Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, goodness, remember back when Tobacco companies said the science couldn't prove cigarettes were bad for you. They even went so far to require fire proof furniture and mattresses full of chemicals all to deny cigarettes were bad for you. It took the whistle blowers who I might add were called "freaks" denying the science 50 years to get the tobacco companies to finally admit they hide evidence that tobacco caused heart disease and cancer.
Mark has already dealt with this one.
Quote:
Not true, tobacco cannot be proven to cause heart disease or cancer.
Well, which is it? Either tobacco causes heart disease and cancer and tobacco companies covered it up, or tobacco does not cause heart disease and cancer and the tobacco companies had nothing to cover up.
Quote:
History proves that large corporations have a way of spinning what they want to happen. So these mandates with a governments blessing that got paid prior by drug companies appear great until you see the trail leading back to the manufacturers of these drugs. After digging around it then doesn't seem so great anymore.
Whistle blowers for the tobacco company got discredited. They started secretly sending pages of data to random hospitals under cover to try and be heard. Who knows what to believe anymore. That's why it has to be the choice of those who use it. Without threats or coercion. IMO.
If you do not want to vaccinate, don't vaccinate.
The government is allowing the suit against Merck to go forward, but it is not prosecuting Merck itself. The issue is not whether the MMR is safe, only whether Merck was claiming a higher efficacy for the mumps component than it could support with testing. Since the suit has not even been heard yet, taking the mere existence of the suit as proof of wrongdoing is premature. Also, please note that if the "whistleblowers" prevail they may walk away with a big chunk of cash.
Quote:
It's no wonder people question mandates, or the protected science of the CDC and drug companies. It's hardly transparent which of course is going to be suspicious. How do people navigate through a world where people are paid to come up with propaganda and lobby, pay government to promote their products through mandates. I'm surprised it works, but yet watching that documentary I can see why.
Plenty of people lobbying for the mandates have no connection to industry at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevek64
Some would say that it's equally absurd that you don't take this into account from the JAMA.
"Another article in The Journal of the American Medical Association suggests that clinical-trial and review articles about Vioxx often were written by company-hired ghostwriters and later signed by researchers who had little to do with the actual study or review.
Don't scapegoat Merck -- other pharmaceutical companies do the same thing, suggest Catherine D. DeAngelis, MD, MPH, and Phil B. Fontanarosa, MD, MBA. DeAngelis is editor-in-chief of The Journal of the American Medical Association; Fontanarosa is the executive deputy editor.
"Make no mistake -- the manipulation of study results, authors, editors, and reviewers is not the sole purview of one company," they write in a scathing editorial."
The editorial is eight years old, and the suggestions for change made in it are now standard practice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by katjonjj
"does not seem" "seems to be"
Sounds conclusive to me...
Do you have any sources that contradict the finding in that study that ethylmercury from thimerosal in vaccines is excreted in the stool? You have said the body cannot get rid of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by katjonjj
"Mercury in any form is poisonous, with mercury toxicity most commonly affecting the neurologic, gastrointestinal (GI) and renal organ systems. Poisoning can result from mercury vapor inhalation, mercury ingestion, mercury injection, and absorption of mercury through the skin."
Says Medscape yet the CDC and FDA (along with the EPA) want us to think that thimerosal is perfectly safe.
A discussion of ethylmercury is strangely absent from that article. Vaccines are not even listed a source.
Since you apparently believe Medscape is a fine source for information on mercury, how about here:
In the 90's mercury was taken out of pesticides, paint, and vaccines yet it was the anti-vaxxers who cried long enough for this all to happen?
Why was it taken out of paint too? Anti-vaxxers are against mercury in paint too? Or is it because mercury in ANY form is poisonous. Yet people were in favor of giving a shot of mercury to babies at birth?
The only vaccine given at birth is for hepatitis B. It contains no mercury.
