 
Support Wrong Planet Awareness!
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
zendell
Free Thinker
Joined: Nov 11, 2007
Posts: 1174
|
 Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:14 pm Post subject: Thimerosal and Autism - A Scientific Perspective |
 |
|
I wrote a little booklet regarding the thimerosal causing autism theory based on some of the stuff I read here. Let me know what you think.
Thimerosal and Autism - A Scientific Perspective
The is no conclusive evidence. Many parents notice autism symptoms after receiving thimerosal-containing vaccines. However, many correlations of a comparable nature have in the end proved false.
Something other than thimerosal may be responsible for autism. Autism is probably caused by genetics and the increase in prevalence may be due to improved diagnosis.
It's all a scare campaign. Is it wise to scare the public and create widespread anxiety among millions of people on the flimsy evidence that has been presented? The Geier studies and other evidence finding that thimerosal causes autism is loose, unscientific and irresponsible.
The issue is complicated. If thimerosal in vaccines were a sure-fire cause of autism, we'd all have it by now. The cause is much more complicated than that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
zendell
Free Thinker
Joined: Nov 11, 2007
Posts: 1174
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:15 pm Post subject: Tobacco and Lung Cancer |
|
|
The Council for Tobacco Research, an organization set up by Philip Morris, set out to determine whether smoking was dangerous. It conducted hundreds of studies and concluded that tobacco and cigarettes are safe and don't cause lung cancer. They published a booklet called "A Scientific Perspective" that stated:
The evidence is still inconclusive. "Many correlations of a comparable nature ... have in the end proved false. ... Let us be sure of our evidence before we scare the public."
Something other than smoking may be responsible for lung cancer. Doctors were quoted who speculated that the rise in lung cancer might be due to "the increased aging of the population" and "improved diagnosis".
It's all a scare campaign. "Is it wise to scare the public and create widespread anxiety among millions of people on the flimsy evidence that has been presented?...Another doctor decried "the loose, unscientific and irresponsible statements that are continuously appearing in newspapers and magazines."
The issue is too complicated, even for scientists. "If smoke in the lungs were a sure-fire cause of cancer, we'd all have it by now. The cause is much more complicated than that," said Clarence Cook Little.
I'm sure there are a few conspiracy theory nuts who think Philip Morris corrupted the research but I don't buy it. Hundreds of studies found no links between tobacco and cancer and those that did find links are junk science. The well-respected Council for Tobacco Research organization, praised by the media, is on my side. I'm too smart to believe in conspiracy theories and I'm sure the cigarettes I smoke are perfectly healthy. 
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Council_for_Tobacco_Research
Note: I'm not a member of a mercury militia. I just thought it was funny after I read the tobacco stuff because it's similar to how some people so quickly dismiss thimerosal as a cause of autism symptoms in anyone based on poor quality studies conducted by the vaccine manufacturers and the CDC who recommends thimerosal vaccines. It was funny when I read, "if smoke in the lungs caused cancer, we'd all have it" because it's no different than stating "if thimerosal causes autism, then everyone would be autistic." and using it to dismiss a connection. There are so many similarities that I couldn't resist posting.
Last edited by zendell on Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:29 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
TLPG
Phoenix
Joined: Nov 13, 2007
Posts: 682
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Here we go again!
You're wasting your time, Zendell. You're comparing apples with oranges again. The cigarette companies are established as flagrant liars and conspirators from way back. Big pharma are not. Why? Because vaccines are POSITIVE. Name me one positive about smoking cigarettes!
(silence)
I rest my case. |
|
| Back to top |
|
SilverProteus
The years, no doubt, have changed me.
Joined: Jul 21, 2007
Posts: 7154
Location: Fleet Street.
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What if...there were more than one triggers for autistic behaviors, more than one way to "get" autism and, especially, more than one types of "autism"? What if some examples of what we think are autistic behaviors are actually manifestations of another very similar disorder with different triggers?
I'm just speculating here, but it seems to be hardly simple.
I'm not saying I believe vaccines cause autism, but, coupled with individual factors such as genetic predisposition they might cause something that was not otherwise 'hardwired' in the brain which mimics autistic symptoms.
I'm wholly ignorant in this matter, and would usually just keep my mouth shut, but I think there might be more than one autistic spectrums. Researchers still have a LOT of researching to conduct before we'll be getting any real answers.
