Guest guest Posted July 20, 2003 Report Share Posted July 20, 2003 No one piece of the (research) puzzle regarding autism is conclusive in itself. Its way too complex for that. But if you take all the pieces of the puzzle and fit them together, you start to see an interesting picture. The problem is that there are too many SIG's funding individual pieces (read:POV) and no-one is " paid " to see the big picture. Is mercury a know neurotoxin? Yes. Has it been *shown* to *cause* autism? No. Is there a parallel between the effects of mercury on the brain and the profile of autism? Yes. Is autism genetic? Probably. Most research indicates that. Do vaccinations *cause* autism? No. Its way too complex for that. The real possibility is that vaccinations may *trigger* " acquired " autism in certain individuals. Nothing has been *proven* either way. Has anyone bothered do perform any statistical analysis on " acquired " autism rates and vaccination rates? Yes. This makes *very* interesting reading. Does it *prove* anything? not scientifically, but perhaps statistically. Is there a " smoking gun " for a possible cause of " acquired " autism? Actually several. There's the problem. Everyone wants only one scapegoat. Again, its way too complex for that. Colin. Autism article > I just saw this article on MSNBC. It adds more weight to the " autism is > not caused by vaccine " argument as some of us advanced before. It also > (of course) suggests that the new information (which is not really new-- > I have read all of this in autism texts before) may suggest a treatment > to limit the overgrowth of neurons that is known to occur in autism. > > http://www.msnbc.com/news/941426.asp?0cv=CB20 > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 21, 2003 Report Share Posted July 21, 2003 Colin Wessels wrote: > The real > possibility is that vaccinations may *trigger* " acquired " autism in certain > individuals. Nothing has been *proven* either way. The Danish study featured 400,000 plus subjects, if I recall, some vaccinated with the MMR, others not. The rate of autism in the MMR sample was slightly (insignificantly) LOWER than in the non-MMR sample. If the MMR was a trigger for autism, it did not show up in the sample. In other words, something has been proven either way-- MMR vaccination has no effect on the rate of autism. Now, we will find out in a few years if the mercury hypothesis is also false. Infants are not being vaccinated with mercury anymore, and this has been the case in the US for about a year. Given that autism is typically recognized at the age of two, we'll start to see a decrease in autism rates in about one year if mercury in vaccines causes, triggers, or otherwise affects autism rates. I would not hold my breath for that, as all of the evidence now points to prenatal causes. The study linked does show that autism is not mercury poisoning. Mercury poisoning does a certain kind of damage to neuronal cells, and that damage does not take the form of a greater number of neuronal cells than normal. It does not result in the diffently formed brain that is seen in autistics. The kinds of brain abnormalities that are seen can only have occurred during pregnancy, when the brain of the developing embryo differentiates into different brain structures. > Has anyone bothered do perform any statistical analysis on " acquired " autism > rates and vaccination rates? Yes. This makes *very* interesting reading. > Does it *prove* anything? not scientifically, but perhaps statistically. It has not been established that there is such a thing as " acquired " autism. Even " regressive " autistics can often be shown to have had significant abnormalities in development prior to the regression. I have read a lot about this, but I have yet to see any convincing evidence for a link between autism and vaccines. Most of it is supposition and pseudoscience, touted by people like Dr. Bradstreet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 21, 2003 Report Share Posted July 21, 2003 the danish study has some major flaws. there are quite few criticisms of it on the net. the group doing this study did one on adhd and it was so bad, that they are actually being sued. another thing is that the danish vaccination schedule is not the same as the american. you cannot really compare results as it is not 1 vaccine that is being considered a problem. there are considered to be different problems and some of those issues are to do with cumulative effects of mercury poisoning, including in utero toxin exposure. i am not sure if toxins can be passed on through semen. i will have to research that. __________________________________________________________________ McAfee VirusScan Online from the Netscape Network. Comprehensive protection for your entire computer. Get your free trial today! http://channels.netscape.com/ns/computing/mcafee/index.jsp?promo=393397 Get AOL Instant Messenger 5.1 free of charge. Download Now! http://aim.aol.com/aimnew/Aim/register.adp?promo=380455 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 21, 2003 Report Share Posted July 21, 2003 gprobertson@... wrote: > the danish study has some major flaws. there are quite few > criticisms of it on the net. the group doing this study did one on > adhd and it was so bad, that they are actually being sued. another > thing is that the danish vaccination schedule is not the same as the > american. you cannot really compare results as it is not 1 vaccine > that is being considered a problem. In this case, it was actually one vaccine, which is the MMR, that is being blamed, and that was studied. The MMR has never had any mercury in it, yet it is often blamed as the cause of autism. That in itself is notable-- the people that want to blame vaccines say it is the mercury in vaccines that causes the problem, but they also say it is something about the active measles culture in the MMR that causes autism. Those are two wholly different and unrelated hypothetical etiologies, with the only similarity being that both are in vaccines that happen to be given right at about the time that autism is first noticed by parents. This points to a coincidental relationship beween vaccination and observed onset of autism, rather than a causal one. It is not likely that autism is caused by two wholly dissimilar processes that just happen to be included in infant vaccines. