More nonsense about HPV vaccine

[Pebble]

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/131817/Jab-as-deadly-as-the-cancer-

Madness really.

Take some old articles by Prof Diane Harper who has provided some patients for a few trials (note her concerns specifically relate to failure to have cervical smear testing after vaccination)

http://fairness.com/resources/relation?relation_id=81910


pretend that these are new ideas and related to the death of natalie Morton.

Then throw in the views of a complete lunatic (Richar Halvorsen) and you get to create the impression that there is a body of expert opinion that Natalie died as a result of the vaccine and that cervical cancer may well be less dangerous that the vaccine.

Press complaints commission notified on the basis od inaccuracy.

[bobdezon]

It is difficult to believe, that medically qualified doctors can still make idiotic statements like this. Surely they would be aware of post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy? It must be part of medical training, I mean it is integral to examination and diagnosis right?

[bishbashbong]

On what basis is the Express article 'nonsense'?

The HPV jab proved to be very much deadlier to Natalie Morton than a cancer she most likely would never have contracted.

The controlled main stream media were very quick to report that Natalie had died from a "serious underlying medical condition", the very next day after reporting that she had died as a result of the jab.


The postmortem examination was carried out with unprecedented speed. That and the unusual step taken by Grainger in making a public announcement of the early results, not much more than a day after Natalie's death, are a clear indication of the anxiety among public health officials over the potential threat to the national teenage vaccination programme.
Natalie was given the HPV jab, which protects against cervical cancer, on Monday, along with other girls in her year. She was taken to Coventry University hospital and died at lunchtime. Three other girls from the school were reported to have experienced dizziness and nausea after vaccination, but their symptoms were described as mild and they were not taken to hospital.http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/sep/29/cervical-cancer-vaccination-natalie-morton

(http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/sep/29/cervical-cancer-vaccination-natalie-morton)
Please tell me that you do not seriously believe that a girl is vaccinated, dies within hours, has a postmortem completed after only 24 hours and the conclusion has completely elliminated the vaccine as the cause of death.


Even if the story of the tumour is true, why say "serious underlying medical condition"?
When someone dies suddenly and a postmortem reveals a serious underlying medical condition, it would be a heart attack, cancer or whatever.


Also if it was true that a tumour was the cause of death, then elliminating the vaccine as the trigger after only 24 hours (that is 24 hours after Natalie died, not 24 hours of examination and tests) is basically, professional incompetence of the highest degree.

[Admin]

Bishbashbong,

Given the details of the case, I think a more pertinent question is: why do you still want to blame the vaccine when all the evidence points to other causes?

[tolman]

The HPV jab proved to be very much deadlier to Natalie Morton than a cancer she most likely would never have contracted.
In hindsight, it does seem unlikely she would have contracted HPV, let alone cervical cancer, since she wouldn't have lived long enough.


Please tell me that you do not seriously believe that a girl is vaccinated, dies within hours, has a postmortem completed after only 24 hours and the conclusion has completely elliminated the vaccine as the cause of death.
So you don't believe it's possible to do at least a preliminary examination in under a day?
How long does your amazing medical experience suggest it should take in a case where response time is obviously important?


Even if the story of the tumour is true, why say "serious underlying medical condition"?
When someone dies suddenly and a postmortem reveals a serious underlying medical condition, it would be a heart attack, cancer or whatever.
It seems to be a fairly common thing to say when a condition has been identified, the authorities don't want to be specific in public before notifying family, etc, but they want to give some indication as to what the cause wasn't, to avoid people jumping to conclusions.
Sometimes, it is decided that it isn't necessary to go into details (such as with various people who died after contracting swine flu, but who had other medical problems) if details wouldn't give useful information but might infringe on privacy.
It's called being sensitive to people's feelings.


Also if it was true that a tumour was the cause of death, then elliminating the vaccine as the trigger after only 24 hours (that is 24 hours after Natalie died, not 24 hours of examination and tests) is basically, professional incompetence of the highest degree.
If a young person with a heart condition collapses and dies when playing football, it's not usual to consider football as the cause of death.
My grandmother didn't die as a result of ballroom dancing, she died from a heart attack, the precise timing of which was influenced by the physical effort of ballroom dancing.
If some event (exam stress, laughing at the telly, whatever) influences an underlying condition which was just waiting to go off, it's not normal to say that that event is what killed them.

However much you may want to package the vaccine up as responsible for the death, it doesn't seem that it was in any honestly meaningful sense.

If instead she'd collapsed after arguing with a friend, would you be haranguing that friend on the internet and blaming them for the death?

Of course you wouldn't, since that would clearly be stupid.

[Cuddles]

When someone dies suddenly and a postmortem reveals a serious underlying medical condition, it would be a heart attack, cancer or whatever.

And in this case it was. What exactly is the problem here?


Also if it was true that a tumour was the cause of death, then elliminating the vaccine as the trigger after only 24 hours (that is 24 hours after Natalie died, not 24 hours of examination and tests) is basically, professional incompetence of the highest degree.

So you're claiming they're incompetent because they did their work quickly? Strange, that's usually called pretty much opposite of incompetence.

When it comes down to it, the vaccine didn't really need eliminating at all. As soon as they found out she had an advanced cancer spread through several major organs it was obvious that the vaccine could not have been the cause, since tumours that large and advanced cannot appear within a couple of hours.

[dougie]

The controlled main stream media were very quick to report that Natalie had died from a "serious underlying medical condition", the very next day after reporting that she had died as a result of the jab.The media obviously need more controlling if they report that Natalie died from the jab, before knowing the facts.;)

[tolman]

The media obviously need more controlling if they report that Natalie died from the jab, before knowing the facts.;)
bishbashbong should think themselves lucky that the press are still reporting in English.

According to a bloke down the pub, next year, the lizard people running the EU are going to require that everything is in French.

[Matt]

On what basis is the Express article 'nonsense'?

The HPV jab proved to be very much deadlier to Natalie Morton than a cancer she most likely would never have contracted.

The controlled main stream media were very quick to report that Natalie had died from a "serious underlying medical condition", the very next day after reporting that she had died as a result of the jab.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/sep/29/cervical-cancer-vaccination-natalie-morton

(http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/sep/29/cervical-cancer-vaccination-natalie-morton)
Please tell me that you do not seriously believe that a girl is vaccinated, dies within hours, has a postmortem completed after only 24 hours and the conclusion has completely elliminated the vaccine as the cause of death.


Even if the story of the tumour is true, why say "serious underlying medical condition"?
When someone dies suddenly and a postmortem reveals a serious underlying medical condition, it would be a heart attack, cancer or whatever.


Also if it was true that a tumour was the cause of death, then elliminating the vaccine as the trigger after only 24 hours (that is 24 hours after Natalie died, not 24 hours of examination and tests) is basically, professional incompetence of the highest degree.


Haha. Look at what I wrote sarcastically a few days ago.

http://www.skeptics.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?p=73813&highlight=tumour#post73813

http://www.skeptics.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?p=73828&highlight=tumour#post73828

Then someone comes along with a real world version of this crazy, even more stupid than the most daft parody I could come up with. I mean for goodness sake, your reason for rejecting this tumour as to explanation boils down to it being too convincing.

Damn right they put a high priority on investigating this. Firstly if the vaccine really was to blame they might need to act fast to prevent further harm. Secondly they knew that irresponsible anti vax/pro disease morons like yourself would be quick to exploit this poor girls and her family and put their life saving efforts at risk.

I think acting fast to reduce the number of people killed by misinformation peddled by you and other pillocks like you is entirely reasonable.

[tolman]

Press complaints commission notified on the basis od inaccuracy.
I'd wonder why the doctors involved don't sue Dr Richard Halvorsen for libel, or report him to the BMA, for effectively accusing them of making up the tumour story, which unless he was misquoted by the Express (surely not!) is what he did.


“If you have cancer you have symptoms. Clearly public health doctors are desperate to turn the debate away from the vaccine as a possible cause.”
If you have cancer you have symptoms -> if she didn't have symptoms, she didn't have cancer -> doctors are lying.

[Cuddles]

If you have cancer you have symptoms -> if she didn't have symptoms, she didn't have cancer -> doctors are lying.

Of course, that also assumes that she didn't actually have symptoms. Maybe she did, but they just hadn't been serious to see a doctor about and hadn't been diagnosed as caused by the cancer.

Incidentally, I've known at least 5 people with cancer. Only one of them ever had visible symptoms.

[Croydon Bob]

Incidentally, I've known at least 5 people with cancer. Only one of them ever had visible symptoms.

Indeed. I knew someone who died of cancer without ever being aware that they had a problem. Not unlike this case, but older.

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

Of course, that also assumes that she didn't actually have symptoms. Maybe she did, but they just hadn't been serious to see a doctor about and hadn't been diagnosed as caused by the cancer.

Incidentally, I've known at least 5 people with cancer. Only one of them ever had visible symptoms.

I thought I read somewhere that she had been suffering breathlessness but doctors hadn't managed to diagnose anything yet. I could be wrong however.

It isn't stopping morons like this alleging conspiracy either:

http://www.naturalnews.com/027151_cancer_cervical_cancer_Natalie_Morton.html


Today, the mainstream media is reporting an obviously-fabricated explanation for her death. A pathologist is declaring that Natalie died from a "malignant chest tumor" that just coincidentally and suddenly killed her within hours after she received the cervical cancer vaccine.

This explanation is obviously a cover story to protect the vaccine industry; and it's not even a convincing cover story at that. Natalie Morton had never been diagnosed with a chest tumor before, and she showed absolutely no symptoms of a cancer tumor. Chest tumors don't just "lash out" and attack their hosts all of a sudden, without warning. A typical death from a cancer tumor is more often a slow, painful wasting away that can take months or years. Natalie Morton was killed in hours, and the description of her symptoms exactly matches what might be expected from an inflammatory reaction to a chemical vaccine.

But why would a pathologist cover up the true cause of Natalie Morton's death? It's simple: There are billions of dollars in profits at stake. Natalie's death threatened to put the entire first-world cervical vaccination program on hold. "News of Morton's death came shortly before U.S. health regulators again delayed a decision on whether to allow Glaxo to sell Cervarix in the United States where a panel of specialists has recommended its use," reports Reuters.

The continuation of global cervical cancer vaccination programs -- which generate billions in profits -- absolutely required blaming Natalie's death on something other than the vaccine. Blaming it on cancer is very easy to do, since every person living today has cancerous micro-tumors in their body right now. All the pathologist had to do was locate such a micro-tumor in Natalie's body, then dismiss the vaccine altogether.

[Pebble]

Am J Forensic Med Pathol. 1998 Mar;19(1):69-71. Links
Sudden death due to undetected mediastinal germ cell tumor.

