Study Shows Significant Link Between Mercury and Autism

Discussion in 'Latest US & World News' started by phoenyx, Oct 13, 2020.

  1. truth and justice

    truth and justice Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2011
    Messages:
    18,196
    Likes Received:
    5,356
    Trophy Points:
    113
     
    ronv likes this.
  2. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    35,488
    Likes Received:
    8,146
    Trophy Points:
    113
    NO. Wakefield is a proven liar whose entire body of work has been shown to be absolutely fake.

    Dr. Fauci has given us serious progress in major fields of communicable disease. His work has been proven over and over again.

    Using those two names in a sentence like that is just plain TOTALLY IRRESPONSIBLE.
    Yes. BigPharma and the FDA are not perfect. Attempting to minimize risk, balancing risk and benefit, etc., are all questions that are stupendously difficult.

    NOBODY is challenging that - certainly not me.

    When sources of harm are found, solutions get decertified, drugs get modified, etc., etc.

    Nobody is safe from the courts if laws are broken - such as improper testing, hiding information, etc. But, there is no possibility of making the development of medical solutions perfectly safe.

    But, the preponderance of claims made against vaccines (such as the claimed autism connection) have NOT been supported by evidence.
    I have no idea how you think this one is related.

    Yes, there have been lawsuits against failure to protect our environment.
     
    Last edited: Oct 17, 2020
    bigfella likes this.
  3. phoenyx

    phoenyx Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2013
    Messages:
    634
    Likes Received:
    116
    Trophy Points:
    43
    truth and justice, would it kill you to quote and respond after the quote -.-? Now I can't quote what you wrote at all. Anyway, so you agree that lead and mercury are poisonous. It's a start. However, the article is assuming you already agree with that. Its contention is that there is a significant relationship between autism and having lead and mercury in the body. As to your contention that thimerosal is not used in vaccines given to children, please check out my post 109:
    http://www.politicalforum.com/index...cury-and-autism.579730/page-5#post-1072130913

    Bringing up aluminum is not a change of subject. As to your contention that aluminum is in a bunch of foods, are we talking trace amounts here? Furthermore, it's one thing to get something in one's food- the body has a system for dealing with food, the digestive system. It's quite another to get it injected directly into one's bloodstream.
     
  4. phoenyx

    phoenyx Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2013
    Messages:
    634
    Likes Received:
    116
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Ah, this old canard. You have any evidence to support your contention?
     
  5. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    35,488
    Likes Received:
    8,146
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Haley is another con artist.

    He marketed a substace called OSR#1 as a "diatary supplement" (thus requiring no testing). The substances was derived from chemicals used to reduce toxicity in mine waste and was marketed as removing such substances from the human body!

    He was challenged as to the safety of consuming such a substance and, showing zero evidence of safety, removed it from the market.

    He's a clear example of why anything sold as a medicine has to undergo serious testing - testing that Wakefield FAKED.

    AND, Haley is also a prime example of why the US diatary supplements and homeopathy industry is reaping billions of dollars without even having to show evidence of safety, let alone any evidence of effectiveness.

    Wakefield's claimes have been seriously investigated and found to be faked. Finding this requires no more a simple web search, or you can go to wiki and find references to key these investigations and other actions.

    There is ZERO contention that mercury, aluminum and other sustances are dangerous above certain levels. That is NOT the question.

    The issue is whether vaccines promote autism. And, that has NOT been shown.

    Beyond that, ignoring vaccination programs IS costing lives today.
     
    Last edited: Oct 17, 2020
    ronv likes this.
  6. phoenyx

    phoenyx Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2013
    Messages:
    634
    Likes Received:
    116
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Alright, I'm not vouching for Haley's dietary supplement- I didn't even know he had one. However, that doesn't mean that the points in the article above weren't right. Now Wakefield is much more well known. He features prominently in the vaxxed documentaries and I haven't heard anyone criticize him in the community of people who in the community that has doubts about or are outright against vaccines. Care to show me evidence that anything he did was "faked"?
     
    Last edited: Oct 17, 2020
  7. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    35,488
    Likes Received:
    8,146
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There isn't even an actual reason to go through the investigation and falsification of Wakefield's faked results.

    The reason is that rates of autism spectrum disorder, ASD, have been recorded as have rates of use of the various compositions of vaccines.

    The antivax community noticed that during the 1990's there was an increasing incidence of ASD diagnoses as well as an increasing rate of vaccination. That correlation was deemed to be evidence that they were linked - even though correlation is NEVER proof of causation.

    Noting Wakefield's results and their assumption of correlation, the antivax community pointed out that if thimerosol was removed from vaccines there would be a decrease in the number of ASD diagnoses among those vaccinated.

    The catch here is that thimerosol has been removed from all but a few flu vaccines. In fact, the composition of vaccines has changed in other ways, too.

    Yet, there has been no change in the ASD diagnosis rate.

    This is a decisive indication that vaccines and ASD are NOT related.

