IsabelC Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 Hehehe..... yep, that does look impressive. And it seems like a good reason to stop buying organic food. :-D  While we are looking at charts here are some *real* ones below-  You are so wrong. I can plainly see that it is in fact the increase in autism diagnoses that is causing food to become organic, not organic food causing autism.  Sorry. Couldn't resist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiana Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 Dr. Gerhard Buchwald, MD, 1989, Director of the Park-Sanatorium of Bad-Steben, West Germany, witness in more than 150 court trials about vaccination damages:  "Vaccines have never had the proclaimed preventive effect on infections. The regression of infectious diseases started over 200 years ago, which means long before the introduction of vaccination, and it was due to the improved social conditions of the population: nutrition and hygiene.    http://www.medicinekillsmillions.com/articles/truth-about-decline-of-the-infectious-diseases.html   http://www.blatantpropaganda.org/propaganda/articles/vaccination_doctors.html   http://www.vaclib.org/sites/debate/web1.html  Well, yeah, of course the death rates are going to decrease with improved public health. Healthy people don't get as sick as people who are practically starving, and they recover better. Nobody disputes that these diseases were nowhere near as fatal as they used to be.  These charts might have some validity if they were looking at the actual incidence of the disease, but as it is they have none. They are intentionally designed to be misleading. In order for them to be valid, you'd really need to look at the incidence of the disease vs. when vaccines were introduced, and not at the death rate. You might ask why people who claim to be motivated by the truth are deliberately designing a chart this way?  The last site is particularly misleading. Scarlet fever may not have a vaccine, but it is a bacterial illness and is treated with antibiotics. Typhoid fever is not easy to spread without prolonged personal contact and almost always spread through bad water, and that is why we don't vaccinate against it unless people are going to places where there is no good water. Neither of them is really comparable to an airborne viral illness such as measles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jasperstone Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 You are so wrong. I can plainly see that it is in fact the increase in autism diagnoses that is causing food to become organic, not organic food causing autism. Â Sorry. Couldn't resist. Lol.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jasperstone Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 Â In order for them to be valid, you'd really need to look at the incidence of the disease vs. when vaccines were introduced, and not at the death rate. Â -------------------------- Â Â The last link has a couple of charts showing that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiana Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015  In order for them to be valid, you'd really need to look at the incidence of the disease vs. when vaccines were introduced, and not at the death rate.  --------------------------   The last link has a couple of charts showing that.  I have just clicked through every bloody link on that page looking for one. I found exactly one here -- http://www.whale.to/vaccine/rattigan2.html#polio-- and whoever made that graph appears to have fabricated the data, or cherry-picked at best.  Here is the uk data -- http://www.post-polio.org/ir-eng.html-- although they have not organized it into a pretty picture, you can clearly see that the graph on the page you linked does not reflect this data.  Edit: And the problem is that once I can see that someone has fabricated or misrepresented data, everything else they say is suspect. E Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaffeineDiary Posted February 17, 2015 Author Share Posted February 17, 2015 . Â Hehehe..... yep, that does look impressive. And it seems like a good reason to stop buying organic food. :-D While we are looking at charts here are some *real* ones below- I don't know why you think I'm joking. The data regarding organic food causing autism is certainly a clearer correlation, and based on better sourced data, than anything you've presented in this thread vis-a- vis vaccines. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kristen18 Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 I don't know why you think I'm joking. The data regarding organic food causing autism is certainly a clearer correlation, and based on better sourced data, than anything you've presented in this thread vis-a- vis vaccines. Â So, out of one side of your mouth, you claim that "correlation does not equal causation." Then, out of the other side, you claim that "no correlation equals no causation." You can't have it both ways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 I don't know why you think I'm joking. The data regarding organic food causing autism is certainly a clearer correlation, and based on better sourced data, than anything you've presented in this thread vis-a- vis vaccines.  I actually think autism is causing part of the increase in organic food sales. People buy organic food to combat the issue of toxins that aggravate autism (and other issues that are simultaneously increasing, such as ADHD and allergies). The toxins issue is real. I have an autistic cousin who was born around 1970. Even back then, his mom was advised by his doctors (not woo docs) to cut out all kinds of things from his diet - basically everything that is fun for kids to eat. When she did it, he was better. When she was weak and fed him what was easy, he punched holes in walls etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingiguana Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 So, out of one side of your mouth, you claim that "correlation does not equal causation." Then, out of the other side, you claim that "no correlation equals no causation." You can't have it both ways. Â Is that not how one disproves a hypothesis? Â These aren't exactly opposite statements. