly

flawed and their authors have not only

failed to disclose the authors' conflicts

of interest as well as, in some cases, their

financial and other ties to the US CDC

(Center for Disease Control and Prevention).]

4. With respect to your:

>

>Additionally, there were several million

>thimerosal free doses distributed that

>would have gone to children preferential-

>ly and wasn't Flumist around already?

>

a. For the flu seasons of 2002-2003 and

2003-2004, there were NO Thimerosal-FREE

doses of the " flu vaccine licensed in

the US. ==> Late in 2004 (12/23/2004),

Aventis, now Sanofi-Aventis received

the first license for a Thimerosal-FREE

inactivated flu vaccine and vaccine

based on this license was not available

until the 2005-2006 flu season! [Note:

In late 2001, Chiron (now Novartis)

received a license for a REDUCED-

Thimerosal flu vaccine BUT their vaccines

were never licensed in the US for use in

children under 4 years of age nor for

use in pregnant women (since the repro-

ductive toxicity studies were NOT done).

Similarly, late in 2002 (09/04/02),

Late in 2002, Aventis received a license

for a REDUCED-Thimerosal " flu " vaccine

that was first available in the 2003-2004

flu season -- Aventis, now Sanofi-Aventis

is currently the only flu vaccine maker

with a license for giving their " flu "

vaccines, Thimerosal-Preserved, REDUCED,

(in the 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 flu

seasons), and now Thimerosal-FREE (in the

2005-2006 flu season and beyond) to

children as young as six months of age;

but again, because no reproductive toxicity

studies were performed, none of these

vaccines were, or could legally be, licensed

for giving to pregnant women (these flu

vaccines carry a " Pregnancy C " rating).

b. MediImmune's FluMist is not licensed for

administration to children UNDER 5 and is

proscribed from use in pregnant women.

c. Much of Aventis' Thimerosal- reduced and

free inactivated influenza vaccines were

NOT purchased or, if purchased, in some

cases, a significant part of the doses were

discarded leading Aventis NOT to increase

its production capability to the " 20 million " -

dose level needed to guarantee that enough

Reduced-Thimerosal or Thimerosal-free doses

were available for all children and pregnant

women (and the CDC refused to even recommend

that ONLY NON-Thimerosal-preserved vaccines

should be given to pregnant women and

children covered by their " flu " vaccine

recommendations! [NOTE: You should read the

following papers to understand that, at

levels below 1 ppm, Thimerosal is a PROVEN

teratogen in animals and that a single

Thimerosal-preserved " flu shot " dose

can cause fetal death in humans:

i. Digar A. Sensharma GC, Samal SN.

Lethality and teratogenecity

of organic mercury (Thimerosal)

on the chick embryo. J Anat Soc

India. 1987; 36(3): 153-159.

ii. Goncharuk GA. Experimental

investigation of the effect of

organomercury pesticides on generative

functions and on progeny. Hyg. Sanit

- USSR. 1971; 36(1): 40-43 (English

translation).

iii. Ayoub DM, F. Yazbak FE. Influenza

Vaccination During Pregnancy: A

Critical Assessment of the

Recommendations of the Advisory

Committee on Immunization Practices

(ACIP). J Am Phys and Surg.

Summer 2006; 11(2): 41-47.

d. Factually, MedImmune's Flumist was not

licensed until June 17, 2003 according

to the FDA's records:

http://www.fda.gov/cber/approvltr/inflmed061703L.htm

Based on the preceding,

a. NO Thimerosal-free inactivated influenza

vaccine was licensed and available in

the US for the flu season PRIOR to 2005!

b. Those giving the " flu " shots prior to

the 2002-2003 flu season could NOT have

given a US-licensed REDUCED-Thimerosal

" flu " shot.

c. Those responsible for " recommending " the

giving of " flu " shots did NOT recommend

or require that ONLY Reduced-Thimerosal

or, when they became available,

Thimerosal-FREE " flu " shots be given

to pregnant women and children as they

shoud have.

d. Based on the sales data and reports of

parents, those giving " flu " shots did

NOT, as a whole, try to ensure that

pregnant women and children under 5

ONLY received NON-Thimerosal-

preserved vaccines.

5. With respect to your:

>

>Even with the flu vaccine on the schedule,

>NO child sees thimerosal before age 6

>months and the maximum (high) thimerosal

>exposure for a 1 year old would be 2x flu

>vaccine. The numbers should be caving in

>big time, but they are not.

>

your statements seem to ignore the

significant portion (~ 40 micrograms)

of the 50-microgram doses that the

fetuses (who have been shown to

preferentially accumulate Thimerosal

[with mercury levels about 5:1 over

those of their mothers] are now getting

BEFORE BIRTH when:

a. Their mothers are vaccinated,

b. The fetuses may weigh only a few grams

(< 1 ounce) to a killogram (2.2 lbs),

c. Some of the fetuses seem to be mercury-

poisoned to death (previously viable

fetuses being aborted shortly after

their mother gets a Thimerosal-

preserved flu shot, and

d. Based on animal studies, when fetal

deaths are seen, there are more fetal

deformations and " premature " births

(a growing problem in the US).

Moreover, you ignore the trace levels in

some childhood vaccines and that the flu

vaccines are now recommended to be given

every year until the child is 5 years old

or, if in a targeted group, like the

asthmatics [now making up up-to-1-in-4

US children] every year for the rest of

their lives.

