I sent the first payment for my *new* midwifery course! I should have the registration packet today or tomorrow :) I'm so excited!!!
This course is so much more affordable than the NMI one. [$800 vs $12,000] I would have never been able to afford it!
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Thimerosal Linked to Autism in Confidential CDC Study
Controversy is mounting regarding the Center for Disease Control's (CDC) Thimerosal Vaccine Safety Data-Link Study (VSD) presented to the public at the July 15, 2001, Institute of Medicine (IOM) meeting on "Thimerosal-Containing Vaccines and Neurodevelopmental Outcomes." Thimerosal is the mercury preservative used in vaccines and other biologics. The CDC study evaluated nuerodevelopmental injury and cumulative exposures to Thimerosal at one and three months of age by studying the health records of over 100,000 children at four HMOs.
The organization SAFEMINDS (Sensible Action for Ending Mercury-Induced Neurological Disorders) has obtained an earlier, confidential February 2000 version of the VSD study through the Freedom of Information Act, as well as transcripts from a scientific review of this earlier study, which took place at Simpsonwood Retreat Center in Georgia. Serious disparities exist between the neurodevelopmental outcomes of the two different versions of the study. For over a year, SAFEMINDS and Congressman Dan Burton (R-Indiana) have been requesting the VSD raw data from the CDC for independent review. So far their requests have been denied.
The Texas firm Waters and Kraus leads the consortium of 25 law firms in as many states in the first civil suit brought against vaccine manufacturers and alleges that the February 2000 confidential version of the VSD study clearly demonstrates "an exposure to more than 62.5 micrograms of mercury within the first three months of life significantly increases a child's risk of developing nuerodevelopmental orders such as speech and language delay, autism, stuttering, and attention deficit disorder." In fact, the study indicates that children at this exposure level are more than twice as likely (2.48) to develop autism as those not exposed. Waters and Kraus note: "Courts of law have generally upheld that a relative risk of 2.0 or higher is sufficient to substantiate that a given exposure causes disease.
When the VSD study was presented at the July 2001 IOM meeting, the relative risk of autism had been reduced to 1.69. According to Mark Blaxill of SAFEMINDS, all previous versions of the study had used the same dataset. Yet for the version presented at the IOM meeting had an additional 34,334 children added to the database. The majority of the additional children were added by altering the inclusion criteria, as well as by updating the HMO data cycle by adding an additional year, 1998. The additional children were too young to have been diagnosed autistic since they were just turning two at the time the analysis was performed. Autism is diagnosed on the average at 44 months.
When the author of the VSD study, Tom Verstraeten, first presented the confidential version for scientific review by a panel of experts at Simpsonwood in June 2000, he said, "One thing that is for sure, there is certainly an under-ascertainment of all these [neurodevelopmental disorders] because some of the children are just not old enough to be diagnosed. So the crude incidence rates are probably much lower than what you would expect because the cohort is still very young."
The FDA and EPA called for the removal of mercury in infant vaccines beginning in 1999. At that time, vaccine manufacturers agreed to have thimerosal-free vaccines available at the beginning of 2001 and later offered voluntary exchange for all remaining thimerosal vaccines still on the shelf. In July of 1999, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), under the leadership of pediatric vaccinologist Dr. Neal A. Halsey, met with officials from the CDC to ask that the birth dose of Hepatitis B be pushed back as far as six months of age. The CDC and members of its National Immunization Program (NIP) refused, arguing that there was no evidence of harm done. They didn't want to undermine public confidence in the vaccination program. After much negotiation, the CDC released an ambiguous and weak statement that suggested that in certain low-risk populations physicians could wait until babies were two months of age before they administered their first hepatitis B vaccine.
The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), the CDC committee that recommends the vaccines for the Childhood Immunization Schedule, has yet to state a preference for thimerosal-free vaccines. It was the ACIP that approved of the additions to the Childhood Immunization Schedule of hepatitis B and Hib in the late 1980s and early 1990s, two thimerosal-containing vaccines that pushed infant ethyl mercury exposure levels far above any existing federal methyl mercury exposure guidelines.
At the June 2000 Simpsonwood meeting, the following comment was made by a participant, "This association leads me to favor a recommendation that infants up to two years old not be immunized with thimerosal-containing vaccines if suitable alternative preparations are available... Forgive this personal comment, but I got called out at eight o'clock for an emergency phone call, and my daughter-in-law delivered a son by C-section. [This is] our first male in the line of the next generation, and I do not want that grandson to get a thimerosal-containing vaccine until we know better what is going on..."
SAFEMINDS, a group founded by parents of children suffering from what they know to be mercury-induced neurological disorders, believes that everybody's child should have had this knowledge and option in June of 2000.
Just how much thimerosal is too much for an infant? It depends on whom you ask. Chair of the IOM's Immunization Safety Review Committee, Dr. Marie McCormick, gave assurances to the public last October that it would be rare for any child who follows the vaccine schedule to exceed federal guidelines for methyl mercury exposure. Yet the confidential CDC study found that "the majority of children in their cohort exceeded the EPA limits at one and three months of age." The EPA guidelines allow for 0.1 mcg per kilogram of body weight per day. Depending on her weight, a three-month-old infant who received 62.5 micrograms of mercury in one day would exceed the EPA guidelines upwards of 78 times. And, as researchers were quick to point out at the latest IOM meeting on thimerosal, the EPA's safe limit is based on gradually ingested methyl mercury via fish consumption. It was never meant to be used as a safety limit for injected bolus doses of ethyl mercury, which permeate the blood-brain barrier.