Sanchez-Hermosillo E, Sikirica M, Carter D, Valigorsky JM.
Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Berkshire Medical Center, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Pittsfield, USA.
A 32-year old man, apparently asymptomatic, was found dead in his apartment. Autopsy revealed a large necrotic mediastinal mass with liver and occipital brain metastases, the latter having produced acute intraparenchymal and intraventricular hemorrhage with cerebellar tonsillar herniation. Histologically, the mediastinal mass and metastases were consistent with immature extragonadal teratoma, with malignant transformation of the intestinal-type epithelium. Undiagnosed neoplasms as causes of sudden death are quite rare and usually reported in older age groups; however, in one study of autopsies in a 25-to 46-year-old age group, a significant 3.2% was reported. Germ cell tumors of the mediastinum are the most common extragonadal primary site, accounting for approximately 50%-70% of extragonadal germ cell tumors (EGCTs) and primarily affecting 20- to 35-year-old men. EGCTs are usually symptomatic at the time of diagnosis, although a large proportion may be asymptomatic. This case represents one the few reported cases of sudden death as a result of mediastinal EGCT; it also demonstrates the natural course of this disease and underscores the importance of medicolegal autopsies in cases of sudden death.


Cancer certainly is a cause of sudden death in asymptomatic individuals. It is however a relatively speaking, uncommon cause of 'sudden death'. Rapid death within hours of days of first diagnosis is quite common, but if you are not dead within 2 hours of first symptoms it is not classified as 'sudden death' and therefore not specifically recorded for analysis. I get the impression from that which was published in the media (reliability level too low to quantify) that this was rapid death rather than sudden death.

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

It very nearly got John Hartson recently as well. He was reputedly minutes from death after his undiagnosed testicular cancer had spread.

Closer to home, I have a rugby team mate who had a runaway undiagnosed testicular cancer as well. By the time it was diagnosed, it had overtaken half his body. He survived but it was touch and go for a long time.

It's such a horrible diseases, it really does anger me to see idiots claim things about cancer that are quite plainly untrue. I don't think they realise the potential damage they are doing to people's understanding of cancer.

[Pebble]

PCC have confirmed that they are investigating this article,will update on progress.

I note the offending article is no longer available on line, I wonder if that means anything.

[bindeweede]

Have peeps read Ben Goldacre's comments?

http://www.badscience.net/2009/10/jabs-as-bad-as-the-cancer/#more-1374

[Julia]

Another winner from Ben Goldacre! If I were the supposedly anti-vax Professor I'd be looking into the possibility of suing the Express for libel.

[bindeweede]

PCC have confirmed that they are investigating this article,will update on progress.

I note the offending article is no longer available on line, I wonder if that means anything.

All t'best with your complaint. Inevitably, there are some modest criticisms of the PCC.

http://www.septicisle.info/2009/07/press-complaints-commission-still-weak.html

[Pebble]

Have peeps read Ben Goldacre's comments?

http://www.badscience.net/2009/10/jabs-as-bad-as-the-cancer/#more-1374


Thanks for this, probably explains why PCC have decided to take this moderately seriously:


The article has now disappeared from the Express website (http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/131817/Jab-as-deadly-as-the-cancer-), and Professor Harper has complained to the PCC. “I fully support the HPV vaccines,” she says. “I believe that in general they are safe in most women. I told the Express all of this.”

[DrS]

It turns out that Natalie Morton, the 14-year-old who died after receiving a cervical cancer vaccination, had an undiagnosed tumour in her heart.


An inquest at Coventry heard that her condition was so rare a pathologist had never seen it in a child before.
Deputy coroner for Coventry Louise Hunt found that Natalie's death was not linked to the HPV vaccine and recorded a verdict of natural causes.
She said: "Natalie had a previously unrecognised, extensive tumour of the heart which ultimately caused her death. It was a death that could have happened at any time."
Pathologist Alexander Kolar told the inquest the 15cm (5.9in) tumour was a malignant lymphoma, which was aggressive and growing rapidly.
BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/coventry_warwickshire/8654711.stm)
Moreover, far from showing no prior symptoms, the article reports the girl's father as saying that she had been unwell for three months prior to receiving the vaccine.

[Pebble]

It turns out that Natalie Morton, the 14-year-old who died after receiving a cervical cancer vaccination, had an undiagnosed tumour in her heart.

Moreover, far from showing no prior symptoms, the article reports the girl's father as saying that she had been unwell for three months prior to receiving the vaccine.

Thanks for the update. The PCC went with the complaint from Prof Harper, so I have not had direct feedback.

[Mrknownothing]

[QUOTE
"Professor Harper has complained to the PCC. “I fully support the HPV vaccines,” she says. “I believe that in general they are safe in most women. I told the Express all of this.”[/QUOTE]

Unless you pretest positive for HPV, before you have the vaccine, according to the FDA and then the cervical cancer rate goes up by 44%. Shame they didn't tell anyone that in England before they launched the campaign, but I suppose they have money to make and populations to settle? Bit like swine flu really, if you can make money out of it, hey it's ok, make the science up afterwards.

I suppose that's why she 'believes' they are safe because she actually doesn't know. Funny how it's ok for a medical scientist to have beliefs but not for the rest of us?

[PaulW99]

Not sure exactly what you're claiming here (because of your poor grammar) but do you have a reputable link?

[tolman]

"Professor Harper has complained to the PCC. “I fully support the HPV vaccines,” she says. “I believe that in general they are safe in most women. I told the Express all of this.”Unless you pretest positive for HPV, before you have the vaccine, according to the FDA and then the cervical cancer rate goes up by 44%. Shame they didn't tell anyone that in England before they launched the campaign, but I suppose they have money to make and populations to settle? Bit like swine flu really, if you can make money out of it, hey it's ok, make the science up afterwards.

I suppose that's why she 'believes' they are safe because she actually doesn't know. Funny how it's ok for a medical scientist to have beliefs but not for the rest of us?
Firstly, which part of the word 'most' are you having difficulty with?

[tolman]

Secondly, are the FDA recommending pre-testing?

Thirdly, the general idea is that it's best to vaccinate females before they become sexually active.

[Pebble]

Secondly, are the FDA recommending pre-testing?

Thirdly, the general idea is that it's best to vaccinate females before they become sexually active.


This is an unresolved issue, some registry data raised the possibility of an increase in cancer in some groups based on low event rates most likely explained by predispositon bias. This is not quality data, but the issue is being studied - as with anything realted to cancer, definitive results will take years.

Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. (javascript:AL_get(this, 'jour', 'Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand.');) 2009;88(1):27-35.
The efficacy of HPV 16/18 vaccines on sexually active 18-23 year old women and the impact of HPV vaccination on organized cervical cancer screening.

Sigurdsson K (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Sigurdsson%20K%22%5BAuthor%5D), Sigvaldason H (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Sigvaldason%20H%22%5BAuthor%5D), Gudmundsdottir T (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Gudmundsdottir%20T%22%5BAuthor%5D), Sigurdsson R (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Sigurdsson%20R%22%5BAuthor%5D), Briem H (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Briem%20H%22%5BAuthor%5D).
The Cancer Detection Clinic, Icelandic Cancer Society, Reykjavik, Iceland. kristjan@krabb.is
Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the efficacy of catch-up HPV vaccination in sexually active young women and the potential impact of HPV vaccines on the practice of organized screening. SAMPLE: (1) Women enrolled in the Future II study and (2) from a separate population-based study in Iceland. METHODS: (1) Analysis of cytological and histological results and colposcopic examinations among 710 women, aged 18-23, with less than five sexual partners, irrespectively of baseline HPV status at enrolment. (2) The impact on screening practice as determined by evaluating the distribution of 12 oncogenic HPV types in 582 cervical intraepithelial lesions (CIN 2-3) and cancer cases. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: (1) Distribution of evaluated parameters according to age at enrolment. (2) Age distribution of four HPV groups, within age classes and HPV groups: mean time to development of lesions, mean time to development of CIN 2-3+, cumulative frequency for CIN 2-3+ lesions after the last normal smear. RESULTS: (1) After an average 52 months of post-enrolment follow-up, significant reductions in all evaluated parameters were observed in women aged 18-19 at enrolment. (2) Among women <25 years, the proportion of cases with only HPV 16/18 was significantly lower and the proportion containing HPV16/18 plus > or =1 out of 10 non-vaccine HPV types (31/33/45/52/58/35/39/51/56/59) was higher than at age 25-49. The proportion of cases containing only the non-vaccine types was the same within all age groups. Cases with HPV 16/18 and some non-vaccine types decreased significantly with age and accumulated more slowly after the last negative smear. CONCLUSIONS: Catch-up vaccination of younger women should be considered in the context of sexual practices and the effects of prevalent disease on observed vaccine efficacy. Current data do not support a change in the lower age limit or screening intervals for women.

[Mrknownothing]

This is an unresolved issue, some registry data raised the possibility of an increase in cancer in some groups based on low event rates most likely explained by predispositon bias. This is not quality data, but the issue is being studied - as with anything realted to cancer, definitive results will take years.

Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. (http://javascript&#37;3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:AL_get%28this,%20%27jour%27,%20%27Acta%20Obst et%20Gynecol%20Scand.%27%29;) 2009;88(1):27-35.
The efficacy of HPV 16/18 vaccines on sexually active 18-23 year old women and the impact of HPV vaccination on organized cervical cancer screening.



What is predispositon bias? If it is an unresolved issue surely it is not safe and at least people should be told there is an unresolved issue before being given it or it can't be proper consent? If the FDA already have this data that shows an increase why are we waiting? I am asking these questions as I am trying to make up my mind about vaccination and the data seems to depend on who you ask.

[Mrknownothing]

Firstly, which part of the word 'most' are you having difficulty with?

Most is fine, it's the 'I believe' bit that raises concern, is she a fundemental scientist?

[tolman]

Most is fine, it's the 'I believe' bit that raises concern, is she a fundemental scientist?
Aren't you being a tad literalist there?

Many people use 'believe' and 'think' and 'understand' pretty much interchangeably.

If I say 'I believe it's going to rain tomorrow', few people would think I'm absolutely certain it's going to rain, and depending how I chose to say 'believe', I could easily reliably give the impression that I had very little confidence in the prediction.

[tolman]

What is predispositon bias? If it is an unresolved issue surely it is not safe and at least people should be told there is an unresolved issue before being given it or it can't be proper consent? If the FDA already have this data that shows an increase why are we waiting? I am asking these questions as I am trying to make up my mind about vaccination and the data seems to depend on who you ask.

Speaking generally, if a vaccine was shown to be to increase risk in a small group and reduce it in a larger one, in the absence of knowledge as to which group someone was in it might still be a good bet for someone to take it unless maybe they had particular reason to believe they were in the higher risk group, or they expected that ways to find out which group they were in would become available in a suitably short time.

[Mrknownothing]

But if you add in the 'unresolved issue' surely that is a double doubt here about how to decide?

[Pebble]

But if you add in the 'unresolved issue' surely that is a double doubt here about how to decide?

You have to understand the detail of the controversy before coming to that conclusion. The first issue in respect of vaccinating previously infected women is that the overall benefit in terms of reducing high grade cervical lesions in the follow up studies has been relatively modest. There has been one study that suggested that in those with previous HPV exposure the incidence of high grade lesions (some precancerous, many not) related to strains not covered by the vaccine, may be increased. However, the overall number of lesions are decreased - not increased, since 70-80% of high grade lesions are caused by the strains included in the vaccine.
Thus there is no suggestion of harm even in this group - overall, however there are serious questions in respect of cost efficacy in this population. Further, using cervical intraepithelial lesions as surrogates for precancerous lesions is not entirely free of controversy - hence the longer term studies now underway to determine the actual effects on cancer rates in all the groups receiving vaccine.