Thus, by one year of age, a child may

receive more than 60 micrograms of

Thimerosal:

~ 20 mcg as a fetus,

25 mcg at 6 months of age, and

25 mcg at 7 months of age.

Since toxicity is a function of body mass,

it should be obvious even to you that the

Thimerosal dose from the mother's flu shot

carries a much higher long-term toxicity

risk than the doses given at 6 moths and

7 months, which, based on an average baby

weight of 10 kg (22 pounds) or less,

exceeds a PROBABLY valid MAXIMUM guideline

dose for INJECTED mercury in babies of this

age of 0.01 microgram/kg of body mass by a

factor of AT LEAST 125 (and possibly by

more than a factor of 600 when the more

conservative safety factors are considered)

on each date the baby is innoculated.

Given the attempts by the healthcare estab-

lishment to hide the effects by claiming to

have removed Thimerosal when they did not

(in 2000 and 2002) but only reduced it and

then, even when it was NOT recommended,

adding the flu shot for pregnant women

(from about 1999) and babies and young

children (from 1996), I find the observed

" 35+% drop in diagnosed autism cases in

California is a significant drop and NOTE

that the rates for new autism cases (those

first diagnosed after 2000) in the

Scandanavian countries who banned and

recalled all Thimerosal-preserved vaccines

in the mid to late 1990s seem to have

RETURNED to the " 1-5 in 10,000 " levels

seen before Thimerosal-preserved vaccines

were used. [This is the case primarily

because children having certain identified

genetic disorders may be diagnosed as

" autism " cases, UNLESS full genetic

screening and competent genetic evaluation

is performed on both the children and

their parents.]

Since the UK only recently " stopped " using

Thimerosal-preserved vaccines recently,

their reported " 39 in 10,000 " rate for

" autism " should NOT be expected to drop

significantly until some time in the

2007-2008 timeframe PROVIDED they do NOT,

as the US has done, permit an ineffective

Thimerosal-preserved influenza shot

to be given to pregnant women and young

children -- back to the " 1-5 in 10,000 "

levels seen in countries where no

Thimerosal-containing vaccines have been

allowed for a decade. [NOTE: I have

attached a recent post of mine that

addresses the ineffectiveness of the

flu vaccine in some detail. In addition,

in the US, the US government seems to be

only interested in tracking " autism " and

not in acurately tracking all NDDs and,

even then, they do NOT seem to be

interested in accurate " autism " numbers

- since they have only conducted general

surveys that happened to have a question

or two about " autism. " ]

Given your apparent lack of factual knowledge

about the factual situation concerning

Thimerosal in the US, I see no need to

proceed until you have taken the time to

learn the facts about:

a. All aspects of the toxicity of Thimerosal,

b. The labeled Thimerosal level in US-

licensed vaccines availabe on a given

date,

c. The dates Reduced-Thimerosal and

Thimerosal-free inactivated influenza

vaccines were first available,

d. The licensed age ranges for the various

influenza vaccines and

e. The recommended- and actual- vaccination-

schedule situations in the US for the

period from December 1987 onward as well

as the fact that all Thimerosal-preserved

vaccines licensed since 1973 have been and

are adulterated drugs under 21 U.S.C.

(Title 21 of the United States Code)

Section 351(a)(2)( according to the clear

minimums established in the cirrent good

manufacturing practice (CGMP) regulations

as set forth in 21 CFR (Title 21 of the

Code of Federal Regulations) Parts 210 and

211 and clearly specified in 21 CFR Section

610.15(a) for all biological drug products

(including vaccines) that are " preserved "

(which, among other things, specifically

requires:

" Any preservative used shall be sufficiently

nontoxic so that the amount present in the

recommended dose of the product will not

be toxic to the recipient, ... "

and, as the FDA (United States Food and Drug

Administration) has repeatedly admitted, the

scientifically sound and appropriate toxicity

studies required to establish the level at

which Thimerosal dose could meet the " will

not be toxic to the recipient " requirement

have NOT been conducted. [NOTE: The studies

that have been done have clearly proven that

this " safe " level for Thimerosal in a

biological-product formulation is LESS THAN

1 microgram of Thimerosal (0.5 microgram of

mercury) per dose -- a level 30 to 100 times

lower than the level at which, by any stretch

of the facts, Thimerosal could be claimed to

be an effective preservative -- factually, as

recent sterility failures by Chiron in 2000-

2004 and by Sanofi-Aventis in 2006 have shown,

though 0.01% Thimerosal in a vaccine

formulation may pass an " initial " preservative

test such as the ones found in various

pharmacopeias, in cluding the USP. Thimerosal

quickly loses its " preservative " ability

because the mercury is tied up by the sulfur-

groups in the protein-containing components in

the Thimerosal-containing vaccines' formulation.

Hopefully, the attached file and the articles

currently posted on:

http://www.mercury-freedrugs.com/docs/

will help you to understand the current US

situation and, when you do that, to comment

in a more factual manner than you have in

this posting to the EOHarm group.