    Beyond that, the increase in ASD diagnoses during the 1990's is attributable to the change in definition of ASD as medical science has found that the previous narrow guideliens for ASD diagnosis were inappropriately excluding those with less serious symptoms. As the gudelines changed during the 1990s, the number diagnosed as having ASD grew because of that change in definition.

    Since then, the antiVax community simply started claiming that other substances in vaccines were causing ASD and other maladies among those who are vaccinated. HOWEVER, there has been no scientific evidence supporting these claims either by direct investigation of those components of vaccines or by examining the epidemiological data.

    The fact is that there is no scientific evidence of these antivax claims - even though there is plenty of epidemiological evidence that would present every opportunity for showing a real connection if such existed.


    If you really want to see why Weakefield's own work must be disregarded, fine. That has been investigated and the conclusion is that Wakefield was influenced by financial interests and that his results were faked.

    You can see a list of references and descriptions of the organizations that have investigated his work in the wiki entry for Wakefield. There is no reason for me to cut and past that here. It shows the organizations of science that have performed these analyses (not an opinion of some wiki editor), so that should be sufficient. I'd point out that this has been incredibly embarrassing for The Lancet, as they actually published his fraud. So, I haven't done so, but you could probably use that fact as a starting point.
     
    Last edited: Oct 17, 2020
    ronv and bigfella like this.
  8. phoenyx

    phoenyx Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2013
    Messages:
    634
    Likes Received:
    116
    Trophy Points:
    43
    You just smeared his name, I asked you for evidence and you say it's not necessary to show evidence for your smear? Man, the low standards some people have when it comes to providing evidence for their claims -.-
     
  9. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    35,488
    Likes Received:
    8,146
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I gave plenty of reference to the investigation of Wakefield and his faked "science".

    AND, I gave an additional and independent serious scientific foundation for objecting to the antiVax direction that is resulting in unnecessary deaths among America's children. And, that is that antiVax claims are demonstrably false as they don't show up in epidemiological data.

    Beyond that, the antiVax claims are not backedup by medical testing and review of vaccines that are required before any of these vaccines may be used on the generalpublic.

    So, the question is why these antiVaxers are justified in causing that kind of serious damage.
     
  10. phoenyx

    phoenyx Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2013
    Messages:
    634
    Likes Received:
    116
    Trophy Points:
    43
    I suppose saying that it isn't necessary to provide evidence is all the "evidence" I should expect from you -.-
     
  11. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    35,488
    Likes Received:
    8,146
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, I supplied the evidence - at least a reference that allows full investigation. I'm not going to cut and paste, as that is a waste and could be claimed to be subject to my selection.

    Check out post #132.

    Again, the wiki for Wakefield has plenty of solid references that form a reasonable basis for your investigation.
     
  12. phoenyx

    phoenyx Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2013
    Messages:
    634
    Likes Received:
    116
    Trophy Points:
    43
    I looked through your post #132. There is no link, just a lot of claims that you make. Anyone can make claims.
     
    Last edited: Oct 18, 2020
  13. Maccabee

    Maccabee Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2016
    Messages:
    8,545
    Likes Received:
    789
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    What people don't realize is the mercury in vaccines isn't the same type of mercury that's harmful. It's like being against dihydrogen monoxide because is has hydrogen in it.
     
  14. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    35,488
    Likes Received:
    8,146
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That post says the links are in the wiki entry for Wakefield. There is no way to complain about wiki if all it's being used for is a source of links. And, the links are to solid sites.

    Also, you can look for yourself once you know that there is a world of science out there where NONE of it backs Wakefield. Wakefield didn't get officially booted from science without cause.

    If you don't want to look, that's fine.

    You touted Haley without looking, too. I'm thinking you may have a tendency to not want to know.

    But, the thing is, the antiVax message results in the needles deaths of children. And, for that reason alone, knowing is important.
     
  15. phoenyx

    phoenyx Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2013
    Messages:
    634
    Likes Received:
    116
    Trophy Points:
    43
    According to Dr. Boyd, it's actually worse than methylmercury:
    **It is also now quite clear from primate studies that Thimerosal, or more correctly, the ethylmercury from Thimerosal delivers mercury to the brain, and causes brain inorganic mercury levels higher than equal levels of methylmercury.**

    Source: https://vaccinechoicecanada.com/vac...he-major-exacerbator-of-neurological-illness/

    And we're not even getting into how aluminum, which is also in many vaccines, apparently makes it worse still.
     
  16. phoenyx

    phoenyx Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2013
    Messages:
    634
    Likes Received:
    116
    Trophy Points:
    43
    There are a lot of wikis out there. I'm not going to go looking around for -your- evidence. If you don't care to link your own evidence, you're a very poor debater.
     
  17. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    35,488
    Likes Received:
    8,146
    Trophy Points:
    113
    By wiki I meant "wiki" as in searching for "wiki andrew wakefield".

    And, I'm not refering to "my" evidence. I'm referring to the evidence developed by recognized experts in medical science who investigated what he did.
     