As to predisposition - if you offer a vaccine to populations that are thought to prevent a particluar cancer - the most immediate uptake will of course be among those who percieve themselves as being at risk. In the area of cervical cancer the risk profile is well known, so the initial uptake and subsequent behaviour may well predispose to a higher incidence of HPV infection, and subsequently to an apparent rather than real increase in non vaccinated strain infection rate.

Some light reading to clarify:

http://www.racgp.org.au/afp/200912/200912heley.pdf

[Mrknownothing]

[QUOTE=Pebble;87032]You have to understand the detail of the controversy before coming to that conclusion.
As to predisposition - if you offer a vaccine to populations that are thought to prevent a particluar cancer - the most immediate uptake will of course be among those who percieve themselves as being at risk./QUOTE]

How do you know this idea is true. If we take the swine flu vaccination as a recent comparative example, we were all told we were at risk of immeadiate death and the uptake was so low governments are now asking for their money back. In fact only a handful of people apparently died from swine flu in the UK, the rest of us never 'caught' anything. So if we believed all the experts on this one we all would have had a useless jab and then they would have claimed a success!

This is a big problem with the whole vaccine issue, there is a lot of anecdotal stuff mixed in promoting it and it just doesn't stack up really.

[Pebble]

This is a big problem with the whole vaccine issue, there is a lot of anecdotal stuff mixed in promoting it and it just doesn't stack up really.

Your real agenda is becoming clearer now.

Don't you think it is a little rich to make grandiose claims about anecdote, when you have made repeated assertions without quoting or referencing any evidence source?

Have you read either of the articles? Any feedback - for example if you disagree with the evidence presented, why, in what way do you think they have failed to address the concerns you raised?

The behaviour of people when offered risk screening and risk protection has been well studied, but given that you have ignored all evidence to date, I could not longer be bothered looking it up for you.

[Mrknownothing]

HPV vaccination is a primary prevention strategy. It is only of value in an individual when provided before infection with the vaccine targeted HPV types. It has no therapeutic
effect on existing infections. http://www.racgp.org.au/afp/200912/200912heley.pdf
The point here is that if, according to the paper you put up the vaccine is usless in patients who already have HPV then why was there no pre testing in the UK?

Surely if this knowledge is known then it is irresponsible not to act on it, I suppose the money benefit would be down if most the girls were sexually active before the intervention, most would have some kind of HPV present and therefore would be contraindicated for vacciine!

There are still too many holes in the reasons for taking the vaccine, sorry.

[Pebble]

The point here is that if, according to the paper you put up the vaccine is usless in patients who already have HPV then why was there no pre testing in the UK?

Surely if this knowledge is known then it is irresponsible not to act on it, I suppose the money benefit would be down if most the girls were sexually active before the intervention, most would have some kind of HPV present and therefore would be contraindicated for vacciine!

There are still too many holes in the reasons for taking the vaccine, sorry.

Thanks you for reading the material. Whether to have the vaccine or not is entirely up to you. The evidence supports vaccination, but is not perfect. In those previously exposed, the rate of approapriate strain related cervical lesions was reduced, simply no where near as much as in previously HPV naieve girls. But this is 3 year data, not 30 year data. While the causative relationship between these strains and cervical cancer is quite clear, it is still a postulate that recurrent rexposure with oncogenic strains is responsible for the cancer. This however makes sense in light of the data gathered. If this is correct, then even a small reduction in the frequency of HPV lesions should pay dividends. Secondly as a chronic relasping infection, the reduction in the first few years may not reflect the true benefits of the vaccination over years. Finally testing for previous exposure is expensive and will lead to reduced uptake of the vaccine, so given that vaccination is not detrimental, from a public health perspective, vaccination wihtout testing is the cost effective option.

[Mrknownothing]

The evidence supports vaccination, but is not perfect.so given that vaccination is not detrimental, from a public health perspective, vaccination wihtout testing is the cost effective option.

Wow, lots of postulates in that one, what evidence do you have that vaccination is not detrimental when there are no long term epidemiological studies showing that vaccinated communites are better off? Is this your opinion or does it have data supporting it? Considering the number of people affected by swine flu vaccine and the virtually zero mortality rate this doesn't really stack up, or is this a vaccine by vaccine account.

In fact there were more problems from swine flu vaccine reactions than illness caused by the mythical swine flu pandemic so I fail to see how this non detrimental thang stacks up?

In fact a baby in Sheffield in March this year received an overdose of the controvertial TB vaccine and ended up being treated with TB drugs!

[Pebble]

Wow, lots of postulates in that one, what evidence do you have that vaccination is not detrimental when there are no long term epidemiological studies showing that vaccinated communites are better off? Is this your opinion or does it have data supporting it? Considering the number of people affected by swine flu vaccine and the virtually zero mortality rate this doesn't really stack up, or is this a vaccine by vaccine account.

I see, so you take the time to read the overview of the evidence but don't bother to follow the referenced trail to see the evidence, then make assumptions that the evidence does not exist!


In fact there were more problems from swine flu vaccine reactions than illness caused by the mythical swine flu pandemic so I fail to see how this non detrimental thang stacks up?

Evidence please - don't forget to include all the deaths in Mexico, US, UK - especially among pregnant women from swine flu etc. I don't think anyone is arguing that the predictions about swine flu were correct - but that is the nature of predictions.



In fact a baby in Sheffield in March this year received an overdose of the controvertial TB vaccine and ended up being treated with TB drugs!

You were complaining about the use of anecdotes, even though I have not used a single anecdote!

[Mrknownothing]

Pebble
You were complaining about the use of anecdotes, even though I have not used a single anecdote!

Vaccination is not detrimental to health. PebbleThat's a massive anecdote, some people even believe the tosh that cowpox protects against smallpox when there is no genetic relationship, if your anecdote on vaccine safety was true why do we have a vaccine data collection system that logs adverse reactions? Considering also that most 'diagnosis' of swine flu was not confirmed by lab diagnosis one could go as far to say that most of the data on deaths was anecdotal too.

[Pebble]

That's a massive anecdote, some people even believe the tosh that cowpox protects against smallpox when there is no genetic relationship, if your anecdote on vaccine safety was true why do we have a vaccine data collection system that logs adverse reactions? Considering also that most 'diagnosis' of swine flu was not confirmed by lab diagnosis one could go as far to say that most of the data on deaths was anecdotal too.

You obviously do not understand the difference between an assertion and an anecdote. I am unable to find where I apparently made that assertion, I suspect that in context this is a supported statement - care to point out where I made the statement?

As to cow pox - the antigenic response is based on surface protein shape - not genetics.

As to the last completely biased, statement, it shows that you have taken a rigid position - you believe that vaccination is not beneficial overall, without a worldwide database that has been independently examined and agreed to be free of any defects, any missing or questionable data, that shows over several geneerations that vaccination is overwhelmingly life saving - you will not change your position. Fine - but that is not skepticism - it is a failure to understand the nature of evidence.

[chaggle]

Finally testing for previous exposure is expensive and will lead to reduced uptake of the vaccine, so given that vaccination is not detrimental, from a public health perspective, vaccination wihtout testing is the cost effective option.

That's the nearest I can find - taken out of context and changed!>:-)

[Pebble]

That's the nearest I can find - taken out of context and changed!>:-)


Thanks Chaggle, as you say, in context this was simply a deduction from the evidence presented, in respect of this solitary issue.

[Mrknownothing]

[QUOTE=Pebble; you will not change your position. Fine - but that is not skepticism - it is a failure to understand the nature of evidence.[/QUOTE]

So is 'skepticism' with a K the psuedo kind, the one that only accepts evidence published by the makers of the therapy? All the papers you put up are funded by the companies that make the drugs they are testing. I see no evidence of you changing your position.

So what I am failing to understand is that the boys with the toys are always right, even if like with swine flu it turns out the whole thing was basically fraud, and anyone who isn't buying it is a liar, has some weird adgenda or believes in magic? In fact when Roche was challenged to provide retrospective data on Tamiflu and it's impact on swine flu their reply was 'they lost it!'.

[Pebble]

I see no evidence of you changing your position.

.

When you provide some evidence - rather than assertions and anecdote, I will consider changing my mind.

[Mrknownothing]

When you provide some evidence - rather than assertions and anecdote, I will consider changing my mind.

Ok on all vaccines being detrimental to health and totally useless how about this:



In 1986 there were 1300 cases of pertussis in Kansas and 90 % of these cases occurred in children who had been adequately vaccinated. Similar vaccine failures have been reported from Nova Scotia where pertussis continues to be occurring despite universal vaccination. Pertussis remains endemic in the Netherlands where for more than 20 years 96 % of children have received 3 pertussis shots by age 12 months.

After institution of diptheria vaccination in England and Wales in 1894 the number of deaths from diptheria rose by 20 % in the subsequent 15 years. Germany had compulsory vaccination in 1939. The rate of diptheria spiraled to 150,000 cases that year whereas, Norway which did not have compulsory vaccination, had only 50 cases of diptheria the same year.
The continued presence of these infectious diseases in children who have received vaccines proves that life long immunity which follows natural infection does not occur in persons receiving vaccines. The injection process places the viral particles into the blood without providing any clear way to eliminate these foreign substances.



Ref:

de Melker HE, et al Pertussis in the Netherlands: an outbreak despite high levels of immunization with whole-cell vaccine Emerging Infectious Diseases 1997; 3(2): 175-8 Centers for Disease Control

[Mrknownothing]

When you provide some evidence - rather than assertions and anecdote, I will consider changing my mind.

There's a lot more, why can't you find this information?


U.S. children aged 2 months began receiving hepatitis B vaccine in December 2000.No peer-reviewed studies of the safety of hepatitis B in this age bracket had been done. Over 36,000 adverse reactions with 440 deaths were soon reported but the true incidence is much higher as reporting is voluntary so only approximately 10 % of adverse reactions get reported. This means that about 5000 infants are dying annually from the hepatitis B vaccine. The CDC's Chief of Epidemiology admits that the frequency of serious reactions to hepatitis B vaccine is 10 times higher than other vaccines. Hepatitis B is transmitted sexually and by contaminated blood, so the incidence of this disease must be near zero in this age bracket. A vaccine expert, Dr. Philip Incao, states that "the conclusion is obvious that the risks of hepatitis B vaccination far outweigh the benefits. Once a vaccine is mandated the vaccine manufacturer is no longer liable for adverse reactions.
Ref: Incao, philip M.D. Letter to representative Dale Van Vyven, Ohio House of Representatives March 1, 1999

[Mrknownothing]

When you provide some evidence - rather than assertions and anecdote, I will consider changing my mind.



And more:




Vaccine Induced Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus
Dr. John Classen has published 29 articles on vaccine-induced diabetes. At least 8 of 10 children with Type 1 (insulin needing) diabetes have this disease as a result of vaccination. These children may have avoided measles, mumps, and whooping cough but they have received something far worse: an illness that shortens life expectancy by 10 to 15 years and results in a life requiring constant medical care.

Dr. Classen has shown in Finland, the introduction of hemophilus type b vaccine caused three times as many cases of type 1 diabetes as the number of deaths and brain damage from hemophilus influenza type b it might have prevented.