Respectfully,

Dr. King

http://www.dr-king.com

PS: Apparently some of the Thimerosal-preserved

lots of childhood vaccines that have been

replaced by vaccines that are Thimerosal-

free or Thimerosal-reduced did not expire

until late in2005 or, reportedly in some

cases, in early 2006, the observed " 35+% "

drop seen starting in 2002 is significantly

less than it would have been had the US,

like the Scandanavian countries, withdrawn

all the in-date Thimerosal-preserved lots

when the other vaccines became available

even if it had meant slightly postponing

the vaccination schedule in sime cases or,

accepting then Kline Beecham's offer

of Thimerosal-free DPT vaccine in 1999

(which the CDC, while claiming to be

committed to removing Thimerosal-preserved

vaccines from the market, refused to

accept).

In addition, Debbi would also do well to

do more studying, though her last post

does raise many valid points.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

At 20:13 7/15/06 -0000, twoweasleys wrote:

>

>Debi,

>

>IMO, thimerosal should not even be used

>in the production process. From my

>understanding, the trace amounts of

>thimerosal are not " biologically active " ,

>but I have not bothered to look up the

>original JAMA paper on which that

>assessment is based. The test would be

>easy - take someone with a thimerosal

>allergy, vaccinate them with such a

> " trace amount " vaccine and if that

>person reacts, the trace is " biolgically

>active " .

>

>Looking at the autism numbers and their

>non drop after the removal of the " high "

>amount of thimerosal from vaccines, I am

>really quite sure that thimerosal is not

>it. Yes, some children may have gotten

>thimerosal containing flu vaccine, but

>how many and at what ages overall, under

>10% in 2002/2003

>http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5337a1.htm#tab

>and around 15% in 2003/2004

>http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5504a3.htm#tab

>- those are the kids who are 3 to 5 now). Additionally,

>there were several million thimerosal free doses

>distributed that would have gone to children

>preferentially and wasn't Flumist around

>already?

>

>If you believe that the *increase* in

>autism numbers is due to the increase

>in vaccines in the infant schedule,

>you have to look back to " before the

>increase " . Children got 3 thimerosal

>containing shots of DTP in the first

>6 months of their lives and autism

>incidence officially was the infamous

>1 to 5 in 10'000. Even with the flu

>vaccine on the schedule, NO child

>sees thimerosal before age 6 months

>and the maximum (high) thimerosal

>exposure for a 1 year old would be

>2x flu vaccine. The numbers should

>be caving in big time, but they are

>not.

>

>It is no wonder that aluminum and

>other vaccine components are being

>brought into the discussion more

>and more. Autism rates are *never*

>going to go back to the 1 to 5 in

>10'000 (if they ever really were

>that low), so an alternative " cause "

>must be found.

>

>Aluminum as an adjuvant can lead

>to nasty local reactions in people

>with the right predisposition - from

>what I hear, new vaccines with

>alternative routes of application

>are under development (like a nasal

>whole cell pertussis vaccine sans

>toxin gene), which I find very

>exciting.

>

>In general, while combination

>vaccines are great to limit the

>amount of additives (as one gets

>less shots), they do force everyone

>to stick to the same vaccination

>schedule. Indeed, in the developed

>world, an infant tetanus, diphtheria

>and polio vaccination makes little

>sense. Pertussis and hib would be

>my first year favorites as well -

>alternatively or even additionally),

>mum could get a booster before

>trying to conceive to enhance maternal

>immunity. There are schemes to

>vaccinate mothers during pregnancy,

>which I am not very comfortable with.

>

>I guess eventually there will be

>enough unvaccinated children with

>autism to prove that vaccines have

>nothing to do with the etiology of

>autism.

>

>

>

>

>>

>> , my question is, what is

>> the current level of thimerosal in

>> vaccines? I agree that it's not

>> *as high*, but there is evidence

>> that thimerosal is still in vaccines,

>> even those deemed " perservative

>> free " . It's my understanding that

>> it's still being used as a

>> sanitizing agent and cannot be fully

>> filtered out. It's also my understanding

>> that autism did drop until the flu

>> vaccine was ordered into the series,

>> and when age is considered, the increase

>> begins the same time those infants

>> initially given the flu vax would have

>> been old enough to enter " autism dx age " .

>>

>

[Guest guest]

You wouldn't endorse a comprehensive study on vaccinated vs.

unvaccinated children? Why not?

Sue M.

>

>

> > I imagine that you would be in favor then of a comprehensive

study

> > on vaccinated vs. unvaccinated children, right? I think this is

the

> > only way to go at this point. Can you ask Seidel if she'll

write up

> > a little blog post on the idea?

> >

> > Sue M.

>

>

> Why should I? This is not an idea that I particularly endorse - it

is

> just something that is likely to happen eventually.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

re whooping cough: vaccinated infants are not considered fully

protected from wc until they're 6 months old-yet whooping cough is

most dangerous in babies under 6 months. if a woman has had wc, she

passes on antibodies to her baby.

you're right. as a nurse told me; when the vaccinated catch whooping

cough, it's diagnosed as croup or something other than pertussis. i'm

tired of hearing that if you're vaccinated, immunity lasts a lifetime.

bull. i'd say 5 years, if at all.

In 2004, U.S. adults 19–64 years of age accounted for 7,008 of 25,827

(27%) reported pertussis cases. The true number of cases among adults

19-64 years of age is likely much higher, estimated at 600,000

annually. ~Centers for Disease Control (CDC)

_______________________________

> I question the current pertussis vaccine's benefit vs. risk. The CDC's

> own data stated during the 1990's those children who contracted

> pertussis whose vaccination status was known age 3mos to 4 yrs, 46%

> were fully immunized. Sure, for infants pertussis is horrible. But for

> my 3 yr old and 8 yr old, it was a bit more than a lingering cough.