The desperation of the anti-vax movement is obvious in its obsession with mercury. You may vaccinate your child now with products that contain no mercury, not even a trace. That includes flu vaccine.
Since thimerosal was removed from vaccines, there has been no decrease in the incidence of autism. We now know that thimerosal does not cause autism, and it was not necessary to take it out of vaccines. The removal of thimerosal from vaccines was done out of an excess of caution and is not proof that thimerosal is dangerous.
Quote:
Talk about common sense? If even trace amounts of mercury are injected... you are being injected with poison.
To completely avoid mercury, you must stop eating, drinking, and breathing.
Quote:
Toxicity studies of ethyl mercury (thimerosal)... none.
The first court case, United States v. Merck & Co., stems from claims by two former Merck scientists that Merck "fraudulently misled the government and omitted, concealed, and adulterated material information regarding the efficacy of its mumps vaccine in violation of the FCA [False Claims Act]."
The Department of Justice had declined to rule on the suit back in 2012.
Quote:
Mandates are just going to put drug companies under more scrutiny, I guess they'll just have to get use to it. Let's pose another question; Why shouldn't vaccines be scrutinized like any other medicine or prevention? Because they also prevent disease? Advil does reduce swelling and reduces fever but it also ups your risk for heart attack and stroke, increases bleeding which can be deadly. I don't think that excuse flies to be honest. You can't lie about efficiency, or injury and not expect to have trouble covering it up down the road.
Why are you discussing NSAIDs? They have nothing to do with vaccines.
You are saying there is no scrutiny of vaccines? Really? I'm speechless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoppySead
There are a lot of issues that need attention, it's just hard to get it when money is at stake and you're dealing with a large corporation. More and more people are trying to bring transparency to drug manufacturers. We ingest it, we deserve to know.
I was so glad to see new warnings on NSAIDS come out. They were keep secret for 10 years.
Warnings about NSAIDs and cardiovascular disease were not "kept secret for ten years." They were already on labeling in 2005. The current change just strengthens the warning. Why would you be happy about it? Are you pro-pain?
"Diclofenac, which is not used much in the United States, and COX-2 inhibitors like celecoxib, marketed as Celebrex, account for three heart attacks and strokes a year on average — one of them fatal — among every 1,000 patients taking high doses regularly, the study found."
"For those who can tolerate it, the safest therapy appears to be naproxen. Even at high daily doses of 1,000 milligrams, naproxen does not increase cardiovascular risk and may actually have a protective effect similar to that of aspirin, the analysis found." [However, naproxen increases the risk of GI bleeding.]
" 'People get very worked up about the cardiac risks, and they are real,' said Dr. Brian Walitt, a rheumatologist and associate professor at Georgetown University. 'But these are population-wide risks. There are people with arthritis using these drugs every day, or most days, and most of them never have a problem.' ”
"So how do consumers choose the right pain relievers? Here is some advice from the experts:
■ For people who can’t function without daily use of Nsaids, 'our advice has always been, use the lowest dose you can for the least amount of time you can,' said Dr. Steven Nissen, chairman of cardiovascular medicine at the Cleveland Clinic.
■ If you have heart disease or risk factors for it, your doctor should assess the risk of chronic Nsaid use based on your personal medical and family medical history. A history of gastrointestinal problems should be part of the equation as well.
■ Naproxen is a good first choice for chronic pain, as long as your stomach can tolerate it.
■ If you are on a low-dose aspirin regimen to prevent heart disease, avoid Nsaids containing ibuprofen, which may weaken the beneficial effect of aspirin.
■ If you struggle with chronic pain, you may want to explore alternatives like cognitive behavioral therapy, suggested Dr. Roger Chou of Oregon Health and Science University, a pain expert." [In other words, just try to cope with being in pain. ]
Quote:
Finally, the government has wised up about corn syrup. How long has all the natural sites been telling everyone to stop consuming it!
Corn syrup, trans fat? Your anti-vax arguments are so weak you just have to keep trying to introduce irrelevant topics, don't you?