In New Zealand, the incidence of Type 1 diabetes in children rose by 61 % after an aggressive vaccine program against hepatitis B.. This same program has been started in the U.S.A. so we can now look forward to many cases of Type 1 diabetes in children. Similar rises in Type 1 diabetes have been seen in England, Italy, Sweden, and Denmark after immunization programs against Hepatitis B.
Ref: Classen, JB et al. Association between type 1 diabetes and Hib vaccine BMJ 1999; 319:1133

[Admin]

"U.S. children aged 2 months began receiving hepatitis B vaccine in December 2000"


Ref: Incao, philip M.D. Letter to representative Dale Van Vyven, Ohio House of Representatives March 1, 1999

:ponder:

[Admin]

Ref: Classen, JB et al. Association between type 1 diabetes and Hib vaccine BMJ 1999; 319:1133

As you've provided a reference, I thought I'd look it up.

What you've failed to mention is that Classen's entry in the BMJ is only in the Letters page and he is responding to a study which looked at Hib vaccine induced diabetes but found no link between the two.

i.e. the researchers found no link but Classen re-analysed their data and concluded there probably was a link.

Now, I don't know whether Classen did have a case here (i.e. the original researchers were selective in their statistical testing) but what is clear here is that the way you have presented this as your 'evidence' does not accurately reflect what went on.

[Pebble]

There's a lot more, why can't you find this information?

Ref: Incao, philip M.D. Letter to representative Dale Van Vyven, Ohio House of Representatives March 1, 1999

Letters from pressure groups and politicians are not evidence: Especially where these spread obvious disinformation.

1. Hepatitis B does occur in children
2. Hepatitis B causes liver disease and liver cancer in children
3. Vaccination strategies in neonates have been studied in large conrtolled trials from 1985
4. Concerns raised about high adverse reaction, based mainly on fears about 'thimerosal' rather than evidence - have been thoroughly investigated - and not found to be supported by evidence.



http://www.cmj.org/Periodical/paperlist.asp?id=LW200915565868909939&linkintype=pubmed

Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2008 Jul-Sep;9(3):507-9.
Incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma in children in Khon Kaen before and after national hepatitis B vaccine program.
Wichajarn K, Kosalaraksa P, Wiangnon S.

Department of Pediatrics, Faculty of Medicine, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hepatitis B virus infection is one of the most important risk factors for hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatitis B vaccination has been obligatory in the Expanded Program on Immunization (EPI) in Khon Kaen since 1990. OBJECTIVE: To compare the incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma in children in Khon Kaen province before and after the introduction of national hepatitis B vaccination program. METHODS: Cases of liver tumors in children under 18, diagnosed during 1985-2007, were retrieved from the population-based cancer registry of Khon Kaen. Patients were divided into 2 groups, vaccinated and non-vaccinated with hepatitis B vaccine regarding the year of birth before or after 1990. Patients with diagnosis of liver cancer from any basis of diagnosis in population-based registration, except hepatoblastoma, were included. Patients without verified histology were assumed as having hepatocellular carcinoma if the age at diagnosis was over 10. Age-standardized incidence rates (ASRs) were analyzed and expressed as numbers per 1,000,000 population. RESULTS: Fifteen patients aged 13 to 18 years were included in this study. The mean and median ages at diagnosis were 15.7 and 15 years respectively. Four children had a verified histology (age 14 to 18 years, median and mean = 16). The remaining 11 patients were diagnosed based on history and physical examination, radiology and death certificate, at the aged of 13 to 18 years. The ASRs for liver cancer in children over 10 years of age of non-vaccinated and vaccinated children were 0.88 and 0.07 per million respectively (p = 0.039). When calculated by including children at or older the 5 years of age, the ASRs for non-vaccinated and vaccinated cases were 0.97 and 0.24 per million respectively (p = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma is significantly lower in Thai children who receive hepatitis B vaccine at birth.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5125a3.htm

"In June 1999, concerns were expressed about the risk to young children of mercury exposure from thimerosal, a preservative used in childhood vaccines, including hepatitis B vaccine. As a precaution, the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS), the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), and the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) recommended postponing the first dose of hepatitis B vaccine from birth until age 2--6 months for infants born to HBsAg-negative mothers. These groups also recommended eliminating thimerosal from childhood vaccines as soon as possible. By 2000, the two companies that manufacture hepatitis B vaccine in the United States had eliminated thimerosal as a preservative from these vaccines, and PHS, AAP, and AAFP urged the resumption of hepatitis B vaccination at birth. However, the temporary postponement of hepatitis B vaccine at birth resulted in the failure of some hospitals to immunize high-risk infants appropriately. This situation persisted after vaccines that do not contain thimerosal as a preservative became available (16).

Although concerns have been expressed over the past 20 years that certain chronic illnesses might be caused by hepatitis B vaccine, no evidence exists that any of these diseases is caused by the vaccine. For example, in the mid-1990s, concerns were expressed that the vaccine might cause multiple sclerosis. However, a report by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) found no evidence of a causal relation between hepatitis B vaccination in adults and multiple sclerosis (17). The vaccine continues to be considered safe by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, ACIP, IOM, and other national professional vaccination advisory groups."

[Pebble]

And more:


Ref: Classen, JB et al. Association between type 1 diabetes and Hib vaccine BMJ 1999; 319:1133

The real stroy here is that Classen observed that there were clusters of cases of Type 1 DM being diagnosied 2- 4 years after vaccination, but failed to fully address whether this was related to vaccination. He did indeed raise very important points that needed to be fully investigated - they have been, the association has been shown not to be causatively related, rather simply a time of onset issue, unaffected by vaccination.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/108/6/e112

"The results of our study and the preponderance of epidemiologic evidence do not support an association between any of the recommended childhood vaccines and an increased risk of type 1 diabetes. Suggestions that diabetes risk in humans may be altered by changes in the timing of vaccinations also are unfounded."

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/350/14/1398
(http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/350/14/1398)


"The development of type 1 diabetes in genetically predisposed children (defined as those who had siblings with type 1 diabetes) was not significantly associated with vaccination. Furthermore, there was no evidence of any clustering of cases two to four years after vaccination with any vaccine."

[Mrknownothing]

Letters from pressure groups and politicians are not evidence: Especially where these spread obvious disinformation.

1. Hepatitis B does occur in children
2. Hepatitis B causes liver disease and liver cancer in children
3. Vaccination strategies in neonates have been studied in large conrtolled trials from 1985
4. Concerns raised about high adverse reaction, based mainly on fears about 'thimerosal' rather than evidence - have been thoroughly investigated - and not found to be supported by evidence.



."

1.How many babies have Hepatitis B? What are the real numbers here?
2.Strategies may have been studied but proper comparative epidemiological studies between non vaccinated and vaccinated groups have not. The 'evidence' for 'better off vaccinated' does not exist, it is an anecdote.
3.If the symptoms of mercury poisoning are the same as the symptoms listed on the autistic spectrum for diagnosis, the investegations you cite but don't reference is another anecdote or a complete cooking of the books.
4.If the amount of mercury in a swine flu vaccine is considered toxic waste when dropped on the floor why is it safe to inject into a baby?

By the way you haven't commented on the disasterous whooping cough vaccine and its total failure to do anything but make money for the pharmas.

[Matt]

1.How many babies have Hepatitis B? What are the real numbers here?
Answer your own question. Why not start here.

http://www.britishlivertrust.org.uk/home/the-liver/liver-diseases/hepatitis-b.aspx


Where is hepatitis B common?
Hepatitis B is the most widespread form of hepatitis.
It is common in South-East Asia, the Middle and Far East, Southern Europe and Africa.

The World Health Organisation estimates that one third of the world's population has been infected at some time and that there are approximately 350 million people who are infected long term. In Europe, there are estimated to be one million people infected every year.

In the UK, approximately one in 1,000 people are thought to have the virus. In some inner-city areas with a high percentage of people from parts of the world where the virus is common, as many as one in 50 pregnant women may be infected.



Mother to baby
Hepatitis B is usually transmitted to the baby during delivery, as the baby is exposed to the mother’s blood in the birth canal. Transmission to the unborn baby does not usually occur in the uterus (before birth). Infection at birth is called ‘perinatal transmission’ and is the most common way the virus is spread globally. Vaccination of the baby at birth prevents the majority of infections.

Although small amounts of the virus have been found in breast milk, the risk from breastfeeding is not fully known and is prevented by vaccination of the new born baby.

Since April 2000, all pregnant women in the UK are tested for hepatitis B. Pregnant women with high levels of the virus in their blood may be offered additional treatment including antiviral therapy.

[Matt]

I keep wondering if it's fair to call antivaxxers murderers. When I consider that there's a confirmed death toll from their knowing dishonesty I keep coming to the conclusion that it is fair.

Really, lock them up.

[Mrknownothing]

Where is hepatitis B common?
Hepatitis B is the most widespread form of hepatitis.
It is common in South-East Asia, the Middle and Far East, Southern Europe and Africa.

The World Health Organisation estimates that one third of the world's population has been infected at some time and that there are approximately 350 million people who are infected long term. In Europe, there are estimated to be one million people infected every year.

In the UK, approximately one in 1,000 people are thought to have the virus. In some inner-city areas with a high percentage of people from parts of the world where the virus is common, as many as one in 50 pregnant women may be infected.

What a complete pile of creatotosh, The World Health Organisation was behind the swine flu scam with at least half their pandemic committee on retainers from vaccine makers so we know all they are interested in is 'talking up business'. An estimate from bullshit and co is worth nothing, find something better or accept you are biased and wrong.

Why on earth are you in such a cultural trance on this Matt? Since when was England in southern Europe? Maybe I could quote stats from Northern Africa or kangeroo guawana logs?

So 1000 people are thought to have the virus? By who, is this yet more guesswork?

As many as one in 50 may be affected, are you taking the mickey?




Mother to baby
Hepatitis B is usually transmitted to the baby during delivery, as the baby is exposed to the mother’s blood in the birth canal. Transmission to the unborn baby does not usually occur in the uterus (before birth). Infection at birth is called ‘perinatal transmission’ and is the most common way the virus is spread globally. Vaccination of the baby at birth prevents the majority of infections.

Although small amounts of the virus have been found in breast milk, the risk from breastfeeding is not fully known and is prevented by vaccination of the new born baby.

Since April 2000, all pregnant women in the UK are tested for hepatitis B. Pregnant women with high levels of the virus in their blood may be offered additional treatment including antiviral therapy.

The risk of breast milk is not known but of course 'vaccination always protects', what is this nonsense, how can anything protect against an unknown risk? This is magic.

[Mrknownothing]

I keep wondering if it's fair to call antivaxxers murderers. When I consider that there's a confirmed death toll from their knowing dishonesty I keep coming to the conclusion that it is fair.

Really, lock them up.

Pot calling kettle back, I think we can safely say that all the people who have been disabled and killed by swine flu vaccine and HPV were murdered by vaccinators. The 160,000 people killed by Vioxx, lets call the research scientist murderers too.

[Matt]

Red ink, that make you look much less like a murderer. How many of you antivaxxers are left the share the guilt of all the preventable deaths you're causing with your lies?

[Mrknownothing]

I keep wondering if it's fair to call antivaxxers murderers. When I consider that there's a confirmed death toll from their knowing dishonesty I keep coming to the conclusion that it is fair.