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiana Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 So, out of one side of your mouth, you claim that "correlation does not equal causation." Then, out of the other side, you claim that "no correlation equals no causation." You can't have it both ways.  Actually, yes, you can. These statements are not logical opposites.  Logically: P implies Q is the same as not-Q implies not-P. It is not the same as not-P implies not-Q. It is quite possible for P implies Q to be false and yet for not-P implies not-Q to be true.  For example: If I know that a person is female, I do not know that she is pregnant. She might be or she might not. However, if I know that a person is NOT female, I am certain that that person is not pregnant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanaqui Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 Dr. Gerhard Buchwald, MD, 1989, Director of the Park-Sanatorium of Bad-Steben, West Germany, witness in more than 150 court trials about vaccination damages:  "Vaccines have never had the proclaimed preventive effect on infections. The regression of infectious diseases started over 200 years ago, which means long before the introduction of vaccination, and it was due to the improved social conditions of the population: nutrition and hygiene.    http://www.medicinekillsmillions.com/articles/truth-about-decline-of-the-infectious-diseases.html   http://www.blatantpropaganda.org/propaganda/articles/vaccination_doctors.html   http://www.vaclib.org/sites/debate/web1.html  Okay, Jasperstone, we're talking about modern medicine. Why are you quoting somebody from 25 years ago? He had less data than we do today. (And evidently, his views ossified at that time. Good job.)  Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jasperstone Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 Okay, Jasperstone, we're talking about modern medicine. Why are you quoting somebody from 25 years ago? He had less data than we do today. (And evidently, his views ossified at that time. Good job.) Maybe, because people that speak out these days get discredited real fast by the ones that have vested interest? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jasperstone Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 I actually think autism is causing part of the increase in organic food sales. People buy organic food to combat the issue of toxins that aggravate autism (and other issues that are simultaneously increasing, such as ADHD and allergies). The toxins issue is real. I have an autistic cousin who was born around 1970. Even back then, his mom was advised by his doctors (not woo docs) to cut out all kinds of things from his diet - basically everything that is fun for kids to eat. When she did it, he was better. When she was weak and fed him what was easy, he punched holes in walls etc. Good point! That is so true!!!! Â You only need to hang at a health shop to witness that- chemically damaged people seeking out foods that are closest to nature without any toxic sprays etc... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanaqui Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 Maybe, because people that speak out these days get discredited real fast by the ones that have vested interest? Â Â Jasperstone, how many people do you imagine work in the pharmaceutical industry? Â Well, I just googled, and the answer is more than 810,000 people in the US alone. Granted, I'm not 100% sure how many of those people are researchers and developers, but it's reasonable to assume that there are thousands of them. Â Have you ever heard the adage "three can keep a secret, if two of them are dead"? If there really was a wide-spread conspiracy, like you propose, somebody would've blown the cover right off it by now, if not for honesty then for profit. There'd be more money in the film rights to that story than there ever could be in your "vested interest". Â The fact that nobody has done so is pretty compelling evidence against that conspiracy theory. There is no conspiracy in the world that pays off hundreds of thousands of people. Â Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmseB Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 Maybe, because people that speak out these days get discredited real fast by the ones that have vested interest?  What if, perhaps, just perhaps, they just didn't do very good work? What if an overwhelming body of scientific evidence shows they are wrong? I mean, I'm just a lay person and I don't have to do much complicated brain work to see the problems with many of the anti-vax claims.  Or is it just more believable somehow that there is a giant conspiracy to...what?...fake people out into eradicating the world of various contagious diseases? What is the nefarious end game that we're all supposed to believe is happening?    (sorry, that was a bit over the top) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmseB Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 I actually think autism is causing part of the increase in organic food sales. People buy organic food to combat the issue of toxins that aggravate autism (and other issues that are simultaneously increasing, such as ADHD and allergies). The toxins issue is real. I have an autistic cousin who was born around 1970. Even back then, his mom was advised by his doctors (not woo docs) to cut out all kinds of things from his diet - basically everything that is fun for kids to eat. When she did it, he was better. When she was weak and fed him what was easy, he punched holes in walls etc.  