> It's insane that the vaccine is still being presented as really

> working. Yeah, the numbers of those who contract vs vaccinated might

> be a low number, but health care workers aren't testing for pertussis.

> This past winter half the kids at our school were coughing their heads

> off. No one was testing for pertussis, despite my pleads. Finally, it

> was done and tested positive. How do we know the pertussis contraction

> rate is not *significantly* higher than reported if not being tested?

> In fact, it was refused me to be noted in my immunized child's medical

> records that she had pertussis. They refused to test her, citing she

> couldn't possibly have pertussis because she was immunized, despite

> her having identical symptoms as my test-positive child, despite CDC

> guidelines stating those who have known contact with a test-positive

> case who have identical symptoms should be ruled positive.

>

>

[Guest guest]

,

For someone who has no family, no child affected by autism, your

" research " and " IMO " phrase

.... " I guess eventually there will be enough unvaccinated children with

autism to prove that vaccines have nothing to do with the etiology of

autism " ....

is provocative. I am unclear why you appear/disappear. I am equally

unclear of your motivation on this list as most here are trying to get

our gov't to investigate and help our children. What is your point?

This is not the first time that you have brought up thimerosal, or

vaccines... If you have figured out the etiology of all autism and

your friends who have children who just " are " autistic don't think it

is thimerosal or vaccines in general..then why are you on this list?

I am sure there is a list for " just genes " or " classifiers are us "

or " my parents were nerds " . But more realistically " have to stop

these anti-vaccine campaigners " ...but why? We are not anti-vaccine but

pro-safe vaccines...so please add that to you report. I think then you

can be done here.

> >

> > , my question is, what is the current level of thimerosal in

> > vaccines? I agree that it's not *as high*, but there is evidence that

> > thimerosal is still in vaccines, even those deemed " perservative

> > free " . It's my understanding that it's still being used as a

> > sanitizing agent and cannot be fully filtered out. It's also my

> > understanding that autism did drop until the flu vaccine was ordered

> > into the series, and when age is considered, the increase begins the

> > same time those infants initially given the flu vax would have been

> > old enough to enter " autism dx age " .

> >

> > What are your thoughts? I believe thimerosal is not the only

> > component, I personally think it's the immune assault combined with

> > thimerosal and aluminum, but that's my personal opinion from personal

> > experience and biochemistry understanding, which might not be very

> > understood, lol. I believe if all the thimerosal were removed, the

> > vaccines were delayed and spread out over a longer time frame, and

> > only given when absolutely necessary there would be very, very little

> > autism. If I were to advise of a vaccine schedule (which of course I

> > can't, so I'm just brainstorming here), it would be:

> >

> > pertussis (*ONLY*, no d, no t) 3 mos

> >

> > hib 6 mos

> >

> > tetanus 1yr

> >

> > polio 5 yrs (we have a LOT of kids at our school from places like

> > Liberia who get the oral one day, hop a plain and start school the

> > next day.)

> >

> > mumps 12yr

> >

> > rubella 13yr

> >

> > hepB 14yr

> >

> > and if not contracted by adulthood, varicella and measles at least 6

> > mos apart. forget the rest of them unless there was a real reason

> > specific to that person, location, etc to get one.

> >

> >

> > Debi

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Thank you . I can not find 's earlier post, but last year she made several comments about "harmless mercury that is all natural". She has repeatedly said that she is open-minded and we have provided her with truckloads of documentation. I have asked her to produce a study to show that thimerasol has not caused harm to laboratory animals or cultures. None exist. It destroys everything it comes into contact with. Many Psychologists / Pshychiatrists / epidemiologists (think , Offit and Fromme), must rely on easily gerry-rigged epidemiological studies because they know if they take thimerasol to the lab, they lose. Last year she said that something to the effect that "that the ASD kids she knows are able to concentrate just fine, in fact they can spend hours and hours and hours on the exact same thing." I need to move on. I do not know why I let get to me. I guess she is just here to poke fun at my child's suffering and I find that highly offensive. I see nothing funny about that. Veraredhead60707 <redhead60707@...> wrote: ,For someone who has no family, no child affected by autism, your"research" and "IMO" phrase..."I guess eventually there will be enough unvaccinated children withautism to prove that vaccines have nothing to

do with the etiology ofautism"....is provocative. I am unclear why you appear/disappear. I am equallyunclear of your motivation on this list as most here are trying to getour gov't to investigate and help our children. What is your point? This is not the first time that you have brought up thimerosal, orvaccines... If you have figured out the etiology of all autism andyour friends who have children who just "are" autistic don't think itis thimerosal or vaccines in general..then why are you on this list?I am sure there is a list for "just genes" or "classifiers are us"or "my parents were nerds". But more realistically "have to stopthese anti-vaccine campaigners"...but why? We are not anti-vaccine butpro-safe vaccines...so please add that to you report. I think then youcan be done here.> >> > , my question is, what is the current level of thimerosal in> > vaccines? I agree that it's not *as high*, but there is evidence

