Re: MMR autism

From: Mark Probert (Probert_at_lumbercartel.com)
Date: 12/28/04 

Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2004 11:09:17 -0500

<allbell@vnet.net> wrote in message
news:1104248735.763858.288680@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > >b. When I search Pub Med, I see a fair number of studies listed that
> > >deal with the relationship between autism and risk factors such as
> > >immunizations and mercurcy exposure.
>
> >Anti-vac liars should always be treated with the maximum amount of
> contempt.
>
> a. Why should anyone be treated with contempt?

Anti-vac liars cause people to erroneously forego vaccinating their children
to prevent nasty and sometimes deadly childhhod diseases. I treat murderers
and people who comit assault and seriously bodily harm the same way.

And, especially, why
> should people be treated with contempt simply for questioning the role
> of thimerosal?

They are NOT questioning the role of thimerosal, which is now aout of all
childhood vaccines in the US. For one reason, it has been shown that
thimerosal is not a problem. For another reason, they lie about it.

> On the one hand, I agree, studies seem to have absolved
> thimerosal of causing autism.

Well, that is a start. In fact, one Danish study showed that the rate of
Autism INCREASED after it was removed.

On the other hand, why would you shoot
> any preservative into someone's bloodstream if a good,
> preservative-free alternative existed?

Originally, the purpose was to allow for multi-dose distribution, which
facilitates mass vaccination.

> My feeling is that some thimerosal defenders (you, for example) really
> believe in thimerosal but that others are vaccine company agents who
> try to create a more favorable climate for fighting lawsuits by going
> on the Web to shout down thimerosal opponents.

I do not really beleive in thimerosal. I beleive in FACTS.

My feeling is that when someone types whacko conspiracy bull***, they are
admitting that they just ran out of facts.

As for the lawsuits being shot dfown...good. They were bogus to start with
and Wakefield was double dipping.

> Again: I think thimerosal is fine. I personally would take a shot that
> had thimerosal in it. I think that, except in cases where children have
> close relatives who've had bad reactions to vaccines, parents who don't
> vaccinate their children are foolish. The risks to children from raging
> measles epidemics are far greater than those from thimerosal. But
> there's nothing flaky about continuing to raise questions and
> continuing to collect data.

Raising valid questions in a rational manner is just fine. Anti-vac liars do
not do that.

> b. I'm very much in favor of vaccination, but I also think it's
> possible that a very small percentage of people could have some kind of
> genetic trait that doesn't directly make them autistic but does make
> them vulnerable to developing autism sometime after birth.
>
> The triggering factor could be something in vaccine shots. It could be
> related to bacterial or viral infections that children acquire when
> they go to the doctor, chemicals in the cleaning fluid at the doctor's
> office, natural or artificial substances in the lollipops that the
> doctors give out, something that happens outside the doctor's office,
> or some other external factor.
>
> The genetic vulnerability might be too rare to show up in studies of
> the effect of vaccination on the general population. If that's the
> case, studies about the effects of vaccination (or anything else) on
> autism in the general population might be irrelevant to treatment
> recommendations for children with the vulnerability. You'd have to find
> several related children who had problems with vaccines, with at least
> one or two having autism/related disorders, then compare and contrast
> the children's genomes to see what made them vulnerable. But the thing
> is to find children who seemed to develop autism/related disorders in
> response to some medical treatment, not just random children who happen
> to have autism/related disorders.
>
> Also: just in case anyone out there is really an agent for the vaccine
> companies: I don't see why this process should lead to any successful
> lawsuits against the companies. The gene testing technology is new, and
> any genetic vulnerabilities are, obviously, rare, and might not turn
> out to have anything to do with the vaccines themselves. It would
> really be in the drug companies' own interest to finance the research
> and get to the heart of the matter.
>
> Moreover, this kind of research is a tool the drug companies can use to
> develop profitable new drugs. If the vaccine makers/drug companies
> found a mutation that made people vulnerable to autism, maybe they
> could make billions and billions of dollars by coming up with a drug to
> prevent that vulnerability from causing autism.

Quantcast