According to Dr. Boyd Haley, head of the chemistry department at the University of Kentucky, and an internationally recognized researcher on the toxicity of mercury compounds, says no amount of thimerosal is a safe amount. He says, "It is well known that infants do not produce significant levels of bile or have adult renal capacity for several months after birth. Bilary transport is the major biochemical route by which mercury is removed from the body, and infants cannot do this very well." Haley adds that thimerosal is more toxic than mercury and that "giving a ten-pound infant a single vaccine in a day is the equivalent of giving a 100 pound adult 40 vaccines in a day." He goes on to say, "We are not talking about causing death; we are talking about causing autism. As a scientist, you have to ask yourself, what's the most obvious neurotoxin that these children are being exposed to that could cause this? Thimerosal."
According to a participant at the scientific review of the confidential CDC study held at Simpsonwood, "The number of dose-related relationships are linear and statistically significant. You can play with the numbers all you want. They are linear. The increased incidence of neurobehavioral problems in the past few decades is probably real. I work in the school system where my effort is entirely special education, and I have to say that the numbers of kids getting help in special education is growing nationally and state by state at a rate we have not seen before... we don't see that kind of genetic change in 30 years."
It is now estimated that 17 percent of US children under the age of 18 are suffering from learning and/or behavioral disabilities. California's Department of Developmental Services just released it sobering statistics for 2001. It reported a 20 percent increase over the previous year 2000 for diagnoses of level-one autism.
[See also our overview and link to the full text of the original ground-breaking, "Report to the Legislature: Changes in the Population of Persons with Autism and Pervasive Developmental Disorders in California's Developmental Services System: 1987 through 1998"].
Level-one autism is the number one disability in the state of California, accounting for 35 percent of all new cases. Of the 16,802 persons with level-one autism in the California system, two-thirds of them are between the ages of birth and 13.
How could a mistake of such magnitude have been made - one that has seemingly impacted a generation of children around the world? The FDA approves vaccines in a vacuum; they are not required to study cumulative exposures or the synergistic effects of receiving multiple vaccines in a single day. After the FDA approves a vaccine, it is reviewed for inclusion on the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Vaccine Schedule. In reviewing policy decisions that brought about the approval of the ill-fated rotavirus vaccine, Congressman Dan Burton found that the ACIP is riddled with conflicts of interest: committee members own stock in drug companies that make vaccines; committee members own patents for vaccines; conflicts of interest waivers are granted for members for a year at a time, and there are no public members or parents who have a vote in the same committee.
Executive Director of the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons Jane Orient, MD, has long argued that because vaccines are state and federally mandated, the manufacturer and the physician are relieved of liability for adverse effects. On the other hand, physicians who advise against a mandated vaccine face increased legal liability if a patient is infected with that disease. Neither vaccine manufacturers nor medical personnel have any impetus to follow up on the safety or rationale of the product they are administering.
It has been almost three years since Lynn Redwood, a nurse, mother of an autistic son, and one of the founders and current president of SAFEMINDS, first came across an FDA report mentioning that children who received vaccines within thimerosal might possibly exceed federal guidelines for mercury exposure. She went on to have a lock of her son's hair tested, and it revealed levels of mercury and aluminum at almost five times the acceptable amount. Redwood says, "I want parents to know what happened to their children, and I am starting to lose faith that our government and its various agencies are doing anything about this."
__ From SAFEMINDS [Sensible Action for Ending Mercury-Induced Neurological Disorders]
The organization SAFEMINDS (Sensible Action for Ending Mercury-Induced Neurological Disorders) has obtained an earlier, confidential February 2000 version of the VSD study through the Freedom of Information Act, as well as transcripts from a scientific review of this earlier study, which took place at Simpsonwood Retreat Center in Georgia. Serious disparities exist between the neurodevelopmental outcomes of the two different versions of the study. For over a year, SAFEMINDS and Congressman Dan Burton (R-Indiana) have been requesting the VSD raw data from the CDC for independent review. So far their requests have been denied.
The Texas firm Waters and Kraus leads the consortium of 25 law firms in as many states in the first civil suit brought against vaccine manufacturers and alleges that the February 2000 confidential version of the VSD study clearly demonstrates "an exposure to more than 62.5 micrograms of mercury within the first three months of life significantly increases a child's risk of developing nuerodevelopmental orders such as speech and language delay, autism, stuttering, and attention deficit disorder." In fact, the study indicates that children at this exposure level are more than twice as likely (2.48) to develop autism as those not exposed. Waters and Kraus note: "Courts of law have generally upheld that a relative risk of 2.0 or higher is sufficient to substantiate that a given exposure causes disease.
When the VSD study was presented at the July 2001 IOM meeting, the relative risk of autism had been reduced to 1.69. According to Mark Blaxill of SAFEMINDS, all previous versions of the study had used the same dataset. Yet for the version presented at the IOM meeting had an additional 34,334 children added to the database. The majority of the additional children were added by altering the inclusion criteria, as well as by updating the HMO data cycle by adding an additional year, 1998. The additional children were too young to have been diagnosed autistic since they were just turning two at the time the analysis was performed. Autism is diagnosed on the average at 44 months.