that> > thimerosal is still in vaccines, even those deemed "perservative> > free". It's my understanding that it's still being used as a> > sanitizing agent and cannot be fully filtered out. It's also my> > understanding that autism did drop until the flu vaccine was ordered> > into the series, and when age is considered, the increase begins the> > same time those infants initially given the flu vax would have been> > old enough to enter "autism dx age". > > > > What are your thoughts? I believe thimerosal is not the only> > component, I personally think it's the immune assault combined with> > thimerosal and aluminum, but that's my personal opinion from personal> > experience and biochemistry understanding, which might not be very> > understood, lol. I believe if all the thimerosal were removed, the> > vaccines were delayed and spread

out over a longer time frame, and> > only given when absolutely necessary there would be very, very little> > autism. If I were to advise of a vaccine schedule (which of course I> > can't, so I'm just brainstorming here), it would be:> > > > pertussis (*ONLY*, no d, no t) 3 mos> > > > hib 6 mos> > > > tetanus 1yr> > > > polio 5 yrs (we have a LOT of kids at our school from places like> > Liberia who get the oral one day, hop a plain and start school the> > next day.)> > > > mumps 12yr> > > > rubella 13yr> > > > hepB 14yr> > > > and if not contracted by adulthood, varicella and measles at least 6> > mos apart. forget the rest of them unless there was a real reason> > specific to that person, location, etc to get one.> > > >

> > Debi> >>

[Guest guest]

Twoweasles appears to be one of the darker characters out of a Harry Potter novel.

Re: twoweasleys; question from last year

,For someone who has no family, no child affected by autism, your"research" and "IMO" phrase...."I guess eventually there will be enough unvaccinated children withautism to prove that vaccines have nothing to do with the etiology ofautism"....is provocative. I am unclear why you appear/disappear. I am equallyunclear of your motivation on this list as most here are trying to getour gov't to investigate and help our children. What is your point? This is not the first time that you have brought up thimerosal, orvaccines... If you have figured out the etiology of all autism andyour friends who have children who just "are" autistic don't think itis thimerosal or vaccines in general..then why are you on this list?I am sure there is a list for "just genes" or "classifiers are us"or "my parents were nerds". But more realistically "have to stopthese anti-vaccine campaigners"...but why? We are not anti-vaccine butpro-safe vaccines...so please add that to you report. I think then youcan be done here.> >> > , my question is, what is the current level of thimerosal in> > vaccines? I agree that it's not *as high*, but there is evidence that> > thimerosal is still in vaccines, even those deemed "perservative> > free". It's my understanding that it's still being used as a> > sanitizing agent and cannot be fully filtered out. It's also my> > understanding that autism did drop until the flu vaccine was ordered> > into the series, and when age is considered, the increase begins the> > same time those infants initially given the flu vax would have been> > old enough to enter "autism dx age". > > > > What are your thoughts? I believe thimerosal is not the only> > component, I personally think it's the immune assault combined with> > thimerosal and aluminum, but that's my personal opinion from personal> > experience and biochemistry understanding, which might not be very> > understood, lol. I believe if all the thimerosal were removed, the> > vaccines were delayed and spread out over a longer time frame, and> > only given when absolutely necessary there would be very, very little> > autism. If I were to advise of a vaccine schedule (which of course I> > can't, so I'm just brainstorming here), it would be:> > > > pertussis (*ONLY*, no d, no t) 3 mos> > > > hib 6 mos> > > > tetanus 1yr> > > > polio 5 yrs (we have a LOT of kids at our school from places like> > Liberia who get the oral one day, hop a plain and start school the> > next day.)> > > > mumps 12yr> > > > rubella 13yr> > > > hepB 14yr> > > > and if not contracted by adulthood, varicella and measles at least 6> > mos apart. forget the rest of them unless there was a real reason> > specific to that person, location, etc to get one.> > > > > > Debi> >>

[Guest guest]

Thank you Dr King. Two weasleys almost had me convinced to stop

chelating, join neurodiversity, and start watering my son to see if

he'd grow. It's good you're around to point out facts that

knuckleheads can't argue with.

> >>

> >> , my question is, what is

> >> the current level of thimerosal in

> >> vaccines? I agree that it's not

> >> *as high*, but there is evidence

> >> that thimerosal is still in vaccines,

> >> even those deemed " perservative

> >> free " . It's my understanding that

> >> it's still being used as a

> >> sanitizing agent and cannot be fully

> >> filtered out. It's also my understanding

> >> that autism did drop until the flu

> >> vaccine was ordered into the series,

> >> and when age is considered, the increase

> >> begins the same time those infants

> >> initially given the flu vax would have

> >> been old enough to enter " autism dx age " .

> >>

> >

>

[Guest guest]

>I amnot at all convinced that the amount of thimerosal contained invaccines has caused autism<

If the number of children with autism (newly diagnosed) is going down then it would certainly point to the reduction/removal of mercury from vaccines. In regards to your statement above, would you agree it could be a combination of ingredients, including aluminum (adjuvant) that might "cause" autism? It is useless for us to continue to argue about this in this group. This is a group that was organized to enhance the position that mercury in vaccines causes autism, or am I wrong?

C.

[Guest guest]

Or mom contracting it naturally prior to conception and breastfeeding

baby.