  18. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    39,901
    Likes Received:
    10,633
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The cause of ASD is as yet unknown, but we know what it isn't caused by - vaccines. There is plenty of evidence that it isn't genetic either, but that information has been demonised into silence. What I mean by that is that there are definitely areas of research not being pursued for reasons of political expediency (or rather, political correctness), but vaccines doesn't fall into that category. Those with a vested interest in claiming autism is physiological, rather than psychological, would love to be able to say it's vaccines. The only research they actively suppress is that which wanders into psychological/behavioural territory.
     
    Last edited: Oct 18, 2020
  19. Maccabee

    Maccabee Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2016
    Messages:
    8,545
    Likes Received:
    789
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    How about sourcing a peer reviewed article rather than anti vax site with an agenda?
     
    ronv likes this.
  20. phoenyx

    phoenyx Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2013
    Messages:
    634
    Likes Received:
    116
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Alright, I gave it a go, got wikipedia. There are a lot of wikis out there, including truth wiki. That one has a rather different view of Wakefield. Anyway, you want to quote from that source, go ahead. I don't find Wikipedia credible on this one. However, I have found some articles on Wakefield that I do find credible. Here's an excerpt from one:
    **
    January 2011 – VRAN stands in solidarity with international Vaccine Awareness and Autism groups in support of Dr. Andrew Wakefield who has been ruthlessly persecuted by the medical industry and the media since 1998 when he and colleagues published a small case series of 12 children whose parents reported that some of their children’s mental/behavioural regression and bowel disease followed MMR vaccine.

    While the study did not claim to prove that the triple live virus MMR vaccine causes autism, Dr. Wakefield offered a cautionary recommendation that until more studies are done, a safer alternative was to give single measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines spaced out over time. In retaliation, the British government withdrew availability of single vaccines, forcing parents to either accept MMR or not vaccinate at all. In recent years both Canada and the U.S. have also withdrawn availability of single vaccines, effectively eliminating parental choice.

    A furious medical establishment saw Wakefield’s study and recommendations as a threat to the almighty vaccine program and hit back with a stream of vindictive moves that culminated in the 2010 censure of Dr. Wakefield by the U.K.’s General Medical Council (GMC), removal of his license to practice medicine, and retraction by The Lancet of his 1998 case study.

    The Medical Inquisition doesn’t seem to comprehend that their vicious assault on Wakefield won’t change the fact that tens of thousands of parents around the world have witnessed their children succumb to neurological injuries and regress into autism following vaccination, including MMR vaccine.
    **

    Full article:
    https://vaccinechoicecanada.com/in-the-news/in-defence-of-dr-wakefield/

    There are other supportive articles on Wakefield at the site as well.
     
  21. phoenyx

    phoenyx Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2013
    Messages:
    634
    Likes Received:
    116
    Trophy Points:
    43
    I'd say the article was reviewed by his peers in community of individuals who doubt if not outright dislike vaccines, of which I am one. You're welcome to source articles that you yourself find more credible.
     
  22. phoenyx

    phoenyx Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2013
    Messages:
    634
    Likes Received:
    116
    Trophy Points:
    43

    Alright, first things first- did you read the OP?
     
  23. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    35,488
    Likes Received:
    8,146
    Trophy Points:
    113
    1. I stated that the text in the wiki article is NOT what I was referencing. I was referencing the list of citations concerning the Wakefield case. There are over 100 of these references.

    2. you response here addresses NOTHING related to the fake science of Wakefield. It accuses various parties of acting out of emotion and vindictiveness.

    Your cites give NO evidence of the GMC or other actors acting out of emotion or vindictiveness. And, that's a ludicrous claim from the start as the GMC gives concrete reasons and documentation concerning why it acted.

    3. Here is official documentation of the GMC on the Wakefield case, which includes why the work of Wakefield was found to be jusification for striking Wakefield as a scientists - let alone for rejecting his paper.

    Link: GMC Wakefield Proceedings

    It shows that Wakefield lied about how children were selected for his study. In fact, HE was involved in selecting the subjects!!

    It shows that he applied for funding under false pretenses.

    It shows that he had his own vaccine for the same disease that he was challenging in his study - a serious conflict of interest that he hid. He clearly planned to invalidate the existing vaccine so he could market his own solution.

    For more, read that cite.

    AND, let me point out that I gave you more than 100 cites on this case from which to choose.
     
    Last edited: Oct 18, 2020
  24. Maccabee

    Maccabee Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2016
    Messages:
    8,545
    Likes Received:
    789
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Do you not realize what are you saying? So a small group of people who don't like vaccines and with little, if any medical background says that vaccines are bad so therefore it must be true? As for articles and studies, there are literally thousands of published and peered reviewed studies proving time and time again, vaccines don't cause autism.
    https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/autism.html

    https://www.autismspeaks.org/scienc...ms-no-association-between-autism-and-vaccines

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2796520/

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2908388/

    https://www.statnews.com/2019/03/04/vaccines-no-association-autism-major-study/

    https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M18-2101
     
  25. Tahuyaman

    Tahuyaman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2014
    Messages:
    9,653
    Likes Received:
    274
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Good to know.
     
    phoenyx likes this.

Share This Page