My husband has been on low dosage (baby) aspirin since his heart attack. His cardiologist said he would recommend low dosage aspirin to EVERYONE over the age of 65 purely as a precaution, whether they have a history or not.
Seems medicine cannot agree. Some say Yes. Others say No.
If vaccines are safe... why don't we see more independent studies done and published? As another poster said... transparency is all we ask. However, we only hear that vaccines are "safe and effective."
Plenty of studies from around the world have been done without drug company funding.
Do you have any sources that contradict the finding in that study that ethylmercury from thimerosal in vaccines is excreted in the stool? You have said the body cannot get rid of it.
A discussion of ethylmercury is strangely absent from that article. Vaccines are not even listed a source.
Since you apparently believe Medscape is a fine source for information on mercury, how about here:
"A very controversial source of organic mercury exposure is thimerosal, a preservative used in vaccines to prevent bacterial contamination. The most commonly used vaccines that contain thimerosal are for diphtheria-tetanus-whole cell pertussis (DTP), Haemophilus influenzae (HIB), and hepatitis B. However, no definite link between this small amount of mercury and any known disease has been found. Nonetheless, concerns over mercury content in vaccine have led to the increased availability of mercury-free vaccines. " Medscape: Medscape Access
The article starts by saying ALL forms or mercury are poisonous. However it has that small paragraph on thimerosal. I suspect it is controversial because IT IS A KNOWN POISON.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010
The only vaccine given at birth is for hepatitis B. It contains no mercury.
The desperation of the anti-vax movement is obvious in its obsession with mercury. You may vaccinate your child now with products that contain no mercury, not even a trace. That includes flu vaccine.
Since thimerosal was removed from vaccines, there has been no decrease in the incidence of autism. We now know that thimerosal does not cause autism, and it was not necessary to take it out of vaccines. The removal of thimerosal from vaccines was done out of an excess of caution and is not proof that thimerosal is dangerous.
To completely avoid mercury, you must stop eating, drinking, and breathing.
Mercury is poisonous. Period. There is no proof that ALL mercury is excreted. There is proof that mercury can and does get lodged in the brain causing neurological problems. The discussion was not about autism. Did I even mention autism?
Are you sure you know as much about vaccines as you think? There are no "mercury-free" vaccines that previously had mercury in them. There are "trace" amounts. You know, like ketchup can have "trace" amounts of bug parts but do not contain bugs.
"VI. TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES
Methylmercury
A. Oral/Ingestion
U.S. EPA Reference Dose (RfD) for Chronic Oral Exposure:
1E-4 (or 0.0001) mg/kg-day; based on developmental neuropsychological impairment from epidemiological studies in humans (Methylmercury (MeHg) (CASRN 22967-92-6) | IRIS | US EPA, I.A.1) (114). Last Agency Consensus Date 6/19/01.
ATSDR Minimal Risk Level (MRL):
Chronic oral (developmental endpoint), 0.0003 mg/kg/day.
(www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mrls.html) (193). Last revised 3/99.
Ethylmercury
No toxicity reference values available.
Phenylmercuric Acetate
C. Oral/Ingestion
U.S. EPA Reference Dose (RfD) for Chronic Oral Exposure:
8E-5 (or 0.00005) mg/kg-day; based on renal damage in rat oral chronic study (Phenylmercuric acetate (CASRN 62-38-4) | IRIS | US EPA, I.A.1) (19). Last Agency Verification Date 8/19/85."
No toxicity studies have been done? But they allowed it in vaccines and still do? In case you missed it... Hep B had mercury in it until the AAP and other groups requested it be removed (except for "trace" amounts). You must have missed that in one of my previous posts.
In the same chemical summary: "The U.S. EPA has cancelled ethylmercury and methylmercury uses as a fungicide on food grain in the U.S., and such use is discouraged worldwide by the World Health Organization (1, 197)."