Debi

>

> Neiter disease acquired nor vaccine acquired immunity lasts a life

> time. The acellular pertussis vaccine provides the shortest lasting

> immunity and 5 years is probably about right. That was the trade off

> (to lose some of the side effects of the whole cell pertussis

> vaccine). I just read that they are experimenting with a nasal whole

> cell pertussis (without toxin gene) vaccine that confers very strong

> immunity even to small babies. Until then, cocooning the baby by

> vaccinating mum, dad and older siblings is probably the best strategy

> to protect the babies.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

There has been a decades long opportunity to ask parents " would you

participate in a double-blind vaccine study to ensure vaccines are

safe and not harmful? " To blanketly make the statement that there

wouldn't be families out there s a cop out. How did they test proquad?

THere was a group of families willing to risk the dangers of a 4-in-1

vaccine. There are those of us who don't immunize. There are those in

between, who don't really care one way or the other. It's a cop out to

say it can't be done.

Who knows a child's health better than his/her parent? I wouldn't

trust a physician to assess my child's health, either. Reason: 10 mos

doc said it's normal for a baby to stop babbling, eating, staring into

space, laying on her back all day. 12 mos: doc said it's normal for a

baby to stop babbling, eating, staring into space, laying on her back

all day 15 mo:doc said it's normal for a baby to stop babbling,

eating, staring into space, laying on her back all day 18 mos: doc

said it's normal for a baby to stop babbling, eating, staring into

space, and hey, she just started walking so everything is okay.

Reason: metabolic testing, ped called & said " everything okay. " Then

see autism doc, he went down the list of abnormal findings. Reason:

Child hospitalized 3 times in 20 mos for metabolic acidosis. Mother

pleads for every test imaginable to be run on child to find what's

making her sick. HOspital response: Gee, it's the weekend, all the

specialists are gone. You'll have ot find someone else during the

week. But hey, at least the mom was dumb enough to imagine all the

problems.

Yeah, I can see why it wouldn't be safe to trust a doctor to assess a

child's health.

Debi

> >

> >

> > You wouldn't endorse a comprehensive study on vaccinated vs.

> > unvaccinated children? Why not?

> >

> > Sue M.

>

> Sue,

>

> in order to do such a study properly, it should be prospective (rather

> than looking at the children after they weren't vaccinated for some

> reason or other). Ideally, the study would be blinded (with neither

> parents not treating physician knowing whether the child was

> vaccinated for the duration of the study). NO ethical review board

> would agree to such a study. It would mean randomly withholding

> something from children that is considered part of basic medical care.

>

> Also: would you , as a parent agree to let your child participate in a

> study where you would not know whether your child is going to be in

> the vaccine or no vaccine group? Would a vaccinating parent risk their

> child to be in the unvaccinated group?

>

> There are a number of studies on communities that vaccinate very

> little (like Steiner communities). I am not aware that any of them has

> looked at the incidence of ASD - but one could ask the authors, since

> they already have a large cohort they have studied (and sample size

> may in part make up for the retrospective bias). So I guess,

> eventually it is going to happen, just because there are a fair number

> of parents who do not vaccinate or not fully vaccinate their children.

> However, at least you'd need the children to be looked at by a

> " blinded " physician to exclude any bias (which could go either way:

> the parental bias is often " oh, I stopped vaccines early with my

> youngest and s/he is so much more healthy/neurotypical than my older

> child " - the physician's bias may be " oh, this child is not

> vaccinated, surely s/he must have all those health problems " ). I would

> not trust parental assessment of the child, not the assessment of the

> physician who regularly sees the child, as eventually, a family tends

> to end up with a physician who shares/supports their views and may

> share their bias.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

We can figure out how to get a man to the moon, we can certainly

figure out how to adequately do a study of vaccinated vs.

unvaccinated children. To say otherwise is a cop-out. Again, in my

opinion, anyone against a study like that is scared of what the

outcome may show. Period.

Sue M.

> >

> >

> > You wouldn't endorse a comprehensive study on vaccinated vs.

> > unvaccinated children? Why not?

> >

> > Sue M.

>

> Sue,

>

> in order to do such a study properly, it should be prospective

(rather

> than looking at the children after they weren't vaccinated for some

> reason or other). Ideally, the study would be blinded (with neither

> parents not treating physician knowing whether the child was

> vaccinated for the duration of the study). NO ethical review board

> would agree to such a study. It would mean randomly withholding

> something from children that is considered part of basic medical

care.

>

> Also: would you , as a parent agree to let your child participate

in a

> study where you would not know whether your child is going to be in

> the vaccine or no vaccine group? Would a vaccinating parent risk

their

> child to be in the unvaccinated group?

>

> There are a number of studies on communities that vaccinate very

> little (like Steiner communities). I am not aware that any of them

has

> looked at the incidence of ASD - but one could ask the authors,

since

> they already have a large cohort they have studied (and sample size

> may in part make up for the retrospective bias). So I guess,

> eventually it is going to happen, just because there are a fair

number

> of parents who do not vaccinate or not fully vaccinate their

children.

> However, at least you'd need the children to be looked at by a

> " blinded " physician to exclude any bias (which could go either way:

> the parental bias is often " oh, I stopped vaccines early with my

> youngest and s/he is so much more healthy/neurotypical than my

older

> child " - the physician's bias may be " oh, this child is not

> vaccinated, surely s/he must have all those health problems " ). I

would

> not trust parental assessment of the child, not the assessment of

the

> physician who regularly sees the child, as eventually, a family

tends

> to end up with a physician who shares/supports their views and may

> share their bias.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

It doesn't matter how many children participate in a placebo study if the placebo contains thimerosal.