_________________
"How about a shave?"
|
|
| Back to top |
|
zendell
Free Thinker
Joined: Nov 11, 2007
Posts: 1174
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TLPG wrote: | Here we go again!
You're wasting your time, Zendell. You're comparing apples with oranges again. The cigarette companies are established as flagrant liars and conspirators from way back. Big pharma are not. Why? Because vaccines are POSITIVE. Name me one positive about smoking cigarettes |
Were cigarette companies established liars in the 1950s? The point is it has happened before so it can happen again. There is nothing unreasonable about not trusting Big Pharma. |
|
| Back to top |
|
silentchaos
Toucan
Joined: Mar 08, 2008
Posts: 250
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think it could be wise to point out that just because something turns out to be true that does not mean that being skeptical was a mistake. That aside there is little in common on the scientific level. There was a logical link between smoking and cancer, backed up with plenty of evidence, and known biology and mechanisms. Inhaled toxins and tissue irritants increase the level of stress on every level of lungs, all the way down to cells. This causes more mistakes to be made and more need to be corrected, leading to increased risk of missed mistakes in dna. After this there is even more stress that makes it even harder for your body to fix this or fight through it. It is difficult to look at this situation and think that it could NOT cause cancer, it is easier to look at it and wonder if it really is killing thousands of people. The skepticism obviously went too far and was fueled by false studies but there were PLENTY of real studies.
Anyone know the mechanisms involved in 'developing' autism? What does mercury do that causes permanent brain alterations, some that are not negative. Can anyone find any good studies that show increases in prevalence in areas with more mercury in the water,more vaccines at the time, etc? Some info on mercury or some chemistry lessons would be great, I'm sure someone here is just dying to explain all of the nuances of mercury to us. One upside of ASD communities is that there is always someone that knows everything about one thing.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
zendell
Free Thinker
Joined: Nov 11, 2007
Posts: 1174
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SilverProteus wrote: | | What if...there were more than one triggers for autistic behaviors, more than one way to "get" autism and, especially, more than one types of "autism"? What if some examples of what we think are autistic behaviors are actually manifestations of another very similar disorder with different triggers? |
I think autism will likely be separated into different labels once some of the causes are known and proven. Some studies already differentiate between infantile autism (autism from birth) and regressive autism (no developmental delays at all, followed by a sudden regression around 18 months of age). The increase in autism prevalence is mostly the regressive type. Regressive autism was uncommon just a few decades ago but increased in the 1990s and some studies estimate it now makes up 60% of new autism diagnoses. |
|
| Back to top |
|
zendell
Free Thinker
Joined: Nov 11, 2007
Posts: 1174
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| silentchaos wrote: | | Anyone know the mechanisms involved in 'developing' autism? |
Autism research is where tobacco research was in the 1950s. Wait 50 years and I may have an answer. I think only 2 or 3 studies on autism were conducted in the US before the 1990s so there isn't much research. What I'm hoping for is more research. |
|
| Back to top |
|
SilverProteus
The years, no doubt, have changed me.
Joined: Jul 21, 2007
Posts: 7154
Location: Fleet Street.
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| zendell wrote: | | SilverProteus wrote: | | What if...there were more than one triggers for autistic behaviors, more than one way to "get" autism and, especially, more than one types of "autism"? What if some examples of what we think are autistic behaviors are actually manifestations of another very similar disorder with different triggers? |
I think autism will likely be separated into different labels once some of the causes are known and proven. Some studies already differentiate between infantile autism (autism from birth) and regressive autism (no developmental delays at all, followed by a sudden regression around 18 months of age). The increase in autism prevalence is mostly the regressive type. Regressive autism was uncommon just a few decades ago but increased in the 1990s and some studies estimate it now makes up 60% of new autism diagnoses. |
I haven't been reading studies on the causes of autism, but my guess would be there's more than one spectrum, and autisms are much more complex than people think it is. Might heavy metals cause autistic behaviors? Maybe. Who actually knows for sure? I support further research in this just as I think the opposite - that mercury does not cause "autism" - should be. Limiting things things can be dangerous. Pity financial resources for scientific research is so scarce and uneven.