Or they do it because they think it is somehow healthier for them. Just because people do something in order "combat toxins" (uh what?) doesn't mean that it actually does so.  Just saying "toxins are real" doesn't make it true. People do have food allergies. It has nothing to do with "toxins" and everything to do with an overactive immune system. My son barfs every time he eats eggs, organic or not. He goes into anaphylactic shock whether the peanut he eats is grown in the finest, purest cow poop or sprayed with round-up and plane exhaust. On the other hand, I can eat that stuff and suffer no ill effects.  Toxins and cleanses and such are really clever marketing schemes. I think the "organic" trend is too, for the most part, especially given the standards required to label something as organic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jasperstone Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 http://www.greatergoodmovie.org/news-views/doctors-and-scientists-with-concerns-about-vaccines/  Doctors and Scientists with Concerns About Vaccines  Shizuo Akira, MD, PhD  David Amaral, PhD, MIND Institute, UC-Davis  FranĂƒÂ§ois-JĂƒÂ©rĂƒÂ´me Authier, Professor, PhD  David Ayoub, MD, Radiologist  Anne-Catherine Bachoud-Levia, PhD  Toni Bark, MD  David S. Baskin, PhD  Denis Bedoret, PhD  Russell Blaylock, MD, CCN, former clinical assistant professor of neurosurgery at the University of Mississippi Medical Center in Jackson, MS. and is currently a visiting professor of biology at Belhaven University, Jackson, MI  T. Bobrowicz, PhD  Kenneth Bock, MD  Marie-FranĂƒÂ§oise Boissea, PhD  Subbarao Bondada, PhD  Jeff Bradstreet, MD  Pierre Brugierese, PhD  Julie Buckley, MD  Thomas Burbacher, MD  Fabrice Bureau, PhD  Rashid Buttar, DO, FAAPM, FACAM, FAAIM  Stephanie F. Cave, MS, MD, FAAFP  E. Cernichiari, PhD  Pierre Cesaroa, PhD  Lakshman Chelvarajan  T. Chen, PhD  Xavier Chevalierf, PhD  Shiv Chopra, MSc, PhD  Stephanie Christner, DO  T. Clarkson, PhD  John Barthelow Classen, MD  Cevayir Coban, PhD  Maryline Couettea  Andy Cutler, PhD (research chemist)  Jeffrey Dach, MD  Josep Dalmau, MD, PhD  Vicky DeBold, PhD, RN  Jamie Deckoff-Jones, MD  Christophe J Desmet, PhD  Mary Catherine DeSoto, PhD  Richard Deth, PhD  J.G. DĂƒÂ³rea, PhD  Peter Doshi, PhD Johns Hopkins School of Medicine  M. Duszczyk, PhD  Steven Edelson, MD, Director of the Autism Research Institute in San Diego  Mayer Eisenstein, MD  (The late) Dr. Frank Engley  HĂƒÂ¥kan Eriksson, PhD  Christopher Exley, PhD  Carl Feinstein, MD  Peter Fletcher, PhD, former Chief Scientific Officer, at the UK Department of Health  Lisa Freund, PhD  Paula A. Garay, PhD  Robert F. Garry, PhD  Thomas V. Getchell, PhD  Romain K. Gherardi, Professor, head of the department of Histology, Henri Mondor hospital, Paris, Neuropathologic and Clinical activities at the Neuromuscular Disease Reference Center, and is coordinator of the Department of Neurosciences INSERM  Beatrice Golomb, PhD, MD  Jay Gordon, MD  K.S. Grant, PhD  John Green, MD  Boyd Haley, PhD  Richard Halvorsen, MD  Diane Harper, MD, MPH, MS  (The late) Bernadine Healy, MD  Martha Herbert, MD, PhD, Professor of neurology at Harvard Medical  Laura Hewitson, PhD  Robert T. Hitlan, PhD  Amy Holmes, MD  Brian Hooker, PhD  Mady Hornig, PhD  Suzanne Humphries, MD  Philip Incao, MD  Ken J Ishii, PhD  Emmanuel Ittie, PhD  Dr. Jill James, PhD  Bryan Jepson, MD  Jerry Kartzinel, MD  Matthew S. Kayser, MD  Marcel Kinsbourne, PhD  Kouji Kobiyama, PhD  Sheldon B. Korones, MD  Arthur Krigsman, MD  Pierre Lekeux, PhD  A. Lerner, PhD  N. Liberato, PhD  S.X. Lin, PhD  Andrew D. Livingston, PhD  Yushu Liu, PhD  Brian J. Lopresti, PhD  Kurt M. Lucin, PhD  Patrick Maisona, PhD  M. D. Majewska, PhD  Jennifer Margulia, PhD  Thomas Marichal, PhD  N. Scott Mason, PhD  A. Kimberley McAllister, PhD  Jaquelyn McCandless, MD  Susan McCreadie, MD  (The late)Dr. Robert Mendelsohn, MD  (The late) John Menkes, MD, Former head of pediatric neurology at UCLA Medical School. Menkes was also director of pediatric neurology at the Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles. In addition, he was a member of the Forum for Vaccine Safety with the National Institute of Medicine.  Joseph Mercola, DO  Claire Mesnil, PhD  K. Meyza, PhD  S. Midha, PhD  P. Mierzejewski, PhD  Elizabeth Mumper, MD, Associate professor of clinical pediatrics at the University of Virginia  Devi S. Nambudripod, MD  Meryl Nass, MD  C. Nelson, PhD  E. Newell, PhD  Raymond Obomsawin, MSc, PhD  Tetyana Obukhanych, PhD  Keiichi Ohata, PhD  M. Olczak, PhD  Dr. Mehmet Oz  Larry Palevsky, MD  Elodie Passeria, PhD  Michael S. Petrik, PhD  Jon Poling, MD  Diana Popa, PhD  Massroor Pourcyrous, MD  (The late) Bernard Rimland, MD  Aviva Jill Romm, MD  Catherine Sabatel, PhD  E. M. Sajdel-Sulkowska, PhD  Bob Sears, MD  Martyn A. Sharpe, PhD  Chris Shaw, Professor, PhD  DD Shen, PhD  K. Vijendra Singh, PhD  Yehuda Shoenfeld, MD, FRCP  Peter SiesjĂƒÂ¶, PhD  Ken Stoller, MD  Carol Stott, PhD  Arnold J. Stromberg, PhD  Z. L. Sulkowski, PhD  Louise Swarbrick, PhD  Rena C. Tabata, PhD  Sherri Tenpenny, DO  Jaime Tomko, PhD  Lucija Tomljenovic, PhD  Anju Usman, MD  Eva Vanamee, PhD  Chiara Villac, PhD  John Walker-Smith, Professor  Judy Wilyman, PhD candidate  Tony Wyss-Coray, PhD  Margaret C. Wong, PhD  V.C. Yang, PhD  Amy Yasko, MD  Edward Yazbak, MD  Judy Van de Water, PhD, Immunology, UC Davis  Chiara Villac, PhD  Walter Zahorodny, PhD, Assistant Professor of Pediatrics, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey  A. M. Zavacki, PhD   quote name="Tanaqui" post="6194748" timestamp="1424213246"]  Jasperstone, how many people do you imagine work in the pharmaceutical industry?  