When the author of the VSD study, Tom Verstraeten, first presented the confidential version for scientific review by a panel of experts at Simpsonwood in June 2000, he said, "One thing that is for sure, there is certainly an under-ascertainment of all these [neurodevelopmental disorders] because some of the children are just not old enough to be diagnosed. So the crude incidence rates are probably much lower than what you would expect because the cohort is still very young."
The FDA and EPA called for the removal of mercury in infant vaccines beginning in 1999. At that time, vaccine manufacturers agreed to have thimerosal-free vaccines available at the beginning of 2001 and later offered voluntary exchange for all remaining thimerosal vaccines still on the shelf. In July of 1999, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), under the leadership of pediatric vaccinologist Dr. Neal A. Halsey, met with officials from the CDC to ask that the birth dose of Hepatitis B be pushed back as far as six months of age. The CDC and members of its National Immunization Program (NIP) refused, arguing that there was no evidence of harm done. They didn't want to undermine public confidence in the vaccination program. After much negotiation, the CDC released an ambiguous and weak statement that suggested that in certain low-risk populations physicians could wait until babies were two months of age before they administered their first hepatitis B vaccine.
The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), the CDC committee that recommends the vaccines for the Childhood Immunization Schedule, has yet to state a preference for thimerosal-free vaccines. It was the ACIP that approved of the additions to the Childhood Immunization Schedule of hepatitis B and Hib in the late 1980s and early 1990s, two thimerosal-containing vaccines that pushed infant ethyl mercury exposure levels far above any existing federal methyl mercury exposure guidelines.
At the June 2000 Simpsonwood meeting, the following comment was made by a participant, "This association leads me to favor a recommendation that infants up to two years old not be immunized with thimerosal-containing vaccines if suitable alternative preparations are available... Forgive this personal comment, but I got called out at eight o'clock for an emergency phone call, and my daughter-in-law delivered a son by C-section. [This is] our first male in the line of the next generation, and I do not want that grandson to get a thimerosal-containing vaccine until we know better what is going on..."
SAFEMINDS, a group founded by parents of children suffering from what they know to be mercury-induced neurological disorders, believes that everybody's child should have had this knowledge and option in June of 2000.
Just how much thimerosal is too much for an infant? It depends on whom you ask. Chair of the IOM's Immunization Safety Review Committee, Dr. Marie McCormick, gave assurances to the public last October that it would be rare for any child who follows the vaccine schedule to exceed federal guidelines for methyl mercury exposure. Yet the confidential CDC study found that "the majority of children in their cohort exceeded the EPA limits at one and three months of age." The EPA guidelines allow for 0.1 mcg per kilogram of body weight per day. Depending on her weight, a three-month-old infant who received 62.5 micrograms of mercury in one day would exceed the EPA guidelines upwards of 78 times. And, as researchers were quick to point out at the latest IOM meeting on thimerosal, the EPA's safe limit is based on gradually ingested methyl mercury via fish consumption. It was never meant to be used as a safety limit for injected bolus doses of ethyl mercury, which permeate the blood-brain barrier.
According to Dr. Boyd Haley, head of the chemistry department at the University of Kentucky, and an internationally recognized researcher on the toxicity of mercury compounds, says no amount of thimerosal is a safe amount. He says, "It is well known that infants do not produce significant levels of bile or have adult renal capacity for several months after birth. Bilary transport is the major biochemical route by which mercury is removed from the body, and infants cannot do this very well." Haley adds that thimerosal is more toxic than mercury and that "giving a ten-pound infant a single vaccine in a day is the equivalent of giving a 100 pound adult 40 vaccines in a day." He goes on to say, "We are not talking about causing death; we are talking about causing autism. As a scientist, you have to ask yourself, what's the most obvious neurotoxin that these children are being exposed to that could cause this? Thimerosal."
According to a participant at the scientific review of the confidential CDC study held at Simpsonwood, "The number of dose-related relationships are linear and statistically significant. You can play with the numbers all you want. They are linear. The increased incidence of neurobehavioral problems in the past few decades is probably real. I work in the school system where my effort is entirely special education, and I have to say that the numbers of kids getting help in special education is growing nationally and state by state at a rate we have not seen before... we don't see that kind of genetic change in 30 years."
It is now estimated that 17 percent of US children under the age of 18 are suffering from learning and/or behavioral disabilities. California's Department of Developmental Services just released it sobering statistics for 2001. It reported a 20 percent increase over the previous year 2000 for diagnoses of level-one autism.
[See also our overview and link to the full text of the original ground-breaking, "Report to the Legislature: Changes in the Population of Persons with Autism and Pervasive Developmental Disorders in California's Developmental Services System: 1987 through 1998"].
Level-one autism is the number one disability in the state of California, accounting for 35 percent of all new cases. Of the 16,802 persons with level-one autism in the California system, two-thirds of them are between the ages of birth and 13.
How could a mistake of such magnitude have been made - one that has seemingly impacted a generation of children around the world? The FDA approves vaccines in a vacuum; they are not required to study cumulative exposures or the synergistic effects of receiving multiple vaccines in a single day. After the FDA approves a vaccine, it is reviewed for inclusion on the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Vaccine Schedule. In reviewing policy decisions that brought about the approval of the ill-fated rotavirus vaccine, Congressman Dan Burton found that the ACIP is riddled with conflicts of interest: committee members own stock in drug companies that make vaccines; committee members own patents for vaccines; conflicts of interest waivers are granted for members for a year at a time, and there are no public members or parents who have a vote in the same committee.