Really, lock them up.

Well Matt I suppose you must work for these murderers then, considering the Chief murderer at the CDC thinks its bad too. Guess you are suffering from ostrich arse syndrome or is that pay bonus for keeping stum too tempting?


U.S. children aged 2 months began receiving hepatitis B vaccine in December 2000.No peer-reviewed studies of the safety of hepatitis B in this age bracket had been done. Over 36,000 adverse reactions with 440 deaths were soon reported but the true incidence is much higher as reporting is voluntary so only approximately 10 % of adverse reactions get reported. This means that about 5000 infants are dying annually from the hepatitis B vaccine. The CDC's Chief of Epidemiology admits that the frequency of serious reactions to hepatitis B vaccine is 10 times higher than other vaccines. Hepatitis B is transmitted sexually and by contaminated blood, so the incidence of this disease must be near zero in this age bracket. A vaccine expert, Dr. Philip Incao, states that "the conclusion is obvious that the risks of hepatitis B vaccination far outweigh the benefits. Once a vaccine is mandated the vaccine manufacturer is no longer liable for adverse reactions.

[Mrknownothing]

Red ink, that make you look much less like a murderer. How many of you antivaxxers are left the share the guilt of all the preventable deaths you're causing with your lies?

If you actually had some facts to support this crap it would be interesting, shame is all the vaccine 'studies' are on strategy, how big is the needle. If you keep posting no evidence don't be surprised if the only people who log on are your mates.

[Mrknownothing]

Red ink, that make you look much less like a murderer. How many of you antivaxxers are left the share the guilt of all the preventable deaths you're causing with your lies?

So here is the chief murderer from the GMC being taken to court by proper doctors!


1600 doctors are taking the General Medical Council to court this week Via Judicial Review. They are accusing the GMC of blocking a Fitness to Practice enquiry into Sir Liam Donaldson, days before he is due to step down as Chief Medical Officer. The litigation arises over Donaldson’s management of MTAS – the computerised recruitment system for junior doctors introduced in 2007. A subsequent Health Select Committee enquiry concluded “Candidates and assessors alike were justifiably outraged by the sheer inadequacy of MTAS. The period between February and August 2007 was characterised by unrelenting chaos and severe anxiety for thousands of junior doctors. The reputation of both the Department of Health and the leaders of the profession were severely diminished”. The GMC was asked to consider whether those responsible should face a disciplinary hearing. But they declined to refer the matter to their Case Examiners . In a letter to Remedy they stated that Donaldson’s involvement could not render him unfit to practice “whatever the conduct’. This conflicts with the GMC’s own published guidance for Doctors in Management, which states "You remain accountable to the GMC for your decisions”. This is the first time a case of deficient professional performance has been made against a doctor in management.

[tolman]

'Dr' know,

Why is it that people like you can't be straight on forums?

One of your type's standard tactics seems to be to pretend to be some concerned member of the public honestly looking for answers,

I am asking these questions as I am trying to make up my mind about vaccination
yet you can never manage to keep up the pretence for long, and it rapidly becomes obvious that you're a ranting obsessive who's already totally made your mind up.

The odd thing is, I'm really not sure who you're trying to impress.
Most sane people would just look at someone behaving like you, see that the approach is dripping with dishonesty, and if anything would be then likely to trust you even less than you might possibly deserve.

Whether you really are new here, or just some tenacious loser creeping back dishonestly under another name, you're wasting your time.

[PaulW99]

I see you think the World Health Organization are scammers.
You're not really a doctor, are you?

I see two issues here:
1. vaccines are useless
2. vaccines are dangerous

There seems to be some evidence for 1., over time. Which is why new vaccines constantly need to be developed.
So far 2. seems to be mainly in the mind of crackpots or in letters to the editor.
I'm sure some vaccines have had some detrimental effects. But it's nothing compared to the lives they've saved.

If you had children, would you not vaccinate them?

[DrS]

So here is the chief murderer from the GMC being taken to court by proper doctors!Yes but not for your cause. How does a case arising from the management of a computerised recruitment system for junior doctors support your anti-vac stance?

[PaulW99]

From Wikipedia regarding pertussis (whooping cough):

Before vaccines, an average of 157 cases per 100,000 persons were reported in the U.S., with peaks reported every two to five years; more than 93% of reported cases occurred in children under 10 years of age. The actual incidence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incidence_(epidemiology)) was likely much higher. After vaccinations were introduced in the 1940s, incidence fell dramatically to less than 1 per 100,000 by 1970. Incidence rates have increased somewhat since 1980.

Oh yeah, let's ban the vaccine!

[PaulW99]

4.If the amount of mercury in a swine flu vaccine is considered toxic waste when dropped on the floor why is it safe to inject into a baby?


Your lack of knowledge is showing. Thiomersal (the "mercury" in some vaccines) contains mercury molecules as part of a compound.

It would be like saying kitchen salt is explosive because Na ignites when placed in water.

[Mrknownothing]

'Dr' know,

Why is it that people like you can't be straight on forums?

One of your type's standard tactics seems to be to pretend to be some concerned member of the public honestly looking for answers,

yet you can never manage to keep up the pretence for long, and it rapidly becomes obvious that you're a ranting obsessive who's already totally made your mind up.

The odd thing is, I'm really not sure who you're trying to impress.
Most sane people would just look at someone behaving like you, see that the approach is dripping with dishonesty, and if anything would be then likely to trust you even less than you might possibly deserve.

Whether you really are new here, or just some tenacious loser creeping back dishonestly under another name, you're wasting your time.

You haven't read the post on Pertussis deaths earlier then, are you so a believer in this vaccine woo that you can't take it?

It would seem now you have stooped to insults that you truely have shown your colours as a woo merchant.

Probably why all of you are anonymous, do you really go to the pub and talk this stuff, I would love to sit in and record it and post it on a site.

[Mrknownothing]

From Wikipedia regarding pertussis (whooping cough):

Before vaccines, an average of 157 cases per 100,000 persons were reported in the U.S., with peaks reported every two to five years; more than 93% of reported cases occurred in children under 10 years of age. The actual incidence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incidence_%28epidemiology%29) was likely much higher. After vaccinations were introduced in the 1940s, incidence fell dramatically to less than 1 per 100,000 by 1970. Incidence rates have increased somewhat since 1980.

Oh yeah, let's ban the vaccine!

WIKIPEDIA, ARE YOU SERIOUS, THIS SITE DOES MASS RE EDITING LIKE YOU DO, THAT'S LIKE HITLER QUOTING STALIN ON CROWD CONTROL! /so now it's ok for you to quote your mates to support the sinking ship, brilliant.

[Mrknownothing]

Your lack of knowledge is showing. Thiomersal (the "mercury" in some vaccines) contains mercury molecules as part of a compound.

It would be like saying kitchen salt is explosive because Na ignites when placed in water.

Brilliant, next you will be telling us radiation is now called freaky moonbeams to make it safe, so what is the 'safe level of mercury' when it is at home then Mr Einstein.

[Mrknownothing]

Yes but not for your cause. How does a case arising from the management of a computerised recruitment system for junior doctors support your anti-vac stance?

Well it seems ok for you to slander people by association but not others. I am not anti vaccination, I just can't find any evidence to support it, can you? Are you pro vaccine and if so what made you come to that conclusion?

[Matt]

Argue facts with you?

Why should I waste my time. It's mere minutes since I demonstrated that Hep B is a real problem in babies due to mother and baby transmission and that didn't stop you posting a lie that reasons that because babies don't have sex they can't get Hep B.

It's not that you're ignorant, you're a liar. I could tackle ignorance with knowledge. As a liar you're immune to such an approach.

No, I'll just point out that you're a liar and a murderer thanks, no point in giving the impression that you're open to reason.

[DrS]

Well it seems ok for you to slander people by association but not others. I am not anti vaccination, I just can't find any evidence to support it, can you? Are you pro vaccine and if so what made you come to that conclusion?
You will please NOW provide evidence of where I have slandered anyone.

[Pebble]

1.How many babies have Hepatitis B? What are the real numbers here?
2.Strategies may have been studied but proper comparative epidemiological studies between non vaccinated and vaccinated groups have not. The 'evidence' for 'better off vaccinated' does not exist, it is an anecdote.
3.If the symptoms of mercury poisoning are the same as the symptoms listed on the autistic spectrum for diagnosis, the investegations you cite but don't reference is another anecdote or a complete cooking of the books.
4.If the amount of mercury in a swine flu vaccine is considered toxic waste when dropped on the floor why is it safe to inject into a baby?

By the way you haven't commented on the disasterous whooping cough vaccine and its total failure to do anything but make money for the pharmas.

The very large number of babies infected with HepB is available from many sources, why not try the WHO?

Randomised controlled trials are not performed in babies, they are performed in older children and adults (consent) - tolerability studies are performed, as are epidemiological vaccinated versus unvaccinated outcome studies - some very large such studies from the 1990's of these types performed in China - not by pharma but by the govt.

You are twenty years behind the data on your concerns in respect of mercury - try to keep up.

The out of date nonsense about pertussis has already been dealt with on several other threads - go look it up.

As I see your approach no study that suggests vaccination might possibly be useful, is to be believed - the disease has been invented, the outcome studied is unacceptable, the thudy is not independently conducted or analysed, the statistics are wrong, there is another study with a different outcome etc etc. Any study however incompetently performed that suggests a possible problem with vaccination is definitive evidence of harm.

So you have made your mide up, you are not prepared to examine the evidence, except to search for statements you agree with. Since you can never learn why not try the David Icke froum.

[Admin]

I am not anti vaccination

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

[tolman]

You haven't read the post on Pertussis deaths earlier then, are you so a believer in this vaccine woo that you can't take it?
What on earth does that have to do with my pointing out the basic dishonesty of your approach, with you pretending initially to be some normal sane person who simply had a few doubts, before unsurprisingly coming out as an obsessive who had already entirely made up their mind?


It would seem now you have stooped to insults that you truely have shown your colours as a woo merchant.
If you're insulted by having it pointed out that your deceitful approach simply doesn't work, then I'm afraid that's your problem, and one you'll likely have to repeatedly deal with as long as you are stupid and dishonest enough to use that particular tactic.


Probably why all of you are anonymous.
Personally, one of the main reasons I'm anonymous is that the internet seems to have plenty of obsessive, unstable people like you ranting away on it and I'd rather not end up with then bombarding me with spam, or finding out where I live.

[PaulW99]

Brilliant, next you will be telling us radiation is now called freaky moonbeams to make it safe, so what is the 'safe level of mercury' when it is at home then Mr Einstein.

Did you even complete your secondary education?

[PaulW99]

WIKIPEDIA, ARE YOU SERIOUS, THIS SITE DOES MASS RE EDITING LIKE YOU DO, THAT'S LIKE HITLER QUOTING STALIN ON CROWD CONTROL! /so now it's ok for you to quote your mates to support the sinking ship, brilliant.

Wow, you don't know how Wikipedia works either. Is there anything you do know?

[tolman]

Wow, you don't know how Wikipedia works either. Is there anything you do know?
Nor does the self-styled 'dr' know how this site operates, but then they clearly aren't someone prepared to let a little thing like massive ignorance get in the way of forming strong opinions or shouting at people.