Well, I just googled, and the answer is more than 810,000 people in the US alone. Granted, I'm not 100% sure how many of those people are researchers and developers, but it's reasonable to assume that there are thousands of them.  Have you ever heard the adage "three can keep a secret, if two of them are dead"? If there really was a wide-spread conspiracy, like you propose, somebody would've blown the cover right off it by now, if not for honesty then for profit. There'd be more money in the film rights to that story than there ever could be in your "vested interest".  The fact that nobody has done so is pretty compelling evidence against that conspiracy theory. There is no conspiracy in the world that pays off hundreds of thousands of people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanaqui Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 Jasperstone, you really don't get how it works, do you? It's not the side with the most names that wins, it's the side with the most evidence. Your side doesn't have it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jasperstone Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 Jasperstone, you really don't get how it works, do you? It's not the side with the most names that wins, it's the side with the most evidence. Your side doesn't have it. I see the side that has the most money winning. Â Who owns the gold makes the rules.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jasperstone Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/PHARMACEUTICAL_BUSINESS/pharmaceutical_industry.htm  Try going against a trillion dollar industry! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lang Syne Boardie Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 The thing about that list of names is that they are attached to nothing. Not in the post here, not on the website which was linked. "Concerned about vaccines," they are said to be. Â Well, we are all concerned about vaccines. We are all concerned that our children will be among those with rare reactions. We are all concerned about quality control of all medications used in our country. So we're concerned. Does that mean we think children should not be immunized? Hardly. "Concerned" does not mean "terrified of" or "opposed to." Unless it's quantified somehow, like with other adjectives or verb phrases, concerned just means concerned. Â If we knew these doctors' concerns, perhaps had some access to their studies, experiences, white papers, clinical trials, whatever, then we'd have something. Right now we have nothing. Not even their signatures verifying their willingness to be on the list. Just a list of names. Â Â Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caroline Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 The thing about that list of names is that they are attached to nothing. Not in the post here, not on the website which was linked. "Concerned about vaccines," they are said to be. Â Well, we are all concerned about vaccines. We are all concerned that our children will be among those with rare reactions. We are all concerned about quality control of all medications used in our country. So we're concerned. Does that mean we think children should not be immunized? Hardly. "Concerned" does not mean "terrified of" or "opposed to." Unless it's quantified somehow, like with other adjectives or verb phrases, concerned just means concerned. Â If we knew these doctors' concerns, perhaps had some access to their studies, experiences, white papers, clinical trials, whatever, then we'd have something. Right now we have nothing. Not even their signatures verifying their willingness to be on the list. Just a list of names. Not just out of context, but without credentials. I am Caroline, PhD, but my PhD is in materials science. not exactly the person you are looking to for info on vaccines. If you want to know what kind of materias to use when making the syringe, I'm your girl. Â And Dr. Oz is on the list. Really? Dr. Oz? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanaqui Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 I see the side that has the most money winning. Who owns the gold makes the rules....  Again, there are some 810 thousand people in the pharmaceutical industry in the US, and more in other countries. They're not all of them rolling in the dough. I promise you, if there was any validity to this claim, at least one of them would have jumped at the fame and fortune.  If there was any proof of these allegations, we'd all have heard it by now.  Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Word Nerd Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 "The following is a list of scientists and physicians who acknowledge that vaccines can and do harm some children and/or have some concern about a vaccine, combinations of vaccines, the vaccine schedule, or an ingredient or ingredients in vaccines. These professionals are not anti-vaccine (though some of the medical doctors are) rather they recognize that vaccines, like all pharmaceutical products, carry risks. They also know that scientific inquiry should never cease." Â I haven't seen anyone deny that vaccines carry risks, so I'm not sure what is so compelling about the list of names. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiana Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 Not just out of context, but without credentials. I am Caroline, PhD, but my PhD is in materials science. not exactly the person you are looking to for info on vaccines. If you want to know what kind of materias to use when making the syringe, I'm your girl. Â And Dr. Oz is on the list. Really? Dr. Oz? Â Ha, I was just typing that out. I have a PhD, too, but the only part of the arguments I'm really qualified to assess is the statistical part. Â (however, when someone is lying about the statistics, I feel fairly confident in assuming that their grasp of the immunological aspects is similarly shaky) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmseB Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 I see the side that has the most money winning. Â Who owns the gold makes the rules.... Bob Sears was on your list. You don't think he makes a ton of money off his "vaccine concerns"? $14.99 and he'll give you a schedule that hasn't been extensively researched, but at least it will make you feel better. And Dr.Oz? And who knows who else from that list since none of the names are affiliated with anything. Â Your list doesn't make any sense anyway. I could put my name on there with some letters after it and you'd never know why it was there, who I am or what I do, or why I have vaccine concerns. But you'd be convinced that it meant something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IsabelC Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 There are estimated to be 10-15 million doctors in the world. There are about 6 million working scientists in the world.  Now, suppose I be generous and discount half the scientists, because not all of them are in areas that really relate to vaccination (a lot of geologists wouldn't be experts on vaccines any more than I am). And suppose we take the lower estimate for the doctors, because some doctors are also working scientists and we don't want to double count them.  So, now we have a hypothetical 13 million individual practicing doctors and scientists with relevant expertise.  And you have listed, what, a couple hundred individuals with "concerns" regarding vaccines. So you have demonstrated that around 99.999% (conservative estimate) of experts are not sufficiently concerned to declare their concern.  Plus, from the source quoted: The following is a list of scientists and physicians who acknowledge that vaccines can and do harm some children and/or have some concern about a vaccine, combinations of vaccines, the vaccine schedule, or an ingredient or ingredients in vaccines. These professionals are not anti-vaccine (though some of the medical doctors are) rather they recognize that vaccines, like all pharmaceutical products, carry risks.   Sounds like some of those individuals are in favor of vaccination generally, but are questioning the schedule, or some other aspect.  If I were a betting woman, I'd be willing to bet that I can find more physicians who are concerned about alien abduction than physicians who are dinky di anti-vaccination. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jasperstone Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 Thimerosal-Derived Ethylmercury Is a Mitochondrial Toxin in Human Astrocytes- Â Â Â http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3395253/ Â Yes... except that, as has been explained to you in this thread, the preservative doesn't use methylmercury, it uses ethylmercury, which, as we're finding, is passed from the body faster and is much safer. So there was no risk. And even if there had been, it could've been avoided by not vaccinating children below a certain weight limit. Except that they chose to take the preservative out instead, which was also a valid choice, out of an abundance of caution. Â You have yet to answer my question. Please quote a section of the link that says that any child HAS been harmed. Not "could have happened", not "if this were methylmercury instead of ethylmercury", not "hypothetically speaking". If you cannot find such a section - and you won't, because it doesn't say so, because no child has been harmed - please do not rely on that argument again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jasperstone Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 http://www.greatergoodmovie.org/learn-more/science/ Â This page has lots of reports and findings showing that vaccines are not as benign as they (pharmaceutical industry) want you to believe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanaqui Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 Sounds like some of those individuals are in favor of vaccination generally, but are questioning the schedule, or some other aspect. Â And to be honest, I'd want to track down each one individually. Sometimes, fringe movements use the names of doctors and scientists without their knowledge or consent to bolster up viewpoints those people don't actually hold. Â Thimerosal-Derived Ethylmercury Is a Mitochondrial Toxin in Human Astrocytes-Â http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC3395253/ Â Â Before I read this - and I will, within the next few minutes - I have to ask: Did YOU read it? And did you comprehend what you read? Or did you just skim the title? Because I'm instituting a new personal rule: I'm not reading any more links unless I'm 95% sure the person who gave it to me read it and understood it first. Â Not to be harsh, but I'm looking at "We have investigated the toxicology of Thimerosal in normal human astrocytes, paying particular attention to mitochondrial function and the generation of specific oxidants", opening up a dictionary, and seriously questioning whether you put as much effort into the abstract as I'm about to. (Pop quiz: What the heck are astrocytes? No, seriously - I have no clue.