Quote:
Originally Posted by Icy Tea
>>>> We're talking about vaccinations and links to autism, not global warming. I personally think there may be a link to combined multiple vaccinations and autism. But it could be another environmental factor just as easily. It doesn't affect third world children or the amish so there's a place to start.
|
No one has confirmed a link to
any vaccine and autism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mm4
Don't you think the more likely explanation is that you're working for the latter? For a "Mathguy," your reasoning is a little suspect.
|
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourcei...shill%20gambit
Drug companies would make more money if there were no vaccines, as would doctors and hospitals. Therefore, a conspiracy in which drug companies try to discredit vaccines would make way more sense if you wanted to believe in conspiracies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mm4
A little context? Wakefield sued Deer, along with Channel 4 and 20/20 productions, over a 2004 MMR documentary, but dropped the action later and agreed to pay legal costs.
|
In other words, Wakefield's legal maneuvers have been found to be totally without merit.
Quote:
Totally out of context--and strawman to boot. Mine was a response to godofthunder9010's actually in seriousness posting the following:
Which is an absolute first: a commentator claim that organisms are mutating to beat vaccines and moreover because they're not being used. Incredible.
Up until godofthunder9010's ridiculous post, it's an argument only applied to lack of follow-through for finishing antibiotic rounds where ABs are applicable--and you know that, or should.
|
Both viruses and bacteria mutate. Fortunately, most of the viruses for which vaccines exist (with the exception of influenza) do not mutate enough to make vaccines against them ineffective. Some viruses, for example HIV, mutate so rapidly that to date no vaccine exists.
However, godofthunder9010's position is valid, because viruses require a host in which to replicate. Fewer infected hosts mean less opportunity to mutate. Not vaccinating keeps the virus circulating and mutating. Smallpox virus is no longer mutating because it was vaccinated out of existence.
Quote:
|
It increased in incidence because while sanitation improved in society, the widespread construction and usage of public swimming pools also did, where fecal matter was discharged into water untreated by chemicals that are now in use today.
|
By the time of the resurgence in polio in the 1930s and 1940s, pools were already using chlorine. Sorry, pools were not the cause of the increase, and when it was discovered that chlorine killed polio virus, avoidance of pools was no longer recommended.
Polio and Swimming Pools: Historical Connections — History of Vaccines
"With the growth in popularity came the need for better sanitation measures. Originally pools used archaic filtration systems that required that water filters, and the actual water itself, to be changed frequently. Chlorine was discovered and produced prior to WWI in the early 1900s, but it was not until the war invigorated its manufacture that its use truly came into vogue. By the time of the polio scare in the late 1930s and 1940s, chlorine was used widely in public swimming pools as a sanitation measure.
Still, this didn’t prevent the panic that arose over the public’s fears that children could be exposed to the poliovirus in community swimming pools.
In 1946, however, a study showed that chlorine was actually one of the few known chemicals that could inactivate the virus. Although polio is resistant to common soaps and chemicals of low pH – which is one of the reasons it was able to spread so efficiently -- it can be rapidly inactivated by chlorine, as well as by heat and formaldehyde. Formaldehyde was the chemical ultimately used to inactivate the virus in Jonas Salk’s inactivated polio vaccine, or IPV."
The problem of polio transmission had not been solved, but swimming pools regained popularity as a fun and exciting summer venue for families. Moreover, chlorine, as a polio disinfectant, became the new face of sanitation, with strict regulations on chlorine in pools in place by the early 1960s."
Quote:
|
But a topical preparation like Neosporin isn't designed to be ingested. Keep trying.
|
You are attempting to say that ingesting an antibiotic is fundamentally different from applying it to the skin. Neosporin is intended for topical use. The antibiotics in it also have indications for which they are taken by mouth.
Fluoride works when it is ingested, particularly during formation of teeth, and when applied topically. Your analogy to Neosporin fails.
Quote:
Not the sodium fluoride ion. And not the fluorosilicic acid that's being dumped in municipal taps.
"Caries"? Who do you work for? Look up bone cancer and sodium fluoride.
You're a specialist at this sort of disinfo, aren't you, suzy_q2010.
|
Your chemistry education is right on a par with your virology. Sodium fluoride is a salt, not an ion. In water, it ionizes. Fluorosilicic acid in water also produces fluoride ions.
2. What happens to fluoride in your body?
"Recent studies have addressed the equilibrium of the free fluoride ion and fluorosilicate species in aqueous solutions over a wide concentration and pH range.
In the pH-range and at the concentrations of hexafluorosilicates/fluoride relevant for drinking water, hydrolysis of hexafluorosilicates to fluoride was rapid and the release of the fluoride ion was essentially complete. Residual fluorosilicate intermediates were not observed by sensitive 19F-NMR. Other hydrolysis products of hexafluorosilicate such as Si(OH)4 are rapidly transformed to colloidal silica (Finney et al. 2006). Si(OH)4 is present naturally in drinking water in large quantities and is not considered a risk. In summary, these observations suggest that human exposure to fluorosilicates due to the use of hexafluorosilicic acid or hexafluorosilicate for drinking water fluoridation, if any, is very low as
fluorosilicates in water are rapidly hydrolyzed to fluoride, as illustrated in the following equation:
H 2 SiF6 ( aq ) + 6OH − ( aq ) ⇔ 6 F − ( aq ) + Si( OH )4 ( aq ) + 2 H 2 O( l ) Studies on Na2SiF6 and H2SiF6, compounds used to fluoridate drinking water, show a pharmacokinetic profile for fluoride identical to that of sodium fluoride (NaF) (Maguire et al. 2005, Whitford et al. 2008). It therefore seems unlikely that the rate and degree of absorption, fractional retention, balance and elimination of fluoride will be affected if these fluoride compounds are added artificially in low concentrations, or if fluoride is naturally present in drinking water."
Caries = cavities. Sorry that I used a word you do not know.
The shill gambit means you are losing the debate. You may want to reconsider its use.
Quote:
|
We'd like to watch while you try to argue sodium flouride doesn't bind in calcium channels behind the blood-brain barrier.
|
I will be happy to review any material you have that shows that sodium fluoride has a clinically significant effect on calcium channels behind the blood brain barrier. Please show how sodium fluoride gets into the blood, period, since the salt separates into sodium and fluoride ions in treated water. Also, be sure to show that levels of sodium and fluoride in blood in those who drink treated water exceed the range of levels in people who drink water naturally containing fluoride.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissTerri
I'd like to see your source showing that the boys all had been diagnosed with autism prior to getting the vaccine.
|
snopes.com: Fraud at the CDC Uncovered?
"The study looked at different age groups: children vaccinated by 18 months, 24 months, and 36 months. The findings revealed that vaccination between 24 and 36 months was slightly more common among children with autism, and that association was strongest among children 3-5 years of age. The authors reported this finding was most likely a result of immunization requirements for preschool special education program attendance in children with autism."
Quote:
|
It shows a clear conflict of interest.
|
No, it shows where the money came from. For it to mean anything else, you have to show the source of the money influenced the outcome of the study. Do you have such evidence?
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.
The money that funded the study came from the corporation that makes the drug. That shows a conflict of interest and one that people should take into consideration when looking at the study.