[Mrknownothing]

The very large number of babies infected with HepB is available from many sources, why not try the WHO?

You are twenty years behind the data on your concerns in respect of mercury - try to keep up.

The out of date nonsense about pertussis has already been dealt with on several other threads - go look it up.

So you have made your mide up, you are not prepared to examine the evidence, except to search for statements you agree with. Since you can never learn why not try the David Icke froum.

Why trust the WHO? Swine flu scam says enought or can't you take it?

So twenty years ago mercury was dangerous, now it's safe in a vaccine? What kind of bent research evidence cooked that one? Not impressed really with your integrity regarding ability to objectively present an argument on this.

So where on your site has the out of date pertussis issue been dealth with?


The ordinary whole-cell pertussis vaccine is acknowledged to be the deadliest of all the vaccines. The US National Vaccine Compensation Program (which has paid out over $1 billion to vaccine-damaged children) obliges drug companies that produce vaccines to contribute to the program by paying an excise tax on each dose of vaccine, based on likely risk. In 1997, the latest figures available, the DTP vaccine was taxed at the highest rate per dose - $4.56 - compared with $0.29 for polio and $0.06 for DT (without pertussis). Only the MMR vaccine, at $4.44 per dose, approaches the DPT in ‘taxation’.

This is tacit acknowledgement by the government that the pertussis vaccine carries the highest risk of them all. However, no randomised placebo-controlled trials of whole-cell vaccine have been performed since the 1950s, when diagnostic methods were different. Indeed, in the early 1990s,
01 May 1994
Yet another side effect has been linked to the diptheria, pertussis, tetanus (DPT) vaccine for children. Researchers are concerned that children can develop chronic brain dysfunction or even die if they develop an acute neurological illness within se This new worry, voiced by the US Institute of Medicine, is based on a review of 10 year follow-up data from the UK National Childhood Encephalopathy Study (NCES) (The Lancet, 12 March 1994). The NCES data suggests that the vaccine could trigger an acute neurological illness in children with underlying brain or metabolic abnormalities.

[chaggle]

Probably why all of you are anonymous,

Says "Drknow"

:muttley:

[Mrknownothing]

Wow, you don't know how Wikipedia works either. Is there anything you do know?

Yup I do, post anything that knocks the establishment and it gets taken down. Take the global warming issue.

[Mrknownothing]

Did you even complete your secondary education?

Come on Paulwoo tell us what the safe level of mercury is or didn't you do science at school?

[PaulW99]

Come on Paulwoo tell us what the safe level of mercury is or didn't you do science at school?

First, do you know what a "molecule" is? You can look it up.

I'm really really starting to get the feeling that you're not a real doctor.

[tolman]

Come on Paul tell us what the safe level of mercury is or didn't you do science at school?
Well, sane people would generally accept that a safe exposure level for a substance would be one where there was no difference in outcome between people exposed at that level, and people not exposed at all.

For instance, if mercury preservatives were removed from childhood vaccines, and it was observed that there was no resulting change in the probability of subsequent development of particular conditions between those children vaccinated before and after the removal, then it would be reasonable to conclude that there probably wasn't a linkage between the pre-removal level of preservatives and the conditions in question, and that in at least that sense, the pre-removal level was safe.

[Admin]

Take the global warming issue.

You wouldn't believe that it's all (another) big hoax now would you?

By THEM :scared:

[Admin]

tell us what the safe level of mercury is or didn't you do science at school?

Do you mean in vaccines?

There's no mercury in vaccines and there never has been. Thiomersal isn't mercury - you do understand the difference between an element and a compound, don't you?

If not, you should really look up the difference as anti-vax nutters who rant on about mercury in vaccines are merely displaying their complete and utter ignorance.

[chaggle]

OMG!! I've just realised there's Hydrogen in WATER!!!

You can make BIG BOMBS with that can't you?

Who in their right mind would give water to a child?

[Mrknownothing]

Do you mean in vaccines?

There's no mercury in vaccines and there never has been. Thiomersal isn't mercury - you do understand the difference between an element and a compound, don't you?

If not, you should really look up the difference as anti-vax nutters who rant on about mercury in vaccines are merely displaying their complete and utter ignorance.

Seems you have no idea what you are talking about, but that seems a major theme on this site, total denial of facts and events. Do you really think anyone takes any of you seriously? It's like talking to fundementalists. If there has never been any mercury in any vaccine how come countries have banned it, like amalgam fillings you'll be telling us thats mercury free too next.


Banned around the world, but not in the United States (http://www.naturalnews.com/United_States.html)

In 1977, a Russian study found that adults exposed to ethylmercury, the form of mercury in thimerosal, suffered brain damage years later. Studies on thimerosal poisoning also describe tubular necrosis and nervous system injury, including obtundation, coma and death. As a result of these findings, Russia banned thimerosal from children's vaccines in 1980. Denmark, Austria, Japan, Great Britain and all the Scandinavian countries have also banned the preservative.

[Mrknownothing]

Well, sane people would generally accept that a safe exposure level for a substance would be one where there was no difference in outcome between people exposed at that level, and people not exposed at all.

For instance, if mercury preservatives were removed from childhood vaccines, and it was observed that there was no resulting change in the probability of subsequent development of particular conditions between those children vaccinated before and after the removal, then it would be reasonable to conclude that there probably wasn't a linkage between the pre-removal level of preservatives and the conditions in question, and that in at least that sense, the pre-removal level was safe.

So that means if the symptoms of mercury poisoning are identical to those listed on the autistic spectrum, according to your sanity, there is no connection, right?

Before you quote the before and after Finnish study that has been discredited, so perhaps you can tell us where this remarkable psuedo fact that demonstrates removal of mercury preservatives = no difference has been shown to be true?

Perhaps you should email Jackson and tell him that mercury has been and still is in childhood vaccines as the poor old chap has gone of on a denial rant and we don't want him to look completely silly, after all the public might actually be watching.

[Mrknownothing]

First, do you know what a "molecule" is? You can look it up.

I'm really really starting to get the feeling that you're not a real doctor.

Are you telling me you have feelings? That's a bit spooky

[Mrknownothing]

Nor does the self-styled 'dr' know how this site operates, but then they clearly aren't someone prepared to let a little thing like massive ignorance get in the way of forming strong opinions or shouting at people.

Tell us how Wiki works then Tolman, peer review/censorship?

[Admin]

Seems you have no idea what you are talking about

I have a degree in Chemistry. O0

Seriously, look up the difference between an element and a compound and when you realise the difference between mercury and ethylmercury, you'll realise what a twat you're making of yourself and why we're laughing at your expense.

The irony of being mocked by a complete ignoramus is quite amusing! :cheesy: ;D

[tolman]

So that means if the symptoms of mercury poisoning are identical to those listed on the autistic spectrum, according to your sanity, there is no connection, right?
Are you seriously claiming that there are no different symptoms when comparing mercury poisoning and autism?

Following the removal of mercury-based preservatives from childhood vaccines in various countries, have any of those countries shown the sudden reduction in autism diagnosis rates that would be expected if the previous levels of preservatives had been causing any autism?
If so, which countries would those be, and where are the relevant papers?

[tolman]

Tell us how Wiki works then Tolman, peer review/censorship?
I wasn't talking about wikipedia, I was talking about here.

Even if someone was acting like a complete tosser, they still aren't likely to get edited here unless they say something libellous or extraordinarily stupid.

All you have to do is look at the kind of people who actually get tolerated for a long time (like bryan) to see how far someone would have to go to get 'mass-reedited'.

However, seeing what kind of person you are, I imagine you could try the patient of a saint.
You're probably just trying to get banned so in your sad little deluded mind you can pretend that means that you're right, rather than just that you're a total dick.
But rest assured, anyone who reads what you write can see just what kind of a person you are, even if you can't.

[Pebble]

drNO,

Given that thimerosal exercises you so much, perhaps you would like to read this article and any others you may choose (references please) and give your opinion on the current status of the evidence base - as opposed to the opinion base.


http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/101/2/294?ijkey=7ad5ec6bab2d5a232510c04bcbc2d45203fcd547

No harm if you updated your understanding of the history of this controversy a little as well.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2376879/?tool=pubmed

[PaulW99]

It seems health authorities have decided to remove the "mercury" in vaccines because it causes confusion and fear amongst the uneducated masses. They're talking about you, drknownothing.

Go back and finish high school, then maybe we can have a meaningful discussion.

[Drop Bear]

Here Doc Martin is currently being repeated (again)

Last episode had an exchange between his would-like-to be-beloved and the dour doc:

SHE: "I have a friend who has a two year old.He was perfectly healthy and then he was vaccinated. He became autistic."

Doc: "Your friend blames the vaccination?"

She :"Yes"

Doc: "Is your friend VERY stupid?"


It's almost impossible to communicate with someone who is ignorant or stupid. When they are both,as in the case of the anti vaccination cretins, it's a complete waste of time. Like trying to argue with a flat earther or a new earth creationist. One would have more success trying to communicate with an orangutang. (I did it,once.)

[PaulW99]

Yup I do, post anything that knocks the establishment and it gets taken down. Take the global warming issue.

That's called "quality control".

[DrS]

Yup I do, post anything that knocks the establishment and it gets taken down. Take the global warming issue.
What, like THIS (http://www.ukskeptics.com/showthread.php/4651-climate-science-evidence?highlight=global+warming) 47 page thread? The fact that it's in Junk is the quality control bit, but it's still there, i.e. it has not been taken down.

[Mrknownothing]

Are you seriously claiming that there are no different symptoms when comparing mercury poisoning and autism?

Following the removal of mercury-based preservatives from childhood vaccines in various countries, have any of those countries shown the sudden reduction in autism diagnosis rates that would be expected if the previous levels of preservatives had been causing any autism?
If so, which countries would those be, and where are the relevant papers?

Using your logic ethyl lead in petrol is completely safe and should be re instated immeadiately, so is Uranium oxide and other derivatives of plutonium, I demand we put it in icecream now.

Nice diversion but the question was 'why are the symptoms of mercury posioning the same as those symptoms listed on the autistic spectrum'. Please have a word with Jackson, seems his degree in chemistry hasn't helped him much

[Mrknownothing]

Here Doc Martin is currently being repeated (again)

Last episode had an exchange between his would-like-to be-beloved and the dour doc:

SHE: "I have a friend who has a two year old.He was perfectly healthy and then he was vaccinated. He became autistic."

Doc: "Your friend blames the vaccination?"

She :"Yes"

Doc: "Is your friend VERY stupid?"


It's almost impossible to communicate with someone who is ignorant or stupid. When they are both,as in the case of the anti vaccination cretins, it's a complete waste of time. Like trying to argue with a flat earther or a new earth creationist. One would have more success trying to communicate with an orangutang. (I did it,once.)

Fantastic, now you are quoting real fiction to support real fiction, I love it. Do you read Noddy? I love Noddy jokes, do you know the one about why elephants have big ears?

[Mrknownothing]

That's called "quality control".

What is that like 'ethnic cleansing then'.

[Admin]

Using your logic ethyl lead in petrol is completely safe and should be re instated immeadiately

Would care to share your reasoning here?

How did you manage to come to such an obviously false conclusion?

