clocker bob wrote:

AlBStern wrote:

clocker bob wrote:
Still calling this a 'conspiracy theory'?

Has anyone done that?

Newberry has, by implication:

newberry wrote:I'd like to see evidence that mercury in vaccines causes autism; if anyone has any, please post it.

He then pasted from a wikipedia article that contains evidence that mercury and autism are linked, so he willfully ignored what was in his own source to insinuate that any suggestion of a mercury=autism link was outside the realm of mainstream science, and thus, a conspiracy theory.

Bob, again, we can both point to anecdotal evidence supporting almost anything. I missed where in the Wikipedia article that there was direct empirical evidence of the vaccine/autism link. Could you please cite it?

I didn't imply that there was a conspiracy theory; I don't believe that. I'm simply asking for evidence.

If you really think that this:

I'd like to see evidence that mercury in vaccines causes autism; if anyone has any, please post it.

is equivalent to crying "conspiracy theory," I'd say you're being presumptuous.

newberry wrote:I agree there is conflicting evidence, that's why I said that each of us can provide anecdotal evidence to support our views. I'm asking for solid empirical evidence that vaccines cause autism (beyond correlation).

Well, we don't have it yet, but the correlation is lining up on our side.
Any comment on this?

Political analysts and the parents of autistic children were baffled when it was learned, shortly after the passage of the Homeland Security Act in 2002, that a rider to the bill had been added just prior to passage, that would shield Eli Lilly and the pharmaceutical industry from billions of dollars in anticipated lawsuits over vaccines. Known as the "Eli Lilly Protection Act", the provision was designed to force lawsuits over the preservative thimerosal, calling the suits into a special 'vaccine court'. The provision could have resulted in the dismissal of thousands of cases filed by parents, who contend mercury in thimerosal poisoned their children, causing autism and other neurological ailments, but the rider was subsequently repealed when the next session of congress convened in 2003.

Is that not about the most suspiciuous thing you've ever heard of? It might be one of the most suspicious things I've ever heard of, and I've been studying 9/11 for five years.

newberry wrote:Could you please cite the passage(s) of those studies that shows direct evidence of vaccines causing autism?

Do you feel good granting an industry this wide an exemption for their mistakes? I don't. I know mercury causes neurological disorders. I know these disorders spiked coincident to the increase in Thimerosal. Better keep me off a jury.

In other words, the Geiers report the public's response to a scare as if it were meaningful data.

That's a lie. How have their studies passed peer review if that's the case?

newberry wrote:But just because there is good reason to be critical and skeptical of drug companies doesn't mean that mercury in vaccines cause autism. If it does, that should be evident by doing careful, thorough studies, and using the scientific method.

I think that the science funding process will slant any study in favor of Big Pharm. We will see. Some lawyers will beat the industry, like with tobacco. The government will not help in this process, it will hinder, because we know that money talks.

Well, we don't have it yet, but the correlation is lining up on our side.
Any comment on this?

Yes, I'm glad that you admit there is no solid evidence yet. I will believe in the vaccine/autism link when I see that evidence.

Is that not about the most suspiciuous thing you've ever heard of? It might be one of the most suspicious things I've ever heard of, and I've been studying 9/11 for five years.

No, not the most suspicious thing I've ever heard. It doesn't surprise me at all that a powerful corporation would try to influence legislation to protect themselves. But that's not evidence that vaccines cause autism.

Do you feel good granting an industry this wide an exemption for their mistakes? I don't. I know mercury causes neurological disorders. I know these disorders spiked coincident to the increase in Thimoseral. Better keep me off a jury.

No, I think it's a terrible idea to grant them a huge loophole. I think drug companies and makers of homeopathy and herbal remedies should all be held to a high standard, and demonstrate that their products are safe and efficacious. (As I stated ad nauseam on this thread.)

Wait. If autism is supposed to be tied to mercury exposure, would the diagnoses shoot up a great deal immediately and then level off, barring the introduction of greater quantities, rather than rise gradually over time?

I mean, unless the input is changing...

I think that the science funding process will slant any study in favor of Big Pharm. We will see. Some lawyers will beat the industry, like with tobacco. The government will not help in this process, it will hinder, because we know that money talks.

Of course it's important to look at where the money comes from when it comes to funding studies. What do you mean by "science funding process"? What about funded studies that show that pharmaceutical drugs are very dangerous? Do you believe those?

