IOM - A Parent's Perspective - sager's bias

[Guest guest]

Did she give the Hep B shot to the monkeys at birth?

Were there twenty thimerosal vaccines given to the monkeys while they under a

year old?

Were there multiple thimerosal-containing vaccines given at once?

What happened when she gave the monkeys the MMR vaccine?

Did she check back to see if any of them regressed fifteen months to two years

later?

How can you tell if a monkey looses it speech?

If I give her my son's vaccine records will she be willing to replicate them

using a monkey and TCVs?

Re: [ ] IOM - A Parent's Perspective - sager's bias

Increased susceptibility can be genetic and/or acquired. If she tested

only a fairly small number of healthy monkeys, then she avoided testing

monkeys (a) with a null allele for glutathione transferase (Westphal and

colleagues, thimerosal studies), ( with a current or recent illness

sufficient to have depleted glutathione, and © monkeys fed an

amino-related GSH-depleted diets, which would mimic illness, amino

transfer problems, and nutrition-impaired gut pathology.

I haven't read her presentation yet. Did she address a, b, and c or were

her test-monkeys healthy?

NAA Action List wrote:

Dr. Polly Sager presented a primate study. She showed how the monkeys

were able to rid themselves of the thimerosal properly with no damaging

effects. Seemed like a nice lady. I recall sitting in my chair during

this wondering...did she survey the monkeys ahead of time to get a

family history? Girl monkeys or boy monkeys? How old? Any

predispositions? It was the equivalent of sticking typical kids in a

room, watching them behind a two-way mirror, and concluding they're not

autistic. Well I could have told you that.

=======================================================

[Guest guest]

Excellent points. In fact, Sager's purpose may have been to whitewash

thimerosal's effects by using a research design intended *not* to focus

upon relevant factors such as the many ways to increased susceptibility,

the many co-factors that contribute to adverse effects. Instead, she may

have used a model illustrating that healthy primates are not too

noticably affected. Of course, we know from Verstraeten et al 2000 (the

study whose data the CDC has been fudging ever since) that a range of

traits (adhd, tics, language problems, autism, etc) were linked to

thimerosal, thus even tho' thimerosal may have injured 10-20% of U.S.

children (a brilliant meds-marketing strategy indeed!), nonetheless most

US children were not so affected.

Of course, my comments here are sheer speculation because I've yet to

peruse her IOM ppt slides. .

Kerbob wrote:

> Did she give the Hep B shot to the monkeys at birth?

>

> Were there twenty thimerosal vaccines given to the monkeys while they

> under a year old?

>

> Were there multiple thimerosal-containing vaccines given at once?

>

> What happened when she gave the monkeys the MMR vaccine?

>

> Did she check back to see if any of them regressed fifteen months to

> two years later?

>

> How can you tell if a monkey looses it speech?

>

> If I give her my son's vaccine records will she be willing to

> replicate them using a monkey and TCVs?

> Re: [ ] IOM - A Parent's Perspective - sager's

> bias

>

>

> Increased susceptibility can be genetic and/or acquired. If she tested

> only a fairly small number of healthy monkeys, then she avoided testing

> monkeys (a) with a null allele for glutathione transferase (Westphal

> and

> colleagues, thimerosal studies), ( with a current or recent illness

> sufficient to have depleted glutathione, and © monkeys fed an

> amino-related GSH-depleted diets, which would mimic illness, amino

> transfer problems, and nutrition-impaired gut pathology.

>

> I haven't read her presentation yet. Did she address a, b, and c or

> were

> her test-monkeys healthy?

>

>

>

> NAA Action List wrote:

>

> Dr. Polly Sager presented a primate study. She showed how the

> monkeys

> were able to rid themselves of the thimerosal properly with no

> damaging

> effects. Seemed like a nice lady. I recall sitting in my chair

> during

> this wondering...did she survey the monkeys ahead of time to get a

> family history? Girl monkeys or boy monkeys? How old? Any

> predispositions? It was the equivalent of sticking typical kids

> in a

> room, watching them behind a two-way mirror, and concluding

> they're not

> autistic. Well I could have told you that.

>

>

[Guest guest]

IOM - A Parent's Perspective - sager's bias

I believe the answer is no to all these questions, based on what I

heard at the IOM.

So, 20 vaccines were not administered to these monkeys prior to one

year, no Hep B at birth, no vaccines administered at once, no MMR

vaccine, no followup reported for regression, and none of the monkeys

were selected for susceptibility based on any genetic polymorphism such

as MTHFR or a null allele for glutathione transferase. I don't recall

any report that some of the monkeys were ill or had GSH depleted diets.

A bunch of healthy monkeys was administered ethylmercury with ill

effects.

Sager repeatedly answered questions from the panel and audience about

all these variables by stating that her study was preliminary and could

not account for any of these and other variables.

I do not know why Sager's study was presented at the IOM. It merely

showed that a small number of healthy monkeys are not affected by the

administration of the neurotoxin. Possibly Sager's provides a baseline

for future research. She said it is very difficult to do these studies

with monkeys.

The only purpose for this study being presented is to show the

preliminary nature of the research thus precluding any conclusions at

this time, or to induce a false sense of reassurance about thimerosal

based on a superficial scientific inquiry. The study addressed none of

the key questions that need to be answered.

Re: IOM - A Parent's Perspective - sager's bias

Did she give the Hep B shot to the monkeys at birth?

Were there twenty thimerosal vaccines given to the monkeys while they

under a year old?

Were there multiple thimerosal-containing vaccines given at once?

What happened when she gave the monkeys the MMR vaccine?

Did she check back to see if any of them regressed fifteen months to

two years later?

How can you tell if a monkey looses it speech?

If I give her my son's vaccine records will she be willing to replicate

them using a monkey and TCVs?

Re: [ ] IOM - A Parent's Perspective - sager's

bias

Increased susceptibility can be genetic and/or acquired. If she tested

only a fairly small number of healthy monkeys, then she avoided

testing

monkeys (a) with a null allele for glutathione transferase (Westphal

and

colleagues, thimerosal studies), ( with a current or recent illness

sufficient to have depleted glutathione, and © monkeys fed an

amino-related GSH-depleted diets, which would mimic illness, amino

transfer problems, and nutrition-impaired gut pathology.

I haven't read her presentation yet. Did she address a, b, and c or

were

her test-monkeys healthy?

NAA Action List wrote:

Dr. Polly Sager presented a primate study. She showed how the

monkeys

were able to rid themselves of the thimerosal properly with no

damaging

effects. Seemed like a nice lady. I recall sitting in my chair

during

this wondering...did she survey the monkeys ahead of time to get

a

family history? Girl monkeys or boy monkeys? How old? Any

predispositions? It was the equivalent of sticking typical kids

in a

room, watching them behind a two-way mirror, and concluding

they're not

autistic. Well I could have told you that.

[Guest guest]

From what I saw and heard, she did not present any factors which

would indicate the monkeys weren't healthy.

>

> Dr. Polly Sager presented a primate study. She showed how the

monkeys

> were able to rid themselves of the thimerosal properly with

no damaging

> effects. Seemed like a nice lady. I recall sitting in my

chair during

> this wondering...did she survey the monkeys ahead of time to

get a

> family history? Girl monkeys or boy monkeys? How old? Any

> predispositions? It was the equivalent of sticking typical

kids in a

> room, watching them behind a two-way mirror, and concluding

they're not

> autistic. Well I could have told you that.