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 21, 2003 Report Share Posted July 21, 2003 > Now, we will find out in a few years if the mercury hypothesis > is also false. Infants are not being vaccinated with mercury > anymore, and this has been the case in the US for about a year. > Given that autism is typically recognized at the age of two, > we'll start to see a decrease in autism rates in about one year > if mercury in vaccines causes, triggers, or otherwise affects > autism rates. , Are you sure about that second sentence? I've heard that there's a provision in the Patriot Act that allows drug companies to use the many supplies they already had on hand, absolves them of any liability, and protects their records from being accessed by the public. If true, that is very suspicious. > I would not hold my breath for that, as all of the evidence > now points to prenatal causes. It's not that I think mercury causes autism, I just don't think it's a good idea to put it in vaccines, or allow it in food and water supplies. Clay Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 21, 2003 Report Share Posted July 21, 2003 Actually the MMR has never undergone any substatial testing to show the combined ingredients as safe for humans, let alone to be given along with three or four other (mercury-bearing) vaccinations. I guess it would cost too much money - " hey, its only humans we're talking about here - compared to a lot of cash! " Quoting Klein : > gprobertson@... wrote: > > > the danish study has some major flaws. there are quite few > > criticisms of it on the net. the group doing this study did one on > > adhd and it was so bad, that they are actually being sued. another > > thing is that the danish vaccination schedule is not the same as the > > american. you cannot really compare results as it is not 1 vaccine > > that is being considered a problem. > > In this case, it was actually one vaccine, which is the MMR, that is > being blamed, and that was studied. The MMR has never had any mercury > in it, yet it is often blamed as the cause of autism. That in itself is > notable-- the people that want to blame vaccines say it is the mercury > in vaccines that causes the problem, but they also say it is something > about the active measles culture in the MMR that causes autism. Those > are two wholly different and unrelated hypothetical etiologies, with the > only similarity being that both are in vaccines that happen to be given > right at about the time that autism is first noticed by parents. This > points to a coincidental relationship beween vaccination and observed > onset of autism, rather than a causal one. It is not likely that autism > is caused by two wholly dissimilar processes that just happen to be > included in infant vaccines. > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 21, 2003 Report Share Posted July 21, 2003 Here's the official POV: " Given the availability of vaccines that do not contain thimerosal as a preservative, the progress in developing such additional vaccines, and the absence of any *recognized harm* from exposure to thimerosal in vaccines, hepatitis B, DTaP, and Hib vaccines that contain thimerosal as a preservative *can continue to be used* in the routine infant schedule beginning at age 2 months along with monovalent or combination vaccines that do not contain thimerosal as a preservative. " (Emphasis added by Colin). http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/thi-table.htm " * This product should be considered equivalent to thimerosal-free products. This vaccine may contain trace amounts (<0.3 mcg) of mercury left after post-production thimerosal removal; these amounts have no biological effect. JAMA 1999;282(18) and JAMA 2000;283(16). " http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4843a4.htm#tab1 A question for the sceptics: Why have the drug companies removed Thimerosal from most of the infant vaccines if " the risk, if any, to infants from exposure to thimerosal is believed to be slight " ? Colin. Re: Autism article > > > > Now, we will find out in a few years if the mercury hypothesis > > is also false. Infants are not being vaccinated with mercury > > anymore, and this has been the case in the US for about a year. > > Given that autism is typically recognized at the age of two, > > we'll start to see a decrease in autism rates in about one year > > if mercury in vaccines causes, triggers, or otherwise affects > > autism rates. > > , > Are you sure about that second sentence? I've heard that there's > a provision in the Patriot Act that allows drug companies to use > the many supplies they already had on hand, absolves them of any > liability, and protects their records from being accessed by the > public. If true, that is very suspicious. > > > I would not hold my breath for that, as all of the evidence > > now points to prenatal causes. > > It's not that I think mercury causes autism, I just don't think > it's a good idea to put it in vaccines, or allow it in food and > water supplies. > > Clay > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 21, 2003 Report Share Posted July 21, 2003 Colin Wessels wrote: > A question for the sceptics: Why have the drug companies removed > Thimerosal from most of the infant vaccines if " the risk, if any, to > infants from exposure to thimerosal is believed to be slight " ? Because an unnecessary slight risk is still too much of a risk, unless there is some competing good to offset the small risk. There is not. Beyond that... this debate is about whether thimerosal causes autism. The evidence at this time shows that it does not. However, that does not mean that thimerosal is harmless. " Harm " and " autism " are not the same thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.