More Evidence That Vaccines Don't Cause Autism

[double_o]

Yes everytime it's "anti" something, but it doesn't occur to you think about the "pro" group. Well actually they are suggesting we remove it or certainly re-evaluate.

The study in question is by the National Research Council:
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11571

Sometimes any is bad.

The NRC study have been discussed here before in the fluoridation threads. In summary the study found nothing wrong with water fluoridation because the study didn't look at water fluoridation at all. What the study did look at is drinking water with natural fluoride concentrations much higher than the concentrations in fluoridated water. And yet anti-fluoride groups keep bringing the NRC study because actual research into water fluoridation found it to be safe and effective.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Then why did they remove it?

You just answered yourself in your own post:

... it's supposed to be "science" and there's also a lot of politics involved.

Fact of the matter is, consumers were demanding a choice, irrespective of whether having one was logical to begin with. Your mistake is in insinuating that the removal of thimerosal was driven by "critics" being correct about its dangers. The critics are not correct; that has been established through multiple studies.

 

[kageki]

The NRC study have been discussed here before in the fluoridation threads. In summary the study found nothing wrong with water fluoridation because the study didn't look at water fluoridation at all. What the study did look at is drinking water with natural fluoride concentrations much higher than the concentrations in fluoridated water. And yet anti-fluoride groups keep bringing the NRC study because actual research into water fluoridation found it to be safe and effective.

They all concluded that there are reasons to be concerned. Claiming that it's "safe" is also a gross distortion. What actual research have they done?

Anyways the people around here who deny any material on frivolous arguments that's it's an "anti" group is so ridiculous it's amazing they think it has any merit. These pro-vaccine or fluoride for that matter make massive amounts of profit on the very thing they are defending. If anything the material from these "pro" groups have a major conflict of interest and have much less merit. Debate the facts.

 

[kageki]

You just answered yourself in your own post:

​

Fact of the matter is, consumers were demanding a choice, irrespective of whether having one was logical to begin with. Your mistake is in insinuating that the removal of thimerosal was driven by "critics" being correct about its dangers. The critics are not correct; that has been established through multiple studies.

Source?

 

[elbe]

The National Research Council?

I apologize, I thought you linked directly to the originator of the press release. But I'm not sure you actually read that link, either. You make it very hard to make me believe you can actually cogently argue your points.

 

[kageki]

I apologize, I thought you linked directly to the originator of the press release. But I'm not sure you actually read that link, either. You make it very hard to make me believe you can actually cogently argue your points.

Have you read it?

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Source?

For "...it's supposed to be "science" and there's also a lot of politics involved...": I should turn that around and tell you to provide it, since you were the one who said it, but instead I'll point at post #3 in this very thread, plus the link provided within it.
More:

• http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/06/16/thimerosal/ (The epitomization of politics being involved in what's supposed to be science... and no, I'm not referring to Rep. Kennedy's charge that the government "covered up" the risk, but the fact that he accepted and propogated distortions in order to build his case. This is an example of politics combined with woo, and it's not solid science.)

For "consumers demanding a choice":

• http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-10-07-swine-flu-poll_N.htm
• http://www.dienviro.com/index1.aspx?BD=18841
• http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07297/827773-114.stm

For "the critics are not correct":

• http://www.fda.gov/biologicsbloodvaccines/safetyavailability/vaccinesafety/ucm096228.htm
• http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa071434
• http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites...ts/Mead_03-215V/ExEE_Rodier_Report_03-215.pdf
• http://download.thelancet.com/flatcontentassets/pdfs/S0140673610601754.pdf
• http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080107181551.htm
• http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2010/02/02/autism-mmr-lancet-wakefield.html
• http://briandeer.com/mmr/lancet-summary.htm

-----

Your turn. You made the following insinuation:

So you have to ask why they have decided to phase out the use. Maybe because the critics were right about it's dangers?

What leads you to believe that the critics were "right about (thimerosol's) dangers"?

Two, You hypothesized the following:

Perhaps it's not autism, but maybe something else.

That was an insinuation that there is still a danger from vaccines, but it may be due to some component other than thimerosol. Source this, please. What component, and why would it be dangerous?

I've provided a sampling of my sources. You now provide yours.

 

[elbe]

Have you read it?

Your link? Yes, it's how I know you don't appear to have had.

 

[Mike!]

This is a small sample size and there are also different forms of it.

Here's another one for you, (no link, personal experince again.) around the corner from me is another family that has an autistic son. He has a twin sister. She got every shot he got, at the exact same time as he did. She's fine, why isn't she autistic too?

 

[double_o]

They all concluded that there are reasons to be concerned. Claiming that it's "safe" is also a gross distortion. What actual research have they done?

I don't know who are the "they" you are referring to, however since the discovery of fluoride in drinking water 80 years ago a lot of research have been done regarding the health effects of fluoride and water fluoridation. The weight of the evidence shows that fluoridation has a protective effect against dental caries and isn't associated with any adverse effects beside mild dental fluorosis. The latest review of the scientific research that I'm aware of was done by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council in 2007:
http://www.ada.org.au/app_cmslib/me...f_the_efficacy_and_safety_of_fluoridation.pdf

 

[Tolls]

Source?

This explains it, from the European Medicines Agency in 2004.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

*Bump*. I'd really like to read the source material Kageki leaned on (see my above post). Bumping to keep this from getting lost in the mix.