As for statistics, I'm wary of them. It's just too easy to misinform via them, IMO. I once, recently, saw a statistical analysis that did not take into account population growth yet conveyed a number (obviously higher) of some disorder's incidence. "X grew 30% in the last ten years." What about population? Has it stayed the same?! It borders on absurd. I'm not saying the numbers you're giving, zendell, are inaccurate, I'm just ranting. 
_________________
"How about a shave?"
|
|
| Back to top |
|
silentchaos
Toucan
Joined: Mar 08, 2008
Posts: 250
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 7:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mercury could make the signs of autism more noticeable. Someone said that mercury poisoning is similar to parkinsons, if that is true then the motor and speech problems could be more obvious after even a slight amount of mercury poisoning. Likewise with many vaccines that cause temporary fatigue or discomfort, they could bring autistic traits to the surface and there is nothing like getting dragged to the doctor,getting multiple shots, then getting sick for a few days to cause a struggling autistic child to meltdown and regress. Personally i think that many of the children that seem to develop autism after a year or two are simply the victims of too much stress and possibly bad parenting. We all know that even people with high functioning AS and have everything in their life going right can fall apart and have to work their way back to talking to their best friends. |
|
| Back to top |
|
MrMark
Abstract Data Type
Joined: Jul 04, 2006
Age: 50
Posts: 9412
Location: Tallahassee, FL
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 7:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TLPG wrote: | Here we go again!
You're wasting your time, Zendell. You're comparing apples with oranges again. The cigarette companies are established as flagrant liars and conspirators from way back. Big pharma are not. Why? Because vaccines are POSITIVE. Name me one positive about smoking cigarettes!
(silence)
I rest my case. |
I thought it was satire.
I think some people take what they read on web forums way too seriously.
We all know what zendell thinks. It's his obsession. I don't understand why it's so important to him to try to convince others of his point of view, but I accept that it is. No one has to read his posts.
_________________
"Great knowing is slow and capacious, small knowing is sly and capricious. Great words blaze with distinction, small words amaze making distinctions."
- from The Zhuang-zi (Chuang Tzu) |
|
| Back to top |
|
TLPG
Phoenix
Joined: Nov 13, 2007
Posts: 682
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2008 6:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| zendell wrote: | | TLPG wrote: | Here we go again!
You're wasting your time, Zendell. You're comparing apples with oranges again. The cigarette companies are established as flagrant liars and conspirators from way back. Big pharma are not. Why? Because vaccines are POSITIVE. Name me one positive about smoking cigarettes |
Were cigarette companies established liars in the 1950s? The point is it has happened before so it can happen again. There is nothing unreasonable about not trusting Big Pharma. |
Again - what are the positives of smoking? And a clue - there's no difference between the 1950's and now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
TLPG
Phoenix
Joined: Nov 13, 2007
Posts: 682
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2008 6:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| MrMark wrote: | I thought it was satire.
I think some people take what they read on web forums way too seriously.
We all know what zendell thinks. It's his obsession. I don't understand why it's so important to him to try to convince others of his point of view, but I accept that it is. No one has to read his posts. |
No, Mark, unfortunately this isn't satire. This is serious - and downright dangerous. And there are too many people responding to him as well (one less - ie myself - won't make much difference). If I was a mod I would have thrown Zendell out a long time ago. But I'm not so I guess we have to put up with it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
MrMark
Abstract Data Type
Joined: Jul 04, 2006
Age: 50
Posts: 9412
Location: Tallahassee, FL
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2008 8:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TLPG wrote: | | If I was a mod I would have thrown Zendell out a long time ago. |
That's why you're not a mod... you'd ban members for doing things that are not against the rules.
So far as whether or not this is dangerous, the tide is clearly against Zendell. I don't believe he has the power to influence large numbers of parents to not vaccinate their children. After all, he's just some guy on a web forum. Maybe you, like Zendell, need to reconsider your opinion.
_________________
"Great knowing is slow and capacious, small knowing is sly and capricious. Great words blaze with distinction, small words amaze making distinctions."
- from The Zhuang-zi (Chuang Tzu) |
|
| Back to top |
|
TLPG
Phoenix
Joined: Nov 13, 2007
Posts: 682
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 6:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
With all due respect, Mark, I've seen people like Zendell wreck forums. I understand where you are coming from, but my opinion can't change because it would defy my experience.
Anyway - as you rightly said, I'm not a mod. I was hardly backseat moderating (or if I was I didn't mean to and I apologise if so). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