Show us your reasoning and I'll show you where you went wrong. O0

[Admin]

I love Noddy jokes, do you know the one about why elephants have big ears?

Is it a side effect from vaccination? ;D

[tolman]

Using your logic ethyl lead in petrol is completely safe and should be re instated immeadiately, so is Uranium oxide and other derivatives of plutonium, I demand we put it in icecream now.
Obviously you're so stupid you didn't read or understand what I wrote, even though you somehow managed to quote it.

I was writing about how to work out what a safe level is, suggesting that if it isn't possible to tell the difference between a low exposure and no exposure, then a low exposure doesn't seem likely to be a risky exposure.
That obviously has no linkage at all with lead in petrol, except maybe in the mind of a moron.


Nice diversion but the question was 'why are the symptoms of mercury posioning the same as those symptoms listed on the autistic spectrum'.
So it's a diversion to ask you if there are no differences between the symptoms of mercury poisoning and autism?

Are you the kind of person who would look at a list of possible side effects for two drugs, notice that the lists were similar, and then conclude that the drugs must be identical?

[Mrknownothing]

obviously you're so stupid you didn't read or understand what i wrote, even though you somehow managed to quote it.

I was writing about how to work out what a safe level is, suggesting that if it isn't possible to tell the difference between a low exposure and no exposure, then a low exposure doesn't seem likely to be a risky exposure.
That obviously has no linkage at all with lead in petrol, except maybe in the mind of a moron.


So it's a diversion to ask you if there are no differences between the symptoms of mercury poisoning and autism?

Are you the kind of person who would look at a list of possible side effects for two drugs, notice that the lists were similar, and then conclude that the drugs must be identical?

OK IN CAPITALS for the hard of hearing! As the symptoms of mercury poisoning are identical to the symptoms listed on the autistic spectrum for a diagnosis of autism, what are your thoughts on that?

So as jacko thinks ethyl mercury is ok, what is illogical about drawing the conclusion with ethyl lead and petrol! Do you deliberately misunderstand people to further your position or are you all just stupid!

Please advise.

[Mrknownothing]

Would care to share your reasoning here?

How did you manage to come to such an obviously false conclusion?

Show us your reasoning and I'll show you where you went wrong. O0

Satire, you donk!

[Admin]

As the symptoms of mercury poisoning are identical to the symptoms listed on the autistic spectrum for a diagnosis of autism, what are your thoughts on that?

Can you provide us with a list of symptoms of mercury poisoning and a list symptoms for the diagnosis of autism (including your sources)?

Then we can compare them and see whether they are identical.

BTW - they're not.


Do you deliberately misunderstand people to further your position or are you all just stupid!

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

The problem here is that you'd have to be a lot more intelligent to appreciate just how stupid you are!

You clearly cannot see the errors in your thinking and your complete lack of understanding.

[tolman]

OK IN CAPITALS for the hard of hearing! As the symptoms of mercury poisoning are identical to the symptoms listed on the autistic spectrum for a diagnosis of autism, what are your thoughts on that?
So you're really claiming that there are no symptoms of mercury poisoning that are are not also symptoms of autism, and vice versa?


So as jacko thinks ethyl mercury is ok, what is illogical about drawing the conclusion with ethyl lead and petrol!
The illogical thing (which everyone apart from you will have spotted already) is that I was answering your question about safe exposure levels to vaccine preservatives by suggesting one good scientific way of seeing if a given level seems likely to be safe, namely by comparing the outcomes of children who had been exposed to that level, and those who hadn't been exposed at all.
Given the supposed short timescales involved, were vaccine preservatives responsible for a significant number of cases of autism, then the rate of presentation with autism should show a significant drop (or slowdown in increase) in the relevant age children very shortly after various countries removed the preservatives from vaccines.

Had there been a real causal link, the expectation would be that people claiming there was a link would therefore have some very interesting evidence to support their claims.

Which clearly has nothing at all to do with lead levels in petrol, plutonium in ice cream, or anything else you want to try and use as a distraction.

It's perfectly understandable that you wanted to try and change the subject, but you really didn't do it very well, and now it just looks like you're running away from an answer you don't like and can't deal with.

[skbuncks]

Drknownothing seems to think that all chemicals with the prefix ethyl- are the same. If I didn't have velcro attached to my butt I would have fallen off my chair laughing.
Perhaps she/he/it would like to drink an ethylether solution of ethylmagnesiumbromide, she/he/it could even attempt to wash it down with a nice long swig of ethylacetate.

skb

ETA: Apparently all 16728 of these substance are exactly the same. It must be a conspiracy perpetrated by BigFineChemicalProducers on poor unsuspecting research chemists... (http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/Lookup.do?N5=All&N3=mode+matchpartialmax&N4=ethyl&D7=0&D10=ethyl&N1=S_ID&ST=RS&N25=0&F=PR)

ETA2: In the event the search times out, and in the interests of preserving drknowsnothing stupidity, simply enter the search term 'ethyl' into this site http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/united-kingdom.html

[Mrknownothing]

Drknownothing seems to think that all chemicals with the prefix ethyl- are the same. If I didn't have velcro attached to my butt I would have fallen off my chair laughing.
Perhaps she/he/it would like to drink an ethylether solution of ethylmagnesiumbromide, she/he/it could even attempt to wash it down with a nice long swig of ethylacetate.

skb

ETA: Apparently all 16728 of these substance are exactly the same. It must be a conspiracy perpetrated by BigFineChemicalProducers on poor unsuspecting research chemists... (http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/Lookup.do?N5=All&N3=mode+matchpartialmax&N4=ethyl&D7=0&D10=ethyl&N1=S_ID&ST=RS&N25=0&F=PR)

ETA2: In the event the search times out, and in the interests of preserving drknowsnothing stupidity, simply enter the search term 'ethyl' into this site http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/united-kingdom.html

Still can't answer it can you, why are the symptoms of mercury poisoning the same as the symptoms listed on the autistic spectrum.

[skbuncks]

Still can't answer it can you, why are the symptoms of mercury poisoning the same as the symptoms listed on the autistic spectrum.


Can you provide us with a list of symptoms of mercury poisoning and a list symptoms for the diagnosis of autism (including your sources)?

Then we can compare them and see whether they are identical.

BTW - they're not.



;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

The problem here is that you'd have to be a lot more intelligent to appreciate just how stupid you are!

You clearly cannot see the errors in your thinking and your complete lack of understanding.

skb

ETA: Once you have done the above perhaps you can tells us why you think C8H20Pb = C9H9HgNaO2S
Then once you have done that you maybe elaborate on why its only the mercury that your worried about and not the sodium, sulphur, hydrogen, oxygen or carbon.

[Pebble]

As the symptoms of mercury poisoning are identical to the symptoms listed on the autistic spectrum for a diagnosis of autism, what are your thoughts on that?

.


WRONG! THEY DON'T EVEN APPROACH SIMILAR, LET ALONE IDENTICAL.

If you were to claim that there are a number symptoms of mercury poisioning that are also seen in autistic spectrum disorders, then you might be onto something. However, this is true of the normal range of behaviours as well.

[Croydon Bob]

why are the symptoms of mercury poisoning the same as the symptoms listed on the autistic spectrum.

I think I can help you out here. You see the problem is that you are a cretin who has got their facts wrong. You are trying to argue with people who are smarter than you and know that you are writing crap. Does that help?

[Mrknownothing]

John Jackson;87363]Can you provide us with a list of symptoms of mercury poisoning and a list symptoms for the diagnosis of autism (including your sources)?

Then we can compare them and see whether they are identical.

BTW - they're not.
Well the challenge is on, will do later with pleasure

[Admin]

Well the challenge is on, will do later with pleasure

Remember to supply your references. O0

[Mrknownothing]

Remember to supply your references. O0
J Child Neurol. (http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:AL_get%28this,%20%27jour%27,%20%27J%20Child%2 0Neurol.%27%29;) 2007 Nov;22(11):1308-11.

Blood levels of mercury are related to diagnosis of autism: a reanalysis of an important data set.

Desoto MC (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Desoto%20MC%22%5BAuthor%5D), Hitlan RT (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Hitlan%20RT%22%5BAuthor%5D).
Department of Psychology, University of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls, Iowa 50614, USA. cathy.desoto@uni.edu
Comment in:


J Child Neurol. 2008 Apr;23(4):463; author reply 463-5. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18401039)

Abstract

The question of what is leading to the apparent increase in autism is of great importance. Like the link between aspirin and heart attack, even a small effect can have major health implications. If there is any link between autism and mercury, it is absolutely crucial that the first reports of the question are not falsely stating that no link occurs. We have reanalyzed the data set originally reported by Ip et al. in 2004 and have found that the original p value was in error and that a significant relation does exist between the blood levels of mercury and diagnosis of an autism spectrum disorder. Moreover, the hair sample analysis results offer some support for the idea that persons with autism may be less efficient and more variable at eliminating mercury from the blood.

PMID: 18006963 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Med Hypotheses. (http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:AL_get%28this,%20%27jour%27,%20%27Med%20Hypot heses.%27%29;) 2001 Apr;56(4):462-71.

Autism: a novel form of mercury poisoning.

Bernard S (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Bernard%20S%22%5BAuthor%5D), Enayati A (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Enayati%20A%22%5BAuthor%5D), Redwood L (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Redwood%20L%22%5BAuthor%5D), Roger H (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Roger%20H%22%5BAuthor%5D), Binstock T (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Binstock%20T%22%5BAuthor%5D).
ARC Research, Cranford, New Jersey 07901, USA.
Abstract

Autism is a syndrome characterized by impairments in social relatedness and communication, repetitive behaviors, abnormal movements, and sensory dysfunction. Recent epidemiological studies suggest that autism may affect 1 in 150 US children. Exposure to mercury can cause immune, sensory, neurological, motor, and behavioral dysfunctions similar to traits defining or associated with autism, and the similarities extend to neuroanatomy, neurotransmitters, and biochemistry. Thimerosal, a preservative added to many vaccines, has become a major source of mercury in children who, within their first two years, may have received a quantity of mercury that exceeds safety guidelines. A review of medical literature and US government data suggests that: (i) many cases of idiopathic autism are induced by early mercury exposure from thimerosal; (ii) this type of autism represents an unrecognized mercurial syndrome; and (iii) genetic and non-genetic factors establish a predisposition whereby thimerosal's adverse effects occur only in some children. Copyright 2001 Harcourt Publishers Ltd.

[Elaine_M]

This any use? Looks similar to me, only about 150 similarities listed...

http://www.nationalautismassociation.org/thimerosal.php

[Mrknownothing]

I think I can help you out here. You see the problem is that you are a cretin who has got their facts wrong. You are trying to argue with people who are smarter than you and know that you are writing crap. Does that help?

So just in case you're not too sure cut and paste the blue numbers and letters line below into the webrowser in the top right hand corner of your screen and pour a large G and T.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11339848 (http://http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11339848)

http://www.nationalautismassociation.org/thimerosal.php (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11339848)

[Mrknownothing]

WRONG! THEY DON'T EVEN APPROACH SIMILAR, LET ALONE IDENTICAL.

If you were to claim that there are a number symptoms of mercury poisioning that are also seen in autistic spectrum disorders, then you might be onto something. However, this is true of the normal range of behaviours as well.