Executive Director of the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons Jane Orient, MD, has long argued that because vaccines are state and federally mandated, the manufacturer and the physician are relieved of liability for adverse effects. On the other hand, physicians who advise against a mandated vaccine face increased legal liability if a patient is infected with that disease. Neither vaccine manufacturers nor medical personnel have any impetus to follow up on the safety or rationale of the product they are administering.
It has been almost three years since Lynn Redwood, a nurse, mother of an autistic son, and one of the founders and current president of SAFEMINDS, first came across an FDA report mentioning that children who received vaccines within thimerosal might possibly exceed federal guidelines for mercury exposure. She went on to have a lock of her son's hair tested, and it revealed levels of mercury and aluminum at almost five times the acceptable amount. Redwood says, "I want parents to know what happened to their children, and I am starting to lose faith that our government and its various agencies are doing anything about this."
__ From SAFEMINDS [Sensible Action for Ending Mercury-Induced Neurological Disorders]
Caught Up
I thought we were going to have school well into the Summer, but Chloe is caught up. Actually, she's ahead!
Annika is right on target, so YAY! They were dreading having to do school work in Summer!
I don't even want to think about Summer. I'm really enjoying this cold, wet Winter, especially since last Winter was so warm & dry. I will always prefer Winter to Summer, though :)
We bought 2 trampettes, running shoes, and a few other things, we are determined to be fit this year! Next, we're getting bikes!
I can't decide if I want the pink Hello Kitty bike or the red bike with the big basket in back...
Annika is right on target, so YAY! They were dreading having to do school work in Summer!
I don't even want to think about Summer. I'm really enjoying this cold, wet Winter, especially since last Winter was so warm & dry. I will always prefer Winter to Summer, though :)
We bought 2 trampettes, running shoes, and a few other things, we are determined to be fit this year! Next, we're getting bikes!
I can't decide if I want the pink Hello Kitty bike or the red bike with the big basket in back...
Thursday, January 10, 2008
I *Knew* This So~Called Study Was Flawed!
Study "Disproving" Mercury-Autism Link Published in Journal with Financial Ties to Vaccine Manufacturers
by Mike Adams
(NewsTarget) While the mainstream press is widely reporting a new study "disproving" any link between autism and mercury-containing thimerosal in vaccines, no one has bothered to point out that the study was published in a medical journal stacked full of ads from the very same drug companies that manufacture and market vaccines. The Journal, the Archives of General Psychiatry, is the pro-drug psychiatric arm of the American Medical Association, a pill-pushing organization tarnished by a history of conspiracy against alternative medicine and the promotion of toxic substances like cigarettes with full-page ads in its flagship publication, JAMA.
From the outset, the fact that this study appears in a pro-drug, pro-psychiatry journal should bring pause to any scientific-minded person. There is obviously a serious conflict of interest here, especially if this study is to be taken as "fact" and applied to public health policy. There also need to be a close look at any financial links between the researchers involved in this study and various vaccine manufacturers, as virtually all pro-drug "science" (if you can call it that) being published these days is influenced by Big Pharma money.
The only truly honest, independent, peer-reviewed medical journal operating today is PLoS Medicine, an open-source journal that takes no money from drug companies. Notice that the autism/mercury link study did not appear in PLoS Medicine? No, it had to be published with a home field advantage in a pro-drug publication that maintains a strong bias in favor of pharmaceuticals and chemicals.
Junk science and faulty conclusions
Aside from these obvious and worrisome conflicts of interest, the conclusions being made about autism and vaccines in the mainstream media are simply not supported by the study. The (distorted) logic we're hearing goes like this:
Yes, vaccines used to contain mercury. And yes, all those little kids were injected with mercury. And yes, autism rates skyrocketed. But then when the mercury was taken out of the vaccines, the autism rates didn't come back down. Therefore, the logic goes, vaccines are safe!
This is such sloppy cause/effect logic that it makes the idiot CNN Health editors who published a story about "junk foods being good for your waist" look like sheer geniuses!
What's wrong with the logic? Consider the use of mercury in the vaccines: It was used as a preservative chemical to prevent vaccine spoilage. When the mercury was removed, it was replaced with other preservative chemicals that are also toxic to the human nervous system. Thus, the continuing increase in autism rates following vaccination may be due to the toxic chemicals that replaced thimerosal. While mercury injections probably initiated the increase in autism, the toxic substance has been replaced with other dangerous chemicals that are continuing to increase the risk of autism.
Here's an example to explain this a bit more:
We all know that sodium nitrite in processed meat causes cancer, right? Well, let's say that for ten years, somebody feeds all the kids sodium nitrite and cancer rates skyrocket. Then, they take all the sodium nitrite out of the food and replace it with a different cancer-causing chemical that they keep feeding the kids. Guess what? The cancer rates don't come down. Therefore, the logic goes, sodium nitrite didn't cause cancer in the first place!
Notice that when mercury was removed from vaccines (which is not entirely true, by the way, bringing into question yet more details about this study), the rates of autism did not drop? This means the vaccines remain dangerous to children. Autism continued to climb right alongside vaccination rates, indicating the possibility that something in the vaccines (or a combination of various chemicals) may very well be responsible for the increase. Based on the fact that thimerosal was replaced with other toxic chemicals in the vaccines, there is absolutely no scientific way to clear thimerosal of any harmful effects. There are too many variables operating now, and no study can isolate one variable (thimerosal) out of many and prove it to be harmless.