Re: twoweasleys; question from last year

There has been a decades long opportunity to ask parents "would youparticipate in a double-blind vaccine study to ensure vaccines aresafe and not harmful?" To blanketly make the statement that therewouldn't be families out there s a cop out. How did they test proquad?THere was a group of families willing to risk the dangers of a 4-in-1vaccine. There are those of us who don't immunize. There are those inbetween, who don't really care one way or the other. It's a cop out tosay it can't be done. Who knows a child's health better than his/her parent? I wouldn'ttrust a physician to assess my child's health, either. Reason: 10 mosdoc said it's normal for a baby to stop babbling, eating, staring intospace, laying on her back all day. 12 mos: doc said it's normal for ababy to stop babbling, eating, staring into space, laying on her backall day 15 mo:doc said it's normal for a baby to stop babbling,eating, staring into space, laying on her back all day 18 mos: docsaid it's normal for a baby to stop babbling, eating, staring intospace, and hey, she just started walking so everything is okay.Reason: metabolic testing, ped called & said "everything okay." Thensee autism doc, he went down the list of abnormal findings. Reason:Child hospitalized 3 times in 20 mos for metabolic acidosis. Motherpleads for every test imaginable to be run on child to find what'smaking her sick. HOspital response: Gee, it's the weekend, all thespecialists are gone. You'll have ot find someone else during theweek. But hey, at least the mom was dumb enough to imagine all theproblems.Yeah, I can see why it wouldn't be safe to trust a doctor to assess achild's health.Debi> >> > > > You wouldn't endorse a comprehensive study on vaccinated vs. > > unvaccinated children? Why not? > > > > Sue M. > > Sue,> > in order to do such a study properly, it should be prospective (rather> than looking at the children after they weren't vaccinated for some> reason or other). Ideally, the study would be blinded (with neither> parents not treating physician knowing whether the child was> vaccinated for the duration of the study). NO ethical review board> would agree to such a study. It would mean randomly withholding> something from children that is considered part of basic medical care. > > Also: would you , as a parent agree to let your child participate in a> study where you would not know whether your child is going to be in> the vaccine or no vaccine group? Would a vaccinating parent risk their> child to be in the unvaccinated group?> > There are a number of studies on communities that vaccinate very> little (like Steiner communities). I am not aware that any of them has> looked at the incidence of ASD - but one could ask the authors, since> they already have a large cohort they have studied (and sample size> may in part make up for the retrospective bias). So I guess,> eventually it is going to happen, just because there are a fair number> of parents who do not vaccinate or not fully vaccinate their children.> However, at least you'd need the children to be looked at by a> "blinded" physician to exclude any bias (which could go either way:> the parental bias is often "oh, I stopped vaccines early with my> youngest and s/he is so much more healthy/neurotypical than my older> child" - the physician's bias may be "oh, this child is not> vaccinated, surely s/he must have all those health problems"). I would> not trust parental assessment of the child, not the assessment of the> physician who regularly sees the child, as eventually, a family tends> to end up with a physician who shares/supports their views and may> share their bias.> > >

[Guest guest]

> >

> >

> > You wouldn't endorse a comprehensive study on vaccinated vs.

> > unvaccinated children? Why not?

> >

> > Sue M.

>

> Sue,

>

> in order to do such a study properly, it should be prospective (rather

> than looking at the children after they weren't vaccinated for some

> reason or other). Ideally, the study would be blinded (with neither

> parents not treating physician knowing whether the child was

> vaccinated for the duration of the study). NO ethical review board

> would agree to such a study. It would mean randomly withholding

> something from children that is considered part of basic medical care.

>

> Also: would you , as a parent agree to let your child participate in a

> study where you would not know whether your child is going to be in

> the vaccine or no vaccine group? Would a vaccinating parent risk their

> child to be in the unvaccinated group?

It is largely irrelevant whether the parents know or don't know if

their child has been vaccinated. The parents are not the subject of

the study, the children are. I would venture most very young children

could not recite what shot they received for what reason in the first

5 years of their life or what the consequences might be, in other

words, they are already mostly " blind " by virtue of youthful

incompetence. Parental prompting could be screened/controlled to sort

for clueless subjects. If you " blind " the researcher (who would not

the examining family physician), you already have your double blind.

Anyway, this is a specious arguement. There is plenty of research

done where the ideal prospective, double blind is impossible or

unethical. A single-blind study would be capable of providing

significant evidence. Do you have a bias against such research,

perhaps?

Lenny

>

>

[Guest guest]

I do find 's posts to be provocative, provocative of thought and

I don't a problem with that. I think honest dissent is important and

despite suspicions, I have no reason to think she is not operating out

of good faith. Let our beliefs and science be tested, even if with

poorly constructed questions; we will only be better for it. I

welcome 's contributions.

Lenny

EOHarm list co-host

>

> ,

>

> For someone who has no family, no child affected by autism, your

> " research " and " IMO " phrase

> ... " I guess eventually there will be enough unvaccinated children with

> autism to prove that vaccines have nothing to do with the etiology of

> autism " ....

>

> is provocative. I am unclear why you appear/disappear. I am equally

> unclear of your motivation on this list as most here are trying to get

> our gov't to investigate and help our children. What is your point?

> This is not the first time that you have brought up thimerosal, or

> vaccines... If you have figured out the etiology of all autism and

> your friends who have children who just " are " autistic don't think it

> is thimerosal or vaccines in general..then why are you on this list?