Why not continue using it...it's perfectly safe... Isn't it?
AND: "There are no known uses for methylmercury. Thimerosal contains mercury and is metabolized in the body to form ethylmercury; thimerosal has been used as a preservative in some vaccines, though such pediatric uses are uncommon and continue to be phased out."
Are you still saying that it is anti-vaxxer irrationality that mercury in vaccines is poisonous? It IS poisonous and there is no evidence to suggest otherwise.
Whether or not it contributes to autism is not the issue. The issue is there is known poison in vaccines. Granted most of the sources in the EPA paper are from the CDC.. They know and knew it was poisonous. And yet the FDA signed off on injecting babies with poisonous shots of Hep B.
You know I'm starting to hope that California does put a referendum on the ballot concerning this vaccine law.
If this does make it onto the ballot anti-vaccination groups are going to learn firsthand that the public overwhelming rejects their views. They will get kicked in the teeth again.
You guys just can't take a cue from public opinion polls can you? Or, is your position that these too, are all part of a "conspiracy"? Oh wait, when you lose the referendum, will your next contention be that there was massive election fraud? Trying to keep ahead of you folks is just about impossible because its hard to continuously to respond with facts and science to people who just make up one story after another.
This poll shows almost eighty percent support for a mandatory vaccination law. Translation: Good luck with your referendum.
I think it will get to the ballot and in my view, where it should have been in the first place.
That poll was:
1.) Poll was taken around the measles outbreak. People of course will be more emotional right after such an event and likely to say they want something "done" right after it happens. And then the memory fades and.....
2.) This was a nationwide poll. CA and different states will poll differently.
3.) And notice even with this poll, the 80% headline number is not quite matching to what the CA law is about:
"Nearly 6 in 10 Americans believe that children should be barred from public school and day care activities if they are not vaccinated (58% say a child should not be allowed to participate in public school; 61% daycare). "
So only a 58% majority, nationwide, favor what the CA law does. And this again is a nationwide poll, not a state poll which CA in my guess will be close to split on the issue.
So yes, put it out to the polls, let the people, money, and lobbying speak and see where it all falls. Though I'd prefer to hear just the people speak but I believe that's just fantasy thinking on my behalf.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoppySead
There are a lot of issues that need attention, it's just hard to get it when money is at stake
I absolutely agree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010
The editorial is eight years old, and the suggestions for change made in it are now standard practice.
Ahh, 8 year old article, ancient history, no longer relevant, problem 100% solved, eh?
But the bigger point....you didn't dispute JAMA's conclusions in your response, it's just a time issue is all you can say. So then it appears you are saying that you agree(don't disagree) with JAMA and therefore believe any "science" in the med world you have been basing your claims on previously to this 8 year old article could possibly be tainted? That's certainly the only logical conclusion based on your response. Though if you think JAMA, a respected science based/public based health group is wrong on this front, I'd like to hear that from you and the evidence you have to dispute their claims.....I'm looking for nothing short of science from you of course.
btw, here's a more recent articles for you on the topic:
"Association of Marketing Interactions With Medical Trainees’ Knowledge About Evidence-Based Prescribing"
"Conclusions and Relevance Among physician trainees, our survey showed an association between positive attitudes toward industry-physician interactions and less knowledge about evidence-based prescribing and greater inclination to recommend brand-name drugs. Policies intended to insulate trainees from pharmaceutical marketing may promote better educational outcomes."
Maybe you just have fun kicking people in the teeth. But it won't make them ignore all the injuries and want answers.
I don't know anyone who isn't surprised today that they can't keep popping Advil and Motrin without serious side effects. Surprising you is fine with me.
So now disagreeing with you is "kicking people in the teeth"? Just what kind of "appeal to moderation" is that? Sounds more like " my way or the highway"!
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoppySead
Right, what else would we want? We aren't paid by anyone, gifted by anyone. We don't make a living off wanting a choice, or wanting investigation.