The truth is that scientists have no idea what's causing autism. They acknowledge the alarming increase in the rates of autism now being observed in the population, but with this new study, they claim, "Mercury is safe!"
Let me add this study to the enormous stack of other B.S. studies from modern medical researchers. Let's see, I have a study here that declares aspartame to be safe. A second study in my database says that Vioxx is safe. Another study says Teflon is safe. And yet another study claims that cigarette smoke doesn't cause lung cancer or heart disease! In fact, for virtually every toxic chemical created by industry, there's a B.S. study proclaiming its safety! The history of science is full of such nonsense, all funded or influenced by the corporations that manufacture and sell these toxic chemicals or drugs.
The fact that industry has managed to create yet another study declaring a toxic substance (thimerosal) to be safe when injected into children is certainly not surprising. This is an industry that is not bound by the rules of logic, ethics or common scientific sense. It simply finds ways to influence researchers, cherry pick studies and distort science to get whatever results it wants. That's how we're now hearing things like, "Mercury is safe to inject into children!" -- an idea that's utterly absurd at any dose.
What the mercury / vaccine study actually proves
Even if you believe the results of this study, it only demonstrates that removing mercury from vaccines does not reduce vaccine toxicity to children. Autism rates are still on the rise, right along with vaccination rates. Multiple toxic chemicals and substances are contained in vaccines, and the mercury in thimerosal may have simply been one factor among many.
The only reasonable, scientifically-minded conclusion we can draw from the study is that removing mercury from vaccines does not reduce autism in children. If removing thimerosal from vaccines made them safer, we should have seen autism rates go down, but we did not! Autism rates continued to climb in direct correlation to vaccination rates, indicating that mercury is not the only toxic substance causing neurological problems in children.
Notice, carefully, that this is nothing close to what's being reported in the mainstream media, where headlines are blaring junk science nonsense like, "Vaccines pose no risk for autism" (San Jose Mercury News) and "Thimerosal Does Not Cause Autism" (Slashdot, which should know better). Even WIRED News got it wrong with: "California Study Finds No Link Between Vaccines, Autism."
The correct headline should be, "Removal of Mercury From Vaccines Fails to Halt Rise in Autism."
Or, "Removing Mercury From Vaccines Does Not Make Them Safer."
Nobody reported that. Apparently, telling the truth about research involving vaccines is not a popular option in the mainstream media (MSM). Businessweek, publishing a HealthDay report by Randy Dotinga, invokes particularly bad logic with this opening statement, "Adding to a growing body of evidence that rejects the idea that immunizations boost autism rates, a new study finds no proof that incidences of the disorder dropped after makers of most childhood vaccines stopped using a mercury-based preservative in their products."
Huh? How does a study focused only on mercury "reject the idea that immunizations boost autism rates?" Did the author of that report not notice that autism rates continue to increase as vaccination rates go up? Eliminating one chemical from the causative factors does not in any way clear the safety of all the other chemicals or ingredients used in vaccines.
The mainstream media, which repeatedly demonstrates astonishing ignorance on issues of nutrition and health, also seems to have very little ability to interpret scientific studies and reach reasoned conclusions about what those studies do or do not prove.
Was the vaccine study another example of corrupt science?
Besides, this entire discussion is based on the idea that we can trust the research in the first place. If there's one thing we've learned about modern medicine since watching all the Vioxx scandals, Avandia cover-ups and scientific corruption in research circles, it's that drug companies can help create whatever research conclusions they want.
And let's face it: Big Pharma will always produce science that protects its profits. Gee, Big Tobacco came up with all sorts of research that said tobacco smoke wasn't harmful and nicotine wasn't addictive. Some of that research appeared in peer-reviewed medical journals, too. Does that mean the research was scientifically accurate and "conclusive?" Of course not. It was just plain old junk science, hijacked by a powerful corporation with a clear profit motive.
If all that sounds familiar, it's because drug companies are playing the same game with science today that Big Tobacco played decades ago: Influence the science, bury the bad news and propagandize the good news. It's the oldest play in the spin book, and Big Pharma has patterned it perfectly from Big Tobacco.
You see, the relevant question in this discussion is not simply whether mercury-containing vaccines cause autism. The question at hand is whether we can even trust the "science" being conducted on this subject. Do the researchers who conducted this study have any financial ties to the manufacturers of those vaccines? Have they received any speaking fees? Do they own stock in those companies? If so, this completely discredits their research due to obvious conflicts of interest.
Now, I don't have any direct evidence that the researchers in this particular mercury vaccine study were corrupted or influenced by Big Pharma, but as an honest, independent think who knows the truth about drug companies, the mainstream media and the profit motive behind much of the science appearing in the press today, I maintain a default position of skepticism when it comes to reading these studies.
By default, I distrust the drug companies and any so-called "research" that claims injecting mercury into the bodies of children is harmless. That should be the default position held by any rational person who understands basic human biochemistry. Toxic chemicals and heavy metals must be distrusted from the outset.
The drug and chemical industries, notably, take precisely the opposite approach. To them, all chemicals and drugs are safe until proven dangerous. This is how dangerous drugs get released into the marketplace and only recalled after tens of millions of prescriptions have been written and many thousands of people have died. The drug companies routinely treat the population as drug testing guinea pigs, and the used of vaccines on children is no different.