Just check the pubmed references above, poodle.

[tolman]

Remember to supply your references. O0

J Child Neurol. (http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:AL_get%28this,%20%27jour%27,%20%27J%20Child%2 0Neurol.%27%29;) 2007 Nov;22(11):1308-11.
Med Hypotheses. (http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:AL_get%28this,%20%27jour%27,%20%27Med%20Hypot heses.%27%29;) 2001 Apr;56(4):462-71.
Any chance of providing links that work?

[Mrknownothing]

Any chance of providing links that work?

[/URL]

[URL="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1214294"]
(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1214294)

[tolman]

'Dr' know,

Given the supposed short timescales involved, were vaccine preservatives responsible for a significant number of cases of autism, then the rate of presentation with autism should show a significant change in the relevant age children very shortly after various countries removed the preservatives from vaccines or significantly reduced the levels of exposure.

Had there been a real causal link, the expectation would be that people claiming there was a link would therefore have some very interesting evidence to support their claims, evidence which went some way beyond simple correlation.

If there isn't such evidence of such a smoking gun, many people would wonder why.
All it would seem to need is access to autism diagnosis rates by year&age.

[tolman]

This any use? Looks similar to me, only about 150 similarities listed...

http://www.nationalautismassociation.org/thimerosal.php
Even with genetically susceptible people around, and environmental mercury exposure, that site would seem to suggest that autism didn't exist significantly before vaccines.

That should be a pretty easy hypothesis to test - just look at children who have never had a thimerosal-containing vaccine shot, and see if any of them develop autism.

Or look at countries that eliminate or seriously reduce thimerosal use, and watch the miraculous disappearance or decline in autism diagnosis rates.

[Croydon Bob]

So just in case you're not too sure cut and paste the blue numbers and letters line below into the webrowser in the top right hand corner of your screen and pour a large G and T.

It's not my fault that you're stupid! it's not my fault that you choose to advertise the fact that you are stupid on this forum! I was just trying to help you out. If you want everyone to laugh at you then carry right on with your pathetic wibbling.

[Mrknownothing]

If there is any link between autism and mercury, it is absolutely crucial that the first reports of the question are not falsely stating that no link occurs. We have reanalyzed the data set originally reported by Ip et al. in 2004 and have found that the original p value was in error and that a significant relation does exist between the blood levels of mercury and diagnosis of an autism spectrum disorder.How have you missed this? and Jacko's religious rant that there is no link? Come on Jacko read the papers if you can without foaming at the mouth.:cheesy:

Come on these are papers from the book of pubmed, what is it stunned silence, even dame cruela must be foaming on the jessica rabbit!O0

[Mrknownothing]

It's not my fault that you're stupid! it's not my fault that you choose to advertise the fact that you are stupid on this forum! I was just trying to help you out. If you want everyone to laugh at you then carry right on with your pathetic wibbling.

She's lost it!:-*

[Mrknownothing]

Even with genetically susceptible people around, and environmental mercury exposure, that site would seem to suggest that autism didn't exist significantly before vaccines.

That should be a pretty easy hypothesis to test - just look at children who have never had a thimerosal-containing vaccine shot, and see if any of them develop autism.

Or look at countries that eliminate or seriously reduce thimerosal use, and watch the miraculous disappearance or decline in autism diagnosis rates.

You know what that's the one piece of data that the vaccine murderers refuse to do, a simple correlation between those who were forced to vaccinate their kids with emotional blackmail and those intellegent enough to say up yours with the medieval jollop and refuse it.

At least with the swine flu scam we know that most people saw sense and told the bent vaccinators to shove it. Pity we all paid for that woo, hopefully next time the WHO makes a health initiative no one will take any notice.

[tolman]

How have you missed this?
Any chance you could go away and come back (or not) when you understand the distinction between correlation and causation?

Then maybe you can link to the (no doubt numerous) studies that show clear and sudden drops in autism occurrence after drops in or cessation of exposure of young children to thimerosal?

[tolman]

You know what that's the one piece of data that the vaccine murderers refuse to do, a simple correlation between those who were forced to vaccinate their kids with emotional blackmail and those intellegent enough to say up yours with the medieval jollop and refuse it.
That level of detail is unnecessary, when clearly better data would be pre/post thimerosal reduction/removal data for an entire country.

When national autism diagnosis rates drop suddenly, everywhere that thimerosal use drops or is abandoned completely, clearly temporally linked to the drop/cessation, it should be pretty hard to cover up for long, especially with various media outlets no doubt dying for such a good story.

[Mrknownothing]

Any chance you could go away and come back (or not) when you understand the distinction between correlation and causation?

Sorry I have upset you, facing facts can be hard, I shall pray for you.

[Croydon Bob]

Sorry I have upset you, facing facts can be hard, I shall pray for you.

;D Where are your facts?

;D Are you as stupid as you pretend to be? Or just trolling for a laugh by pretending to be so dumb?

Why don't we ever get anyone with a brain to debate with? :undecided:

[Pebble]

This any use? Looks similar to me, only about 150 similarities listed...

http://www.nationalautismassociation.org/thimerosal.php


So now we have moved from identical to similarities - better. Of the less than 80 supposed similarities most are rather vague, and many very obviously and importantly different to each other.

But I could easily construct a similarities list using dementia or Downs syndrome and get just as many 'similarities' - that is not the point. Try reading some evidence and see how similar you think the outcomes are:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2743883/?tool=pubmed

[tolman]

Sorry I have upset you, facing facts can be hard, I shall pray for you.
As I said, when (or if) you show you actually understand the difference between correlation and causation, you might begin understand why you're currently such a joke.

[Admin]

This any use? Looks similar to me, only about 150 similarities listed...

http://www.nationalautismassociation.org/thimerosal.php

No, I'm afraid not.

If you list 150+ symptoms they can be matched to almost anything.

Drknow's claim was that the symptoms of autism are the same as the symptoms of mercury poisoning. I see (s)he's attempted to post some links, but they don't seem to be working.

What I asked for was evidence to substantiate the claim that autism symptoms are identical to mercury poisoning symptoms.

I'll check back in the morning. O0

[PaulW99]

You know what that's the one piece of data that the vaccine murderers refuse to do, a simple correlation between those who were forced to vaccinate their kids with emotional blackmail and those intellegent enough to say up yours with the medieval jollop and refuse it.

At least with the swine flu scam we know that most people saw sense and told the bent vaccinators to shove it. Pity we all paid for that woo, hopefully next time the WHO makes a health initiative no one will take any notice.

Who did the "vaccine murderers" murder?

"those intellegent enough" Oh, that's good!

Where did you say you got your medical degree from?

[Pebble]

Here is a balanced description of the acute and chronic effects of inorganic and organic mercury poisioning. This clearly describes the continued speculation about the role of mercury and various neurological conditions based on the fact that it is a heavy metal and exposure continues rather than anything more solid. Efforts to confirm or perfectly refute any such associations (we are no where near considering causation) have so far failed to resolve the controversy since any positive association, however weak the study has to be taken very seriously.

http://neuro.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/20/4/iv

[Mrknownothing]

Who did the "vaccine murderers" murder?

"those intellegent enough" Oh, that's good!

Where did you say you got your medical degree from?

What a laugh, when you guys loose hands over fist the best you can do is effectively ban someone. Good job a couple of thousand people have seen this happen, bet its not the first time. You must have kittens editing this site to keep it 'squeaky clean'.

I shall pray for you all and one day redemption will come, love to all and try to stay off the Tramidol Bunny we don't want you accused of negligently bending those research results to show that only drugs can save us.

Love to all

DrKnow

[Mrknownothing]

Here is a balanced description of the acute and chronic effects of inorganic and organic mercury poisioning. This clearly describes the continued speculation about the role of mercury and various neurological conditions based on the fact that it is a heavy metal and exposure continues rather than anything more solid. Efforts to confirm or perfectly refute any such associations (we are no where near considering causation) have so far failed to resolve the controversy since any positive association, however weak the study has to be taken very seriously.

http://neuro.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/20/4/iv

Do you work for Mandelson or Campbell, the Labour party could do with a spin doctor like you. Next you will be telling us that its not the fall that kills us it's the sudden stop at the end.

Pity is no one is really listening to twats who set themselves up to be superheros saving us from wobbley healers, we can all work that out. If this site was genuine it would have a section on swine flu bollocks and that's where the public can really see what a fake pile this site is.

To quote the paper vulture Croyeena Bobbit 'I can't believe that so much shit is all together on one site'. Keep it up boys, no ones listening. That's the only use this site has collecting all the souless shit fucks in one great toilet and continually flushing them together, it's a brilliant idea WELL DONE.

[Admin]

What a laugh, when you guys loose hands over fist the best you can do is effectively ban someone

Last night you started posting your stupidity in other threads so I've restricted your posting rights - it's the same thing that happened to youy last time you were here so don't go acting surprised.

You can still post in this thread so feel free to supply the evidence that autism symptoms and symptoms ofmercury poisoning are identical. O0

Unless of course this 'ban' is your excuse to back out from your claim. ;)

[Admin]

Do you work for Mandelson or Campbell, the Labour party could do with a spin doctor like you. Next you will be telling us that its not the fall that kills us it's the sudden stop at the end.

Pity is no one is really listening to twats who set themselves up to be superheros saving us from wobbley healers, we can all work that out. If this site was genuine it would have a section on swine flu bollocks and that's where the public can really see what a fake pile this site is.

To quote the paper vulture Croyeena Bobbit 'I can't believe that so much shit is all together on one site'. Keep it up boys, no ones listening. That's the only use this site has collecting all the souless shit fucks in one great toilet and continually flushing them together, it's a brilliant idea WELL DONE.

;D ;D ;D

And you expect people to take your anti-vaccination views seriously!

[tolman]

What a laugh, when you guys loose hands over fist the best you can do is effectively ban someone. Good job a couple of thousand people have seen this happen.

Wow - there's nothing quite like delusions of grandeur, is there?
In reality there are probably only a dozen people reading this, and all the smart ones realise what a complete moron you are, not even seeming to understand the difference between correlation and causality.

(PS - your imaginary friends don't count as 'people')

[PaulW99]

I see you've been stripped of your medical title. Progress.

"What a laugh, when you guys loose hands over fist"
Could you explain to me why the people most against the vaccination programs also seem to be the least likely to spell it (or anything else) correctly?

[tolman]

Could you explain to me why the people most against the vaccination programs also seem to be the least likely to spell it (or anything else) correctly?
I think there was a thread over at JREF on conspiracy believers, and their likely level of educational attainment.

[Croydon Bob]

To quote the paper vulture Croyeena Bobbit 'I can't believe that so much shit is all together on one site'. Keep it up boys, no ones listening. That's the only use this site has collecting all the souless shit fucks in one great toilet and continually flushing them together, it's a brilliant idea WELL DONE.

Ahhh. Poor baby has had a tantrum. Did you make a fool of yourself again? Couldn't back your lies up with evidence? Never mind little diddums. ;D

[tolman]

Keep it up boys, no ones listening.
Apart, of course, from the 'couple of thousand' people who you seem to think have seen you win every argument.

If you think vaccines are responsible for autism, what failure of Big Pharma do you reckon is responsible for you?