Those who profit, or receive gifts for their effort in the mandate movement will be questioned. Why shouldn't they be. One day, there will be too many studies to ignore. It might take a while but it will happen.
How do we know you're not benefiting financially from your opposition? Plenty are!
Ahh, 8 year old article, ancient history, no longer relevant, problem 100% solved, eh?
My point was that the recommendations in the editorial have been implemented since the editorial was published.
In the real world, doctors tend not to use drugs that do not work or cause side effects. Patients will not take drugs that cause side effects that they deem unacceptable.
The benefits of vaccines are undeniable. The risks are minuscule and mandates are justified precisely because the risks are so tiny and a small misinformed minority of people are threatening herd immunity by not vaccinating. It's more dangerous to go swimming than to take a vaccine, but I can guarantee you that there are probably children of anti-vax families in swimming pools, lakes, and oceans this very minute.
Quote:
Originally Posted by katjonjj
"A very controversial source of organic mercury exposure is thimerosal, a preservative used in vaccines to prevent bacterial contamination. The most commonly used vaccines that contain thimerosal are for diphtheria-tetanus-whole cell pertussis (DTP), Haemophilus influenzae (HIB), and hepatitis B. However, no definite link between this small amount of mercury and any known disease has been found. Nonetheless, concerns over mercury content in vaccine have led to the increased availability of mercury-free vaccines. "
So now you admit there is no known link between mercury in vaccines and any known disease. Your own link says so, right?
Quote:
Mercury is poisonous. Period. There is no proof that ALL mercury is excreted. There is proof that mercury can and does get lodged in the brain causing neurological problems. The discussion was not about autism. Did I even mention autism?
"Neurological problems" is a euphemism for autism, and every person reading this thread knows it.
So now it is not that ethylmercury is not excreted, it is that ALL mercury is not excreted. Before you said it could not be excreted at all. Shifting the goalposts, eh?
If "Mercury is poisonous. Period", what do we do about all the mercury we eat, drink, and inhale every day? Do you not see how ridiculous "Mercury is poisonous. Period." is?
Quote:
Are you sure you know as much about vaccines as you think? There are no "mercury-free" vaccines that previously had mercury in them. There are "trace" amounts. You know, like ketchup can have "trace" amounts of bug parts but do not contain bugs.
Due to the decision to remove thimerosal from vaccines, children's vaccines are now available that are free of mercury. There were in the past some that contained trace amounts. That is no longer true.
See Table 1. Note that it makes a definite distinction between trace of mercury and mercury free:
No toxicity studies have been done? But they allowed it in vaccines and still do? In case you missed it... Hep B had mercury in it until the AAP and other groups requested it be removed (except for "trace" amounts). You must have missed that in one of my previous posts.
Hepatitis B vaccine now has no mercury in it, not even a trace.
Quote:
In the same chemical summary: "The U.S. EPA has cancelled ethylmercury and methylmercury uses as a fungicide on food grain in the U.S., and such use is discouraged worldwide by the World Health Organization ."
Why not continue using it...it's perfectly safe... Isn't it?
Fungicide treated grains were never intended for human consumption, only for planting. People were poisoned when they accidentally used them for food. That was due to the large dose such exposures represented. To prevent such exposures such fungicides are no longer used.
Quote:
AND: "There are no known uses for methylmercury. Thimerosal contains mercury and is metabolized in the body to form ethylmercury; thimerosal has been used as a preservative in some vaccines, though such pediatric uses are uncommon and continue to be phased out."
And? What big new revelation is that? We now know there was no need to remove thimerosal from vaccines.
That is strange, because methyl mercury and ethyl mercury are not synonymous. If they were, we would only be talking about one substance, not two.
Quote:
Are you still saying that it is anti-vaxxer irrationality that mercury in vaccines is poisonous? It IS poisonous and there is no evidence to suggest otherwise.
You may ignore the evidence. It's still there.
