Thimerosal and Autism - A Scientific Perspective

Post Reply New Topic

My main criticism of both groups (parents and autistics) is that many within these groups (though not all) make a case against the hypotheses of the opposing side without ever having tried to fully understand it.

In the end, that only makes our own arguments weaker, not knowing exactly what we're arguing against.

I agree. There needs to be better communication between the different groups, more efforts made to understand each other. As it stands, there are mis-informed people present on all sides decrying others. We see them often enough, no? I'm sure everyone can think of at least one person they've met who's gung-ho about what they believe, be they for a cure or against one.

I think you summed it up very well.

Excuse me???????

I was not referring to any person at all when I said "The other side of the argument needs to stay out of it". I was referring to the view itself. Which may or may not be held by literally hundreds of people off this board as well as on it.

I also said "sometimes".

I understand. I'm telling you that that's a problem. It doesn't matter that you haven't specified an individual. You will not say that anyone needs to stay out of it, specifically or in general, inferred or implied.

I want you to understand that I feel like I have a responsibility here and that I take it very seriously. If I find myself in the position where I feel like I have to ban you, I'm not going to be happy about it. That is not the outcome I desire. The outcome that I desire is for you to change your behavior. I have tried to be as clear and specific as I can about my objectons and I have exercised patience. I recognize that sometimes aspies get obsessed about things and have a hard time letting them go. I'm telling you that you need to let this go. You need to let go of your right/wrong view of these issues and allow other members of this community to feel safe expressing their views.

I know it may look to you like I'm on the wrong side of this debate, but that's because this community is more important than the issues or who's right and who's wrong. There are other forums that make the issues more important than the community.

If you want my co-operation - I'm willing to give, but in order to be able to do that I need more specific information as I have stated several times. This needs to be done in PM.

I should clarify that I am not innocent of this either. Although I'm trying to be more aware of it.

If I can be forgiven for posting on topic in this thread, I'd like to express my lack of an opinion.

I don't know whether vaccines cause or contribute to causing autism, and I'm not sure how I'd go about trying to find out.

I do know a few things. Most people avoid offending the people who sign their paychecks.

People with high paying, high status jobs, like medical researchers, usually don't have ambitions to make a career change and go to work at Burger King or Walmart.

Drug companies put up an awful lot of money for medical research. Multi-billion dollar corporations generally want to avoid multi-billion dollar lawsuits.

I guess I could trust the government, but of course there's the medical marijuana issue. We got lawyers telling doctors which drugs are safe to prescribe, and a drug it's impossible to overdose on is too dangerous. Hmmm, nobody would get a patent on it or control the supply, but I'm sure the lawyers and politicians always put my best interests above their biggest campaign contributers.

Not saying that vaccines do cause autism, but if they did, the medical research community would still be saying that they didn't.

I am possibly the most cynical person you'll ever meet (I'm not sure if I exist, let alone you!), but I feel you are being infinitely too harsh on the medical profession here.

I rather believe that the vast majority of "the medical research community" are actually ethical.

Gosh, I thought I was being excessively subtle and understated.

I agree that that the vast majority of the people in the "medical research community" are highly ethical, but I'll note that I can't recall a single instance of anybody invoking the term "ethics" when they were acting contrary to their own interests or the interests of everybody in the same line of work.

Just one example, consider the current mess with medical malpractice lawsuits, like full page ads in the phone book from lawyers telling people they can get free money by suing their doctors.

How did this get started? It happened because "medical ethics" dictated that doctors had to cover up for misconduct by other doctors to protect the reputation of the medical profession.

Doctors ain't got no monopoly, of course, the same thing goes on in every profession, cops, soldiers, convicts. As kids get older, the term "tattletale" gets replaced by the term "rat," and if they go to grad school they use the term "unethical."

In my own experience, the very worst offenders are the "mental health professionals," but I'll let that one slide for now.

As an aside, I've occasionally wondered what happens when a lawyer has to see a doctor.

I want to stress I don't have a conclusion on vaccines and autism. In don't automatically believe anything anybody says if they use the word "conspiracy" either. I don't trust any of the available sources.

The CDC is a government agency, and I'll expect to hear them announce that they screwed up really bad as soon as I hear the same thing from FEMA and the White House.

Hm. I believe you are being far too subtle.

I have no idea what you are saying.

This seems meaningless to me.

Your paragraph about "conspiracy" left me unsure what point you were making. If you "don't trust any of the available sources" then logically, any statement you make is totally uninformed guesswork?

I remind you that the majority of people here have Asperger's Syndrome. I suspect you are being sarcastic in your posts, but I cannot tell for sure, and in general you will be confusing people.

I am not being sarcastic at all, although I expect you will be thinking I am.

Research that doesn't support that everything is fine for vaccines... What happens to it?
It gets called quack science.

I can really agree with CanyonWind about avoiding offending the people who sign your paychecks.
Good points about marijuana, too. Can't overdose. Less hard on your body than liquor. Less side effects than most over-the-counter drugs. What's so bad about it? It doesn't bring in billions a year, and it's impossible to control the market.
If there are good reasons why marijuana is not a viable drug to prescribe, then I'd love to hear them.

Prolonged use causes brain damage - to a level more dangerous than alcohol used to excess. Along with the same issues associated with cigarette smoking (not nicotine - the smoke itself).

Exactly.

Same as Vitamin B17 as a cancer treatment (comes from Apricot Kernels, which again, are unpatentable). Same as many things.



The term 'vested interest' is what we have here, and it happens all the time. Hence my distrust for the big drug companies and anyone with a vested interest reviewing or published research.

I mean, drug companies make literally trillions every year out of you being sick - why would they want you to get better??

Prolonged over-consumption of water causes the brain to become "soggy," making people feel inebriated or high. Prolonged usage of water as an intoxicant causes brain damage, mental instability, memory loss, and death.

Anything in excess is deadly; Marijuana has never proven deadly as of yet.
If you want a better understanding of marijuana and issues surrounding it, I reccomend a documentary; Grass.
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid= ... &plindex=2
Here's a handy link.

Marijuana is the victim of mistaken belief. 28:20, you'll understand, is a large part of it.

Of course, so far no one has overdosed. Alchohol damages your brain too, but there's also alchohol poisoning, liver failure, kidney failure, hangovers, and of course, prolonged use will cause brain damage.

Pros and Cons, in a chart, Marijuana would beat out Alchohol.

LeKiwi, solid points.

Open statement: I don't think marijuana is that bad. Is it? Why? Where are all the solid reasons?
By making marijuana illegal, it only drives an underground drug market, costs goverments of many nations millions each year, and is akin to the idea of prohibition, which was stricken down because... People wanted to drink booze. Why is marijuana any different? Leftover stigma, intolerance, the assumption that the majority of people are expressly opposed to the decriminalization, let alone legalization, of marijuana.

Simple ignorance.

Wow- all the different ideas here. Firstly, I don't understand why anyone get upset with someone having an idea. All ideas are worth looking into. Secondly, some of the greatest discoveries came from people who were thought to be crazy. Christopher Columbus for example.

Thirdly- they have mostly studied the preservatives in vaccines..what if it was the vaccine itself. Injecting the infectious material into a underdeveloped immune system.

Very good points. I especially enjoy the third point, it's really got me thinking.

Just how safe is it to get the immune system to produce antibodies against foreign bodies, all at once, while the immune system is still forming, and what effects this has on the immune system, and the body itself.

Would it perhaps be safer to administer booster shots of the antibodies themselves, rather than the vaccine, at least until the child is old enough for their immune system to have developed far enough?