I find it interesting that genuine scientific skepticism seems to vanish when the topic shifts to pharmaceuticals. Sure, all the skeptics and quack critics will go to town on topics like acupuncture, mind-body medicine or even the efficacy of botanical medicines, but when the discussion turns to things like mercury in vaccines or amphetamine drugs for kids with ADHD, all such skepticism immediately vanishes. They accept the safety and efficacy of such treatments without question. Rational thought is rapidly discarded. Vaccines simply must be safe. Why? Because everybody else in the medical industry says so!
Were the journalists injected with mercury, too?
With this whole charade about a study "disproving" any link between mercury and vaccines, the modern medical industry has once again shown its infantile intellect and its utter lack or scientific integrity or clear-headed skepticism. Is this study really the best they can come up with? A study that shows absolutely no drop in autism rates when ingredients are reformulated in vaccines? A study that didn't even attempt to take into account the other toxic ingredients in vaccines?
This is the new standard of "conclusive" science in medicine today?
Give me a break. The only thing that can be conclusively derived from observing all this is that mainstream media journalists continue to function at a very low level of scientific literacy, lacking any skills of mental reason by which scientific studies might be assessed. There is no thought that has gone into the media's reporting of this story; only bandwagon parroting of each other's bad conclusions of a study that, in reality, proves nothing. It's yet another hilarious mainstream media circle jerk, and the fact that so many people keep buying this dim-witted reporting just proves that this nation remains woefully deficient in basic science education.
One point worth mentioning here is that there is absolutely no requirement to have any real understanding of science, medicine, chemistry or physics to graduate from a top-notch journalism school. And when journalists have no idea what they're talking about, they go the default route and simply rewrite whatever was e-mailed to them in the corporate press release! Thus, modern skills of journalism do not require any independent thought whatsoever. They only require the ability to rephrase something already told to them by the spinmeisters at Corporation X.
Correct me if I'm wrong: Is there a single mainstream reporter -- even one? -- that reported the correct conclusion from this vaccine research?
I challenge you to find one. I've looked. There isn't one.
The dumbing down of the mainstream media is now complete. I can't wait to see what headlines will come next:
"Prescription Drugs That Killed Patients Found Innocent Since Patients Did Not Come Back to Life After the Drugs Were Removed"
Or:
"Radiation From Mammograms Found Harmless Because Death Rates Continued to Climb Even After Mammography was Halted"
Or my favorite: "Ephedra Herb Banned After Ten Deaths; Drugs Are Safer Because They Only Kill 100,000 Americans a Year"
I'm beginning to wonder if all the journalists have been injected with mercury.
http://www.newstarget.com/z022479.html
by Mike Adams
(NewsTarget) While the mainstream press is widely reporting a new study "disproving" any link between autism and mercury-containing thimerosal in vaccines, no one has bothered to point out that the study was published in a medical journal stacked full of ads from the very same drug companies that manufacture and market vaccines. The Journal, the Archives of General Psychiatry, is the pro-drug psychiatric arm of the American Medical Association, a pill-pushing organization tarnished by a history of conspiracy against alternative medicine and the promotion of toxic substances like cigarettes with full-page ads in its flagship publication, JAMA.
From the outset, the fact that this study appears in a pro-drug, pro-psychiatry journal should bring pause to any scientific-minded person. There is obviously a serious conflict of interest here, especially if this study is to be taken as "fact" and applied to public health policy. There also need to be a close look at any financial links between the researchers involved in this study and various vaccine manufacturers, as virtually all pro-drug "science" (if you can call it that) being published these days is influenced by Big Pharma money.
The only truly honest, independent, peer-reviewed medical journal operating today is PLoS Medicine, an open-source journal that takes no money from drug companies. Notice that the autism/mercury link study did not appear in PLoS Medicine? No, it had to be published with a home field advantage in a pro-drug publication that maintains a strong bias in favor of pharmaceuticals and chemicals.
Junk science and faulty conclusions
Aside from these obvious and worrisome conflicts of interest, the conclusions being made about autism and vaccines in the mainstream media are simply not supported by the study. The (distorted) logic we're hearing goes like this:
Yes, vaccines used to contain mercury. And yes, all those little kids were injected with mercury. And yes, autism rates skyrocketed. But then when the mercury was taken out of the vaccines, the autism rates didn't come back down. Therefore, the logic goes, vaccines are safe!
This is such sloppy cause/effect logic that it makes the idiot CNN Health editors who published a story about "junk foods being good for your waist" look like sheer geniuses!
What's wrong with the logic? Consider the use of mercury in the vaccines: It was used as a preservative chemical to prevent vaccine spoilage. When the mercury was removed, it was replaced with other preservative chemicals that are also toxic to the human nervous system. Thus, the continuing increase in autism rates following vaccination may be due to the toxic chemicals that replaced thimerosal. While mercury injections probably initiated the increase in autism, the toxic substance has been replaced with other dangerous chemicals that are continuing to increase the risk of autism.
Here's an example to explain this a bit more:
We all know that sodium nitrite in processed meat causes cancer, right? Well, let's say that for ten years, somebody feeds all the kids sodium nitrite and cancer rates skyrocket. Then, they take all the sodium nitrite out of the food and replace it with a different cancer-causing chemical that they keep feeding the kids. Guess what? The cancer rates don't come down. Therefore, the logic goes, sodium nitrite didn't cause cancer in the first place!