Quote:
Whether or not it contributes to autism is not the issue. The issue is there is known poison in vaccines. Granted most of the sources in the EPA paper are from the CDC. They know and knew it was poisonous. And yet the FDA signed off on injecting babies with poisonous shots of Hep B.
There is no "poison" in hepatitis B vaccine. The current vaccine is available with no mercury in it for those who still believe the anti-vaccine propaganda.
Quote:
That doesn't bother you at all?
I am confident that thimerosal was never a danger. I would not hesitate to use a vaccine containing it for myself.
Does it not bother you that you insist any exposure to mercury is dangerous when every person on the planet is exposed to it every nanosecond of every day?
You know I'm starting to hope that California does put a referendum on the ballot concerning this vaccine law.
If this does make it onto the ballot anti-vaccination groups are going to learn firsthand that the public overwhelming rejects their views. They will get kicked in the teeth again.
You guys just can't take a cue from public opinion polls can you? Or, is your position that these too, are all part of a "conspiracy"? Oh wait, when you lose the referendum, will your next contention be that there was massive election fraud? Trying to keep ahead of you folks is just about impossible because its hard to continuously to respond with facts and science to people who just make up one story after another.
This poll shows almost eighty percent support for a mandatory vaccination law. Translation: Good luck with your referendum.
You can hold half a dozen referendums on mandatory vaccination. You're still going to lose. The public seems to understand what the anti-vaccine movement deliberately blinds itself too. That is that the public's best protection against contagious disease is compulsory vaccination and the herd immunity that it creates. If pathogens can't find hosts within the population, they can't multiply and the disease stops dead in its tracks.
Here's another poll showing massive support for compulsory vaccination laws.
There are other polls like this one and the one I cited above in my reply to Steve. They all show the same massive support for these laws. But, hey even if anti-vaccination folks lost the election, they'd still have some excuse. It just goes on and on.
There is a bottom line to this. Anti-vaccine people have a position that can't be sustained by the legislature, the courts, or the electorate as a whole. Most people in this situation would step back, take a look in a mirror, and reevaluate their stance. The anti-vaccine movement does none of the above. It just seems to get more and more hysterical and detached from reality.
You continue to surprise me. Let's recite some facts, o.k.?
1. Your Surgeon General (and mine) who is head of the Public Health Service, a federal government agency, issued a report in early 1964, announcing that smoking cigarettes was dangerous and could cause lung cancer and heart disease. At that time, it was a courageous act that may have been the very finest hour for that office ever.
2. It was private industry--the tobacco companies--not your government-- that attempted to downplay, prevaricate, and misrepresent the findings of the Surgeon General's Report.
3. The willingness of your government and particularly your public health authorities (PHS, CDC, FDA, NIH) to take unpopular positions like these against huge multi-billion dollar corporations is precisely the reason why you should have some level of trust in them. The actions against Big Tobacco proved the independence of these institutions.
Are you and others ever going to stop making outrageous claims about the MMR vaccine like the autism claim? Just how many studies does it take to discredit this kind of nonsense? So far, nine studies have shown that no link exists. Do you want ten, fifteen, or twenty? Is even this going to persuade you and others? Or is the fact that there is no link between autism and the MMR vaccination (or any other vaccination) just an inconvenient truth for some of you?
Maybe you just have fun kicking people in the teeth. But it won't make them ignore all the injuries and want answers.
I don't know anyone who isn't surprised today that they can't keep popping Advil and Motrin without serious side effects. Surprising you is fine with me.
Then you come along...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katarina Witt
So now disagreeing with you is "kicking people in the teeth"? Just what kind of "appeal to moderation" is that? Sounds more like " my way or the highway"!
How do we know you're not benefiting financially from your opposition? Plenty are!
Um follow along more carefully before passing judgement...
Um follow along more carefully before passing judgement...
I still don't see the " kick in the teeth". " Inconvenient Truth" is not.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