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lang Syne Boardie Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 And to be honest, I'd want to track down each one individually. Sometimes, fringe movements use the names of doctors and scientists without their knowledge or consent to bolster up viewpoints those people don't actually hold. Â Â Before I read this - and I will, within the next few minutes - I have to ask: Did YOU read it? And did you comprehend what you read? Or did you just skim the title? Because I'm instituting a new personal rule: I'm not reading any more links unless I'm 95% sure the person who gave it to me read it and understood it first. Â Not to be harsh, but I'm looking at "We have investigated the toxicology of Thimerosal in normal human astrocytes, paying particular attention to mitochondrial function and the generation of specific oxidants", opening up a dictionary, and seriously questioning whether you put as much effort into the abstract as I'm about to. (Pop quiz: What the heck are astrocytes? No, seriously - I have no clue.) Â ROFL! I was just in the process of typing, "Before we go any further, please define and explain in your own words "mitochondrial toxin" and "human astrocytes" and what the former has to do with the latter and how you know." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jasperstone Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 And you have listed, what, a couple hundred individuals with "concerns" regarding vaccines.  So you have demonstrated that around 99.999% (conservative estimate) of experts are not sufficiently concerned to declare their concern.  --------------------  No, they have faith in the industry that provides them a career. They are *taught* from the lecturers that have been *educated* by the promoters of the pharmaceutical companies.  Once they start to differ in anyway shape or form, or stop giving routine vaccinations, the medical board is on to them. So either they comply completely, or they risk getting warnings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanaqui Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 I scrolled down to the conclusion (because to be honest, I don't have nearly the background to work my way through the rest), and found that the work was sponsored in part by Autism Speaks. Blech, now I feel dirty. Â I'm going to go and re-read the abstract and then the conclusion, and while I do I'd like the answer to one question, Jasperstone. Well, one besides the one I already asked. If I'm putting in this much effort, answering my questions is really the very least you can do. Â What is your goal in posting that? Exactly what point do you think it proves? Because this conversation has jumped around a bit, and I can't formulate a response unless I know what I'm responding to. Is it supposed to prove "there's a big ol' conspiracy" or "all vaccines are dangerous" or "lots of scientists think this is a bad idea" or what? Just a little soundbite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lang Syne Boardie Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 And you have listed, what, a couple hundred individuals with "concerns" regarding vaccines.  So you have demonstrated that around 99.999% (conservative estimate) of experts are not sufficiently concerned to declare their concern.  --------------------  No, they have faith in the industry that provides them a career. They are *taught* from the lecturers that have been *educated* by the promoters of the pharmaceutical companies.  Once they start to differ in anyway shape or form, or stop giving routine vaccinations, the medical board is on to them. So either they comply completely, or they risk getting warnings.  This is paranoia. Unless your list of names is entirely peopled by medical personnel who have been punished by boards, even you don't believe it; it's just emotion and reaction talking.  Irrationality combined with bombing us with links obviously gathered through manic googling sessions -- seriously, none of this will convince anyone. And it's making the entire board look bad, as if we don't even know anything at all about logic and science and must hurl hysteria as our only rhetorical device. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jasperstone Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 And to be honest, I'd want to track down each one individually. Sometimes, fringe movements use the names of doctors and scientists without their knowledge or consent to bolster up viewpoints those people don't actually hold. Â Â Before I read this - and I will, within the next few minutes - I have to ask: Did YOU read it? And did you comprehend what you read? Or did you just skim the title? Because I'm instituting a new personal rule: I'm not reading any more links unless I'm 95% sure the person who gave it to me read it and understood it first. Â Not to be harsh, but I'm looking at "We have investigated the toxicology of Thimerosal in normal human astrocytes, paying particular attention to mitochondrial function and the generation of specific oxidants", opening up a dictionary, and seriously questioning whether you put as much effort into the abstract as I'm about to. (Pop quiz: What the heck are astrocytes? No, seriously - I have no clue.) It's in a Toxic Journal, so it is complex. Yes, I skimmed.... but that doesn't take away the findings just because you and I can't understand it. What jumped out is the blood brain barrier being insulted by the Mercury. Â Â Gee, can't win..... either too complex or a conspiracy theory thread. What would be a happy medium? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanaqui Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 What jumped out is the blood brain barrier being insulted by the Mercury. Â Okay. So what does that mean, Jasperstone? How do you know it's a bad thing? What does this do? How do you know the results they found are long-lasting or permanent? What, exactly, does this contribute to your main point (and what was your point?) Â And where does it even say that the blood-brain barrier (do you know what that is and why it's important) is "insulted by the Mercury"? Â If you don't comprehend the abstract (really, nobody does expect you to read the entire thing, not even me), how can you understand the point they're making? How can you see if their results are replicable? Â I will tell you the part that jumps out to me: Â This may be clinically relevant in the setting of a patient who harbors a known or unknown mitochondrial disorder. In the setting of a mitochondrial disorder, a specific mitochondrial toxin could be life altering or life threatening. Â They are stating that this may be relevant information to a subsection of the population, those with mitochondrial disorders. How many people have mitochondrial disorders? About 1 out of 2,000, according to a FAQ on the subject, and from the FAQ it sounds like they're in bad shape to begin with, with or without ethylmercury. Â Are they stating that the rest of the population, the remaining 99.95% of us should be concerned? Doesn't look like it, but I admit, I'm only on my second read-through and the vocabulary is a bit above my pay grade. I'd love the input from somebody in the field, who doesn't have to read with a dictionary! Â Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jasperstone Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 This is paranoia. Unless your list of names is entirely peopled by medical personnel who have been punished by boards, even you don't believe it; it's just emotion and reaction talking. Â ---------------- Â I have been told that personally by a doctor, so I do believe it. But, you aren't going to believe that anyway. But it's arrogant of you to say what you did, as you don't know me or the people I have met through working with autistic children using Applied Behavioral Analysis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lang Syne Boardie Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 This is paranoia. Unless your list of names is entirely peopled by medical personnel who have been punished by boards, even you don't believe it; it's just emotion and reaction talking. Â ---------------- Â I have been told that personally by a doctor, so I do believe it. But, you aren't going to believe that anyway. But it's arrogant of you to say what you did, as you don't know me or the people I have met through working with autistic children using Applied Behavioral Analysis. Â No, we don't know you, as you have not introduced yourself with your credentials and experience that might lend credibility to your incredible citations of dubious sources. All we have are the incredible citations of dubious sources. Again -- logic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeanM Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 It's in a Toxic Journal, so it is complex. Yes, I skimmed.... but that doesn't take away the findings just because you and I can't understand it. What jumped out is the blood brain barrier being insulted by the Mercury.  Just FYI, the paper you linked did not have any information about the blood brain barrier. The experiments in that paper are all done on cultured cells - astrocytes exposed directly to thimerosal.  Edited to add - I don't think anyone disputes that mercury can be toxic.  Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanaqui Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 I have been told that personally by a doctor, so I do believe it. But, you aren't going to believe that anyway. Â Is that the same doctor who told you that juice cures cancer? Â But it's arrogant of you to say what you did, as you don't know me or the people I have met through working with autistic children using Applied Behavioral Analysis. Â Seriously, you should stop trying to appeal to authority. It's a weak argument, especially when your authorities are counter-establishment, and it makes the rest of your argument look even weaker by comparison. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaffeineDiary Posted February 18, 2015 Author Share Posted February 18, 2015 If you don't understand what you have read, how can you possibly in good conscience post it as "proof" of anything? Â Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jasperstone Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 Is that the same doctor who told you that juice cures cancer? Â Â Seriously, you should stop trying to appeal to authority. It's a weak argument, especially when your authorities are counter-establishment, and it makes the rest of your argument look even weaker by comparison. My friend wasn't a doctor. He juiced for half a year and there was no sign of cancer...it was over twenty years ago now. Â Â I wasn't trying to... I was just stating that saying- 'You don't believe this' is arrogant. Â So, again, on one hand it's helpful, as it gives a background of where I'm coming from.... but to *you* it's me trying to appeal to authority. Sigh! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaffeineDiary Posted February 18, 2015 Author Share Posted February 18, 2015 I think at this point of the conversation, this video is warranted. Â https://www.youtube.com/embed/HhGuXCuDb1U Â On the down side, NSFW for language. Â On the upside, required watching for wisdom and humor. Â Â Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lang Syne Boardie Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 My friend wasn't a doctor. He juiced for half a year and there was no sign of cancer...it was over twenty years ago now.   I wasn't trying to... I was just stating that saying- 'You don't believe this' is arrogant.  So, again, on one hand it's helpful, as it gives a background of where I'm coming from.... but to *you* it's me trying to appeal to authority. Sigh!  "Appeal to authority" is a logical fallacy.  That's what she means, that you are trying to persuade by fallacious means whether you intend to or not. It's an objective observation of a technique.The criticism isn't meant to doubt that you believe a doctor told you xyz so therefore you'd like us to believe him through you, but rather to explain that the "authority" doesn't hold for anyone who was not privy to that conversation (therefore unable to verify it, or lend it credibility, in the first person).  Learn more here: http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/21-appeal-to-authority Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jasperstone Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 "Appeal to authority" is a logical fallacy. Â That's what she means, that you are trying to persuade by fallacious means whether you intend to or not. It's an objective observation of a technique.The criticism isn't meant to doubt that you believe a doctor told you xyz so therefore you'd like us to believe him through you, but rather to explain that the "authority" doesn't hold for anyone who was not privy to that conversation (therefore unable to verify it, or lend it credibility, in the first person). Â Learn more here: http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/21-appeal-to-authority I wasn't trying to.... it just gives you the background to why I believe this is true. That, and the fact that my dh was injured by a vaccine. Â You stated that I don't believe that etc... Â I do have personal experience, so I do believe it. But if I pull that card then it's just my word against the industry anyway. Â My only motivation is I care. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jasperstone Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 1.4. Localization of Organomercury-Induced Damage  Ethylmercury is a lipophilic cation which can cross the blood-brain barrier [19Ă¢â‚¬â€œ22]. The octanol/water partition coefficients of methyl and ethylmercury are 1.4 to 1.8 [21, 23], at intracellular pH and [ClĂ¢Ë†â€™], thus both organomercury compounds will predominately exist as lipophilic cations inside cells. Mitchell demonstrated that lipophilic cations accumulate inside mitochondria, in a Nernstian fashion, driven by the steady state membrane potential [24]. Given that the typical mitochondrial membrane potential of astrocytes and neurons is between 140Ă¢â‚¬â€œ170mV [25], one would, a prior, expect the concentration of these organomercury compounds within mitochondria to be approximately 1000 times greater than the cytosolic concentration.....    quote name="JeanM" post="6195224" timestamp="1424228394"]  Just FYI, the paper you linked did not have any information about the blood brain barrier. The experiments in that paper are all done on cultured cells - astrocytes exposed directly to thimerosal.  Edited to add - I don't think anyone disputes that mercury can be toxic.  Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeanM Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 1.4. Localization of Organomercury-Induced Damage  Ethylmercury is a lipophilic cation which can cross the blood-brain barrier [19Ă¢â‚¬â€œ22]. The octanol/water partition coefficients of methyl and ethylmercury are 1.4 to 1.8 [21, 23], at intracellular pH and [ClĂ¢Ë†â€™], thus both organomercury compounds will predominately exist as lipophilic cations inside cells. Mitchell demonstrated that lipophilic cations accumulate inside mitochondria, in a Nernstian fashion, driven by the steady state membrane potential [24]. Given that the typical mitochondrial membrane potential of astrocytes and neurons is between 140Ă¢â‚¬â€œ170mV [25], one would, a prior, expect the concentration of these organomercury compounds within mitochondria to be approximately 1000 times greater than the cytosolic concentration.....    That section is from the introduction of the paper, which is giving you background information. The results of the study have nothing to do with the blood-brain barrier. Like I said, the experiments described in the paper are all done in cells in culture - not on live animals or humans.  Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingiguana Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 Why are we back talking about thimerosal again? Was that not removed from all vaccines meant for young children (except the flu vaccine)?  Maybe we're just talking vaccines in general now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haiku Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 That list is meaningless. My family member, whose words I quoted earlier, is an immunologist and MD and has worked for Paul Offit. He is concerned about vaccines, as his quoted words make clear. I think pretty much everyone is concerned about vaccines. Everyone wants them to be safe and effective. No one wants them to have negative side effects. Â It is a fallacy that some people/doctors/scientists are "concerned' about vaccines and others are not. It is also a fallacy that the majority of the medical establishment wants to hide/bury/deny issues with vaccines. They are very upfront about any issues they have that actually have evidence. It's the unsubstantiated/unable to be substantiated issues that they warn people from getting upset about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeanM Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 Why are we back talking about thimerosal again? Was that not removed from all vaccines meant for young children (except the flu vaccine)?  Maybe we're just talking vaccines in general now?  Sorry, you're right, I shouldn't have prolonged the thimerosal discussion. I just felt the need to correct a misinterpretation of a scientific paper.  Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.