EPIDEMIOLOGY

[Guest guest]

Epidemiology of Pink's Disease

Epidemiology talls us a great deal:

Pink's Disease was known from 1903

until it died out in the late 1950's or so.

Pink's Disease affected boys and girls,

sometimes more boys, sometimes more girls.

Pink's Disease never normally affected

babies before the age of four months.

Pink's Disease normally is not a

problem after the age of one year.

There is no evidence Pink's Disease is

infectious.

There is no evidence Pink's Disease is

a nutritional deficiency.

Pink's Disease affected 1 in 500

children in England.

Pink's Disease in most countries it

affected almost no children.

Sadly, epidemiologists thought one in

five hundred meant Pink's Disease was very rare.

Epidemiology never told us what did

cause it.

When the cause was found, epidemiology

stood in the way of its acceptance. Many people with the illness

never took teething powder. The odd older people also. How COULD it

be teething powder?

Scientific method with its tendency to

take into account various factors and to choose carefully or not

controls makes either a nonsense or homes in on the causes. A

dangerous discipline and more an art form than a science. Providing

at times more questions than answers. Providing at times more blind

alleys than wide open motorways to the cause. Information of interest

but little more.

With the history of Monsanto and Sir

Doll we know even in considering epidemiology as an art form

we also need to consider it also as a lucrative quasi-criminal

activity to hide truths. We are at the mercy of honest people and

caring producers of toxic materials (if that makes sense?). And the

human friality of loyality, accepting the norm and being partial to

lobbying.

Consider some imaginary theoretical

work on the epidemiology of Pink's Disease.

In a criminal investigation, tons of

documents are made from enquiries. Often clear guilt and confessions

turn out to be dust when the real culprits are found. At this final

point the real crooks will make light of their involvement.

Epidemiology is not like this. Far from

tons there will be hundreds of tons of data collected. Culprits here

are rarely singular and rarely known to each other. Mutagens,

carcinogens, teratogens are toxic materials par excellence and in

abundance in our society.

Looking with hindsight, we know

teething powder was not the only and not necessarily the major cause

of Pink's Disease. Mercury was omnipresent in agriculture, industry,

medicine, dentistry, switching and lighting etc etc. Pinning down

mercury as the CAUSE in such circumstances is nigh on impossible.

Consider some theoretical epidemiology:

A medical practice that uses teething

powders finds say one child in 2 000 suffers or dies in the first

year of life. You look at another practice that doesn't use this

toxic material and find one child in 100 arrives dead before the age

of one. It will take a very good epidemiologist to seek harm in a

practice that clearly reduces deaths to neglible levels compared to

those not resorting to drugs and medications. For the greater good of

our children and to reduce death, we can eliminate mercury and

teething powders from our investigations into the cause of Pink's

Disease. WRONG.

When Warkany and Hubbard actually

measured mercury in these afflicted children and found the

correlation of :

Mercury in the child means that child

has Pink's Disease.

No mercury in the child means that the

child will be free of Pink's Disease.

Even here it wasn't that clear cut but

the evidence was DAMNING.

For Warkany and Hubbard it was that

clear to them. It was DAMNING evidence especially as it meant Warkany

had to drop his first idea of the cause - arsenic.

Six years later NOBODY much else

accepted that mercury or teething powder was the cause. The

politicians and medical world knew but it was forbidden to warn a

public of LEMMINGS. A good parent would DEFINITELY need to use

teething powders, worming powders, mercury vaccines et al as REQUIRED

by their doctor. The paediatrician or doctor it is well known will

first and foremost NEVER CAUSE HARM. The public indeed were LEMMINGS

to the monster that followed their child to HELL. Your well trusted

local DOCTOR.

Even looking at those epidemiology

studies that had considered teething powder there were more cases in

those never using the stuff. Proof as it turns out not of the power

of epidemiolgy but its FATALLY flawed reasoning.

And a million pound industry is not

about to give way to stupid chemists finding mercury in children.

Mercury is KNOWN to be the most valuable arm of the doctors drug kit.

Why wouldn't there be mercury in a well doctored infant?

Epidemiology needed to bring together

both teething powder, wrom powder with a host of other mercury

exposures. Even then it could prove dramatically wrong. It could show

no harm from such a brew.

Imagine those that qualify and the age

group you choose is birth to three months. You end up with no risk

from these toxins whatsoever. WRONG. Again the hindsight of Professor

Wetterhahn exposed to mercury and completely well four months later.

But 9 months later unable to answer your questions sensibly or

intelligibly. Mercury took away her brains as the ancients told us 2

000 years ago. HOW RIGHT THEY WERE.

Finally, difficult to believe then or

now is the age factor. Children suffer from this illness only if they

are aged 4 months and less than 12 months. So epidemiology tells us

that age is the biggest single factor that determines your risk for

Pink's Disease. When you are 6 months old you have epidemiologically

speaking a major cause of your Pink's Disease in your child. BUNKUM.

Today, epidemiologists are not being so

daft as to imply autism is caused by being 18 months old but it is

spending billions proving that your genes are causing you to become

autism. We have had our genes for millions of years just like we pass

through 4 to 12 months of age or 18 months of age. These are not

reasons for Pink's Disease or autism. People who fall for this

failing of reasoning are not THINKING.

Teething powder taken regularly by

little babies may cause them to have Pink's Disease. Being 4 months

old or having the XyPcTAb 9 gene together with the ZdPh7g gene means

very little to most people but doesn't normally present a health risk

to your child from Pink's Disease, Swift's Disease or Autism.

Thimerosal is a POTENT ...

Thimerosal is a NEUTOTOXIC ...

Thimerosal is a MUTAGENIC ...

And it can in certain cases CAUSE illness

if it doesn't kill you.

Being 18 months.

Being with a mix of 24 or more genes.

Being a boy.

Is not a CAUSE for an illness or a

reason for a HEALHY infant to suddenly DIE.

Epidemiology of Pink's Disease