Notice that when mercury was removed from vaccines (which is not entirely true, by the way, bringing into question yet more details about this study), the rates of autism did not drop? This means the vaccines remain dangerous to children. Autism continued to climb right alongside vaccination rates, indicating the possibility that something in the vaccines (or a combination of various chemicals) may very well be responsible for the increase. Based on the fact that thimerosal was replaced with other toxic chemicals in the vaccines, there is absolutely no scientific way to clear thimerosal of any harmful effects. There are too many variables operating now, and no study can isolate one variable (thimerosal) out of many and prove it to be harmless.
The truth is that scientists have no idea what's causing autism. They acknowledge the alarming increase in the rates of autism now being observed in the population, but with this new study, they claim, "Mercury is safe!"
Let me add this study to the enormous stack of other B.S. studies from modern medical researchers. Let's see, I have a study here that declares aspartame to be safe. A second study in my database says that Vioxx is safe. Another study says Teflon is safe. And yet another study claims that cigarette smoke doesn't cause lung cancer or heart disease! In fact, for virtually every toxic chemical created by industry, there's a B.S. study proclaiming its safety! The history of science is full of such nonsense, all funded or influenced by the corporations that manufacture and sell these toxic chemicals or drugs.
The fact that industry has managed to create yet another study declaring a toxic substance (thimerosal) to be safe when injected into children is certainly not surprising. This is an industry that is not bound by the rules of logic, ethics or common scientific sense. It simply finds ways to influence researchers, cherry pick studies and distort science to get whatever results it wants. That's how we're now hearing things like, "Mercury is safe to inject into children!" -- an idea that's utterly absurd at any dose.
What the mercury / vaccine study actually proves
Even if you believe the results of this study, it only demonstrates that removing mercury from vaccines does not reduce vaccine toxicity to children. Autism rates are still on the rise, right along with vaccination rates. Multiple toxic chemicals and substances are contained in vaccines, and the mercury in thimerosal may have simply been one factor among many.
The only reasonable, scientifically-minded conclusion we can draw from the study is that removing mercury from vaccines does not reduce autism in children. If removing thimerosal from vaccines made them safer, we should have seen autism rates go down, but we did not! Autism rates continued to climb in direct correlation to vaccination rates, indicating that mercury is not the only toxic substance causing neurological problems in children.
Notice, carefully, that this is nothing close to what's being reported in the mainstream media, where headlines are blaring junk science nonsense like, "Vaccines pose no risk for autism" (San Jose Mercury News) and "Thimerosal Does Not Cause Autism" (Slashdot, which should know better). Even WIRED News got it wrong with: "California Study Finds No Link Between Vaccines, Autism."
The correct headline should be, "Removal of Mercury From Vaccines Fails to Halt Rise in Autism."
Or, "Removing Mercury From Vaccines Does Not Make Them Safer."
Nobody reported that. Apparently, telling the truth about research involving vaccines is not a popular option in the mainstream media (MSM). Businessweek, publishing a HealthDay report by Randy Dotinga, invokes particularly bad logic with this opening statement, "Adding to a growing body of evidence that rejects the idea that immunizations boost autism rates, a new study finds no proof that incidences of the disorder dropped after makers of most childhood vaccines stopped using a mercury-based preservative in their products."
Huh? How does a study focused only on mercury "reject the idea that immunizations boost autism rates?" Did the author of that report not notice that autism rates continue to increase as vaccination rates go up? Eliminating one chemical from the causative factors does not in any way clear the safety of all the other chemicals or ingredients used in vaccines.
The mainstream media, which repeatedly demonstrates astonishing ignorance on issues of nutrition and health, also seems to have very little ability to interpret scientific studies and reach reasoned conclusions about what those studies do or do not prove.
Was the vaccine study another example of corrupt science?
Besides, this entire discussion is based on the idea that we can trust the research in the first place. If there's one thing we've learned about modern medicine since watching all the Vioxx scandals, Avandia cover-ups and scientific corruption in research circles, it's that drug companies can help create whatever research conclusions they want.
And let's face it: Big Pharma will always produce science that protects its profits. Gee, Big Tobacco came up with all sorts of research that said tobacco smoke wasn't harmful and nicotine wasn't addictive. Some of that research appeared in peer-reviewed medical journals, too. Does that mean the research was scientifically accurate and "conclusive?" Of course not. It was just plain old junk science, hijacked by a powerful corporation with a clear profit motive.
If all that sounds familiar, it's because drug companies are playing the same game with science today that Big Tobacco played decades ago: Influence the science, bury the bad news and propagandize the good news. It's the oldest play in the spin book, and Big Pharma has patterned it perfectly from Big Tobacco.
You see, the relevant question in this discussion is not simply whether mercury-containing vaccines cause autism. The question at hand is whether we can even trust the "science" being conducted on this subject. Do the researchers who conducted this study have any financial ties to the manufacturers of those vaccines? Have they received any speaking fees? Do they own stock in those companies? If so, this completely discredits their research due to obvious conflicts of interest.
Now, I don't have any direct evidence that the researchers in this particular mercury vaccine study were corrupted or influenced by Big Pharma, but as an honest, independent think who knows the truth about drug companies, the mainstream media and the profit motive behind much of the science appearing in the press today, I maintain a default position of skepticism when it comes to reading these studies.