Another excerpt from the Slate article I linked to earlier:

Probably the most damning epidemiological evidence against the vaccines-cause-autism theory, and another point that Kennedy gets wrong, is contained in the document that got critics started on their claim of a vaccine-provoked epidemic—a 1999 Department of Developmental Services report from California. Like reports from other states in the country, it shows a dramatic increase in autistic children seeking state services, from 2,778 autistics on the rolls in 1987 to 10,360 in 1998. An impressive diagram of this increase was projected on a screen at a Committee for Government Reform hearing chaired by Indiana Republican Dan Burton, who believes that vaccines gave his grandson autism. "Look at that graph," Burton said. "They are having an epidemic out there." But the graph actually vindicated vaccines. MMR vaccination began in children born in 1970, but there was no increase in autism reports in the state until 1980, which also happened to be the first year the psychiatric definition of autism spectrum disorders changed. A 2001 study showed that while MMR vaccination rates increased 14 percent from 1980 to 1994, autism intakes in California's state programs increased 373 percent. The increase also showed no apparent connection to the addition of thimerosal-containing vaccines to state pediatric immunization schedules.

A far more obvious explanation for the increase in autism rates in California was the one that mainstream autism experts expounded: diagnostic changes, new laws that expanded federal payments to care for autistics, and greater parental awareness of these resources. In 1990, Congress made autism one of the disabilities that qualified for federal funding. Thereafter, states were obliged to report all cases of autism.

Why would the rate rise if it's directly linked to a fixed amount in the vaccine? These are shots which are administered to everyone, and a percentage is already normalized to the exponential growth and decay of our population. An exponential increase on top of an exponential increase is scary, but if anything it might suggest against something like a fixed amount of mercury which is administered on a known constant basis, unless some other variable is increasing the risk- such as an increase(exponential or not, risk of something can be exponential as well as linear) year by year of the culprit.

As a scientist, (and more logically, as a mathematician), I don't think we shouldn't be worried about the vaccine, but we shouldn't automatically take that it's the vaccine unless we know for sure.

My little brother had adverse reactions to immunizations as a baby, and ended up getting epilepsy. He had grand-mal seizures til he was 4 (and actually his heart was stopped for 15 minutes at 2, but he was revived) These were immunizations purported to be safe, but not for everyone, so I don't doubt that babies are delicate towards immunizations, I am just saying that this exponential growth in RATE of cases is scary, and on top of studying the vaccines, we should be studying other things.

So bob, I don't doubt that you could be correct, but we can't be blinded by what we think is the cause when mathematical evidence might suggest otherwise. The cumulative load may be the best explanation, but then we need evidence of a cumulative increase in mercury.

I would be extremely curious to hear about autism rates in developing countries where mercury content is known to be high in their environment and consumables, but where they might not have the vaccines we get.

juice wrote:Why would the rate rise if it's directly linked to a fixed amount in the vaccine? These are shots which are administered to everyone, and a percentage is already normalized to the exponential growth and decay of our population. An exponential increase on top of an exponential increase is scary, but if anything it might suggest against something like a fixed amount of mercury which is administered on a known constant basis, unless some other variable is increasing the risk- such as an increase(exponential or not, risk of something can be exponential as well as linear) year by year of the culprit.

Your paragraph has confused me. Are you arguing that the rise in cases three years after the increase in mercury in vaccines and then the decline in new cases following the reduction in mercury content ( the exponential increase in question ) does not indicate that the Thimoseral is the likely culprit? If all else is constant, what else should we be blaming?

As a scientist, (and more logically, as a mathematician), I don't think we shouldn't be worried about the vaccine, but we shouldn't automatically take that it's the vaccine unless we know for sure.

No, we should keep an open mind, and do a study that we can trust. Looking over the methodology of the Institute for Medicine study, I don't think that it has closed the book on this. The increase in autism is undeniable, and I don't think it can be explained by a greater tendency by physicians to call a child autistic. There is an environmental cause in effect.

I would be extremely curious to hear about autism rates in developing countries where mercury content is known to be high in their environment and consumables, but where they might not have the vaccines we get.

The control group of Amish kids who were not vaccinated speaks volumews, in my opinion. We should look at other sources of mercury in developing countries, too, and examine the rates of autism. I bet we will find that it is a first world/vaccinated issue.

As a scientist, (and more logically, as a mathematician), I don't think we shouldn't be worried about the vaccine, but we shouldn't automatically take that it's the vaccine unless we know for sure.

We should worry if the vaccines are not proven to be safe. If they are proven to be safe, no need to worry. We should have some skepticism about any treatment, but there's no need to be paranoid.

I would be extremely curious to hear about autism rates in developing countries where mercury content is known to be high in their environment and consumables, but where they might not have the vaccines we get.

Me too. Again, if mercury causes autism, it seems to me it wouldn't be all that difficult to prove that. So far, after all the studies, I don't think anyone has (kindly correct me if I'm wrong).