>

> I am sure there is a list for " just genes " or " classifiers are us "

> or " my parents were nerds " . But more realistically " have to stop

> these anti-vaccine campaigners " ...but why? We are not anti-vaccine but

> pro-safe vaccines...so please add that to you report. I think then you

> can be done here.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

,

Which government are you discussing when you describe " services " ?

Basisdaten

-ID:

twoweasleys

Realer Name:

Ort:

Alter:

Familienstand:

Keine Angabe

Geschlecht:

Keine Angabe

Beruf:

> > > >

> > > > , my question is, what is the current level of thimerosal in

> > > > vaccines? I agree that it's not *as high*, but there is evidence

> that

> > > > thimerosal is still in vaccines, even those deemed " perservative

> > > > free " . It's my understanding that it's still being used as a

> > > > sanitizing agent and cannot be fully filtered out. It's also my

> > > > understanding that autism did drop until the flu vaccine was

ordered

> > > > into the series, and when age is considered, the increase

begins the

> > > > same time those infants initially given the flu vax would have

been

> > > > old enough to enter " autism dx age " .

> > > >

> > > > What are your thoughts? I believe thimerosal is not the only

> > > > component, I personally think it's the immune assault combined

with

> > > > thimerosal and aluminum, but that's my personal opinion from

> personal

> > > > experience and biochemistry understanding, which might not be very

> > > > understood, lol. I believe if all the thimerosal were removed, the

> > > > vaccines were delayed and spread out over a longer time frame, and

> > > > only given when absolutely necessary there would be very, very

> little

> > > > autism. If I were to advise of a vaccine schedule (which of

course I

> > > > can't, so I'm just brainstorming here), it would be:

> > > >

> > > > pertussis (*ONLY*, no d, no t) 3 mos

> > > >

> > > > hib 6 mos

> > > >

> > > > tetanus 1yr

> > > >

> > > > polio 5 yrs (we have a LOT of kids at our school from places like

> > > > Liberia who get the oral one day, hop a plain and start school the

> > > > next day.)

> > > >

> > > > mumps 12yr

> > > >

> > > > rubella 13yr

> > > >

> > > > hepB 14yr

> > > >

> > > > and if not contracted by adulthood, varicella and measles at

least 6

> > > > mos apart. forget the rest of them unless there was a real reason

> > > > specific to that person, location, etc to get one.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Debi

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

> It is largely irrelevant whether the parents know or don't know if

> their child has been vaccinated. The parents are not the subject of

> the study, the children are. I would venture most very young children

> could not recite what shot they received for what reason in the first

> 5 years of their life or what the consequences might be, in other

> words, they are already mostly " blind " by virtue of youthful

> incompetence. Parental prompting could be screened/controlled to sort

> for clueless subjects. If you " blind " the researcher (who would not

> the examining family physician), you already have your double blind.

> Anyway, this is a specious arguement. There is plenty of research

> done where the ideal prospective, double blind is impossible or

> unethical. A single-blind study would be capable of providing

> significant evidence. Do you have a bias against such research,

> perhaps?

No Lenny - and I am sure that such a study will come about. I am just

saying that there will be no prospective study, because it is

considered unethical to withhold vaccinations from children.

(wants to the see the outcome, too)

[Guest guest]

urgh - I would not want to go through pertussis, I am actually quite

glad about the adult booster. Breastfeeding is irrelevant for specific

immunity against pertussis.

> >

> > Neiter disease acquired nor vaccine acquired immunity lasts a life

> > time. The acellular pertussis vaccine provides the shortest lasting

> > immunity and 5 years is probably about right. That was the trade off

> > (to lose some of the side effects of the whole cell pertussis

> > vaccine). I just read that they are experimenting with a nasal whole

> > cell pertussis (without toxin gene) vaccine that confers very strong

> > immunity even to small babies. Until then, cocooning the baby by

> > vaccinating mum, dad and older siblings is probably the best strategy

> > to protect the babies.

> >

> >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

,

but the number of children with autism is not going down in the age

group that has received thimerosal free vaccines. It is still going

up, at least according to the California Service records. So now what?

>

> >I am

> not at all convinced that the amount of thimerosal contained in

> vaccines has caused autism<

>

> If the number of children with autism (newly diagnosed) is going

down then it would certainly point to the reduction/removal of mercury

from vaccines. In regards to your statement above, would you agree it

could be a combination of ingredients, including aluminum (adjuvant)

that might " cause " autism? It is useless for us to continue to argue

about this in this group. This is a group that was organized to

enhance the position that mercury in vaccines causes autism, or am I

wrong?

>

> C.

>

[Guest guest]

,

but the number of children with autism is not going down in the age

group that has received thimerosal free vaccines. It is still going

up, at least according to the California Service records. So now what?

>

> >I am

> not at all convinced that the amount of thimerosal contained in

> vaccines has caused autism<

>

> If the number of children with autism (newly diagnosed) is going

down then it would certainly point to the reduction/removal of mercury

from vaccines. In regards to your statement above, would you agree it

could be a combination of ingredients, including aluminum (adjuvant)

that might " cause " autism? It is useless for us to continue to argue

about this in this group. This is a group that was organized to

enhance the position that mercury in vaccines causes autism, or am I

wrong?

>

> C.

>