By default, I distrust the drug companies and any so-called "research" that claims injecting mercury into the bodies of children is harmless. That should be the default position held by any rational person who understands basic human biochemistry. Toxic chemicals and heavy metals must be distrusted from the outset.
The drug and chemical industries, notably, take precisely the opposite approach. To them, all chemicals and drugs are safe until proven dangerous. This is how dangerous drugs get released into the marketplace and only recalled after tens of millions of prescriptions have been written and many thousands of people have died. The drug companies routinely treat the population as drug testing guinea pigs, and the used of vaccines on children is no different.
I find it interesting that genuine scientific skepticism seems to vanish when the topic shifts to pharmaceuticals. Sure, all the skeptics and quack critics will go to town on topics like acupuncture, mind-body medicine or even the efficacy of botanical medicines, but when the discussion turns to things like mercury in vaccines or amphetamine drugs for kids with ADHD, all such skepticism immediately vanishes. They accept the safety and efficacy of such treatments without question. Rational thought is rapidly discarded. Vaccines simply must be safe. Why? Because everybody else in the medical industry says so!
Were the journalists injected with mercury, too?
With this whole charade about a study "disproving" any link between mercury and vaccines, the modern medical industry has once again shown its infantile intellect and its utter lack or scientific integrity or clear-headed skepticism. Is this study really the best they can come up with? A study that shows absolutely no drop in autism rates when ingredients are reformulated in vaccines? A study that didn't even attempt to take into account the other toxic ingredients in vaccines?
This is the new standard of "conclusive" science in medicine today?
Give me a break. The only thing that can be conclusively derived from observing all this is that mainstream media journalists continue to function at a very low level of scientific literacy, lacking any skills of mental reason by which scientific studies might be assessed. There is no thought that has gone into the media's reporting of this story; only bandwagon parroting of each other's bad conclusions of a study that, in reality, proves nothing. It's yet another hilarious mainstream media circle jerk, and the fact that so many people keep buying this dim-witted reporting just proves that this nation remains woefully deficient in basic science education.
One point worth mentioning here is that there is absolutely no requirement to have any real understanding of science, medicine, chemistry or physics to graduate from a top-notch journalism school. And when journalists have no idea what they're talking about, they go the default route and simply rewrite whatever was e-mailed to them in the corporate press release! Thus, modern skills of journalism do not require any independent thought whatsoever. They only require the ability to rephrase something already told to them by the spinmeisters at Corporation X.
Correct me if I'm wrong: Is there a single mainstream reporter -- even one? -- that reported the correct conclusion from this vaccine research?
I challenge you to find one. I've looked. There isn't one.
The dumbing down of the mainstream media is now complete. I can't wait to see what headlines will come next:
"Prescription Drugs That Killed Patients Found Innocent Since Patients Did Not Come Back to Life After the Drugs Were Removed"
Or:
"Radiation From Mammograms Found Harmless Because Death Rates Continued to Climb Even After Mammography was Halted"
Or my favorite: "Ephedra Herb Banned After Ten Deaths; Drugs Are Safer Because They Only Kill 100,000 Americans a Year"
I'm beginning to wonder if all the journalists have been injected with mercury.
http://www.newstarget.com/z022479.html
Friday, January 4, 2008
The Difference
When someone tells me that they homeschool their children, I get all excited. Then they say they go through a charter school, and I just say "Oh".
To me, there is a HUGE difference between independent homeschooling, and using a charter school.
Independent homeschoolers ~
*choose & buy their own curricula. Charter schoolers have to use the local public school's curricula.
*are free to teach their religious beliefs, morals, values, etc. Charter schoolers cannot.
*are not under the jurisdiction of the local public schools.
*have lessons for a few hours a day, and incorporate learning into their lifestyles. Charter schoolers [EVERY charter schooler I know] spend ALL day "doing school". I have 2 friends who charter school, and they go from 9-4.30 on good days.
*evaluate and grade their children's work & progress. Charter schoolers leave that up to the local public schools .
*do not get money from the government. Charter schools offer parents hundreds, and in some cases, thousands of dollars to use their schools. They give free computers & curricula. Well, in my mind goverment money equals government strings. I'm not having any of that, as tempting as the money may be.
I find charter schoolers to be quite frazzled, frustrated & exhausted. But I give them credit for trying to teach their children at home, and I understand TOTALLY, the burden of buying curricula & everything else...it gets expensive!
I thank God that we've been able to be independent.
To me, there is a HUGE difference between independent homeschooling, and using a charter school.
Independent homeschoolers ~
*choose & buy their own curricula. Charter schoolers have to use the local public school's curricula.
*are free to teach their religious beliefs, morals, values, etc. Charter schoolers cannot.
*are not under the jurisdiction of the local public schools.
*have lessons for a few hours a day, and incorporate learning into their lifestyles. Charter schoolers [EVERY charter schooler I know] spend ALL day "doing school". I have 2 friends who charter school, and they go from 9-4.30 on good days.
*evaluate and grade their children's work & progress. Charter schoolers leave that up to the local public schools .
*do not get money from the government. Charter schools offer parents hundreds, and in some cases, thousands of dollars to use their schools. They give free computers & curricula. Well, in my mind goverment money equals government strings. I'm not having any of that, as tempting as the money may be.
I find charter schoolers to be quite frazzled, frustrated & exhausted. But I give them credit for trying to teach their children at home, and I understand TOTALLY, the burden of buying curricula & everything else...it gets expensive!
I thank God that we've been able to be independent.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
