Continuing on from previous post
Hmmm that study is a redo of previous data where they claim the original researchers used the wrong statistical analysis. As I dug about who was right and wrong and what the data really showed it all descended into a mess which I don't have the journal access to tease out. I did find that the general conclusion from both sides that the original authors had been sloppy regardless so I've concluded the argument is moot anyway because I doubt I can trust the original researchers data to begin with (or the tiny journal that published and reviewed it).
One of the two that I have you did in fact reanalyze data. That was the N. Iowa study. The Univ of Arizona study seems to be independent of that. And I also find more evidence of your bias with your condescending attitude toward the journal. Research is not validated by the journal, it either is, or is not, scientifically relevant.
But I gave you three different studies that showed autistic patients tested high in heavy metals
I agree, which is why I didn't stop when I found the above mess which that article stirred up, turns out you were somewhat right. There does seem to be some evidence that mercury (and/or other metals) may be implicated in autism (though the evidence is still tenuous and in the region of saying maybe/possibly only). My search came to this as probably the best evidence on the topic thus far (mainly because it is A. fairly recent and B. a meta-analysis)
A meta-analysis of the evidence on the impact of prenatal and early infancy exposures to mercury on autism and attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder in the childhood
That is good, more people should be more open minded. This is not an attack against vaccines, it is about child health. When people stop over reacting (like people did to Andrew Wakefield) real science can begin and hopefully finally get to the bottom of the autism epidemic. It is not going to get better until science looks at all the evidence without bias. Let's make vaccines better.
To summarise it basically says that they found no evidence of a link with vaccine related to thiomersal but it did find evidence of a link with environmental exposure. Though it added the qualifier that overall the amount of good quality data was sparse. Is this waht you meant by "this is the scientific method"?
What I mean by the scientific method is simply this, people hide behind certain details and pretend they are the final voice. There is a wide variance between these statements:
True - There is no definitive link between ASD and vaccines
True - There is no scientific evidence that links ASD to vaccines
False - There is no evidence that links heavy metals to ASD
the media and most scientists hide behind what is true and refuse to deal with the links. That is what makes me want to take that idiot doctor in the clip and slap him. He should be ashamed of himself. And one day, he will eat those words and someone should play that clip outside his office door until he is bankrupt.
Science has shown heavy metals and autism have a link. We don't currently know the modality. As one study put it, it may simply be that some people are less efficient at expelling mercury from the blood. This is the scientific method. WE start with observation. Normal kids get vaccines and 1-2 days later are on the Autistic spectrum. This has happened too many times to be dismissed. Then we test kids with autism and find heavy metals in their blood at level far above children without ASD. That is observation of correlation. Hmmm, curiosity is piqued, we may be on to something.
Add to that the Amish anomaly:
The term Amish anomaly was coined by Dan Olmsted, who asserted that he could only find three Amish autistics after searching in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania and that two of them were vaccinated.
"The autism rate for U.S. children is 1 in 166 [times change!], according to the federal government. The autism rate for the Amish around Middlefield, Ohio, is 1 in 15,000, according to Dr. Heng Wang.
Why aren't the Amish autism rates climbing with the rest of americans? They are subjected to the same environmental toxins as the rest of us. Could it be vaccines? How about the fact they only eat non GMO foods? Or maybe something else? But lets not pretend it is a weird coincidence. Let's start with a heavy metals test using the amish as the control group and compare them to autistic kids, and then lets throw in some vaccinated kids that don't have ASD and see what we find? Be honest, wouldn't you be interested in that study?
Then science begins to determine WHY? Why do most kids do ok, while some do not? Why don't the Amish have it? Is it a vitamin or mineral deficiency like Folic acid is for Spina Bifida patients? Is it non-GMO foods? Is there a genetic issue that prevents some kids from dealing with the mercury? What is the mode of action (modality) that causes these patients to run into the spectrum, while most do just fine?
Pretending that thousands of parents who have seen their kids change overnight after a vaccine is just a coincidence is foolish and terrible. It is not a coincidence, we just can't explain it yet.
And notice what that dose studies created in the mice. The reason researchers do high dose is to force the body into a response. These high dices didn't create heart disease, or diarrhea, or stroke or high blood pressure or diabetes or anything else. These high doses of heavy metals created....you got it, autistic like diseases. More correlation. Not modality, not a confirmed link, but more correlation.
It reminds me of the beginning of surgery where the first clinic started washing their hands and instrument with chlorine before surgery. Many of them went directly form an autopsy to surgery without washing prior. They found a correlation of a decrease of infection and mortality when they began washing. Some of the doctors thought it was an unnecessary burden and didn't want to wash, even though through correlation, there was a marked decrease in death. They couldn't even explain why, it just worked. Later we discovered micro-biology and what seemed to them like foolishness, is now readily explainable and those doctors look like the fool for not simply washing their hands.
That is what is going to happen to vaccines research.
Really? You give me a list of over 124 studies and then when I respond to 10 of those you add a total of 15 more studies to the list (list of 12 + the 3 others you added in the that post)? The only reason I took the time to read the last one above was because it logically followed from the previous study and what I had said.
What is not clear is if you have actually read any of them yourself before giving them out to others? Or do you just hope that if you pile on enough some of them will turn out to be OK? Or that the shear volume will impress some whilst simultaneously dissuading anyone from actually checking them?
Oh and by the way I'm pretty sure you are repeating some of these studies. And by pretty sure I mean I am absolutely sure that the first one in your new list is the 2nd one in the 124 list (which I have already discussed with you) just published a few months apart in separate journals. It has almost the same title (just missing "diagnosis, NHIS 1997-2002" at the end), has the same authors, similar results. And if you needed more evidence the link actually takes you to the 124 lists article (i.e. the link is for the one published in J Toxicol Environ Health A, 2010 not Annals of Epidemiology, Sep 2009 one mentioned in the new 12) and the summary you gave is completely lifted word-for-word from the wrong 2010's abstract (i.e. the wrong/other version).
So I'm going to take a wild guess and say you DIDN'T read these articles you've offered either. Where do you plagiarize these lists from? Do you really think anyone has the time to check through these long lists when even you can't be bothered doing it?
I didn't give you the list in order for you to read them all. I didn't read them all. But what got me very angry is that idiot doctor. It is people like him who are setting autism research back decades by pretending that no science (even if it is still in the first step of correllation) that links autism to heavy metals. That is a blatant lie.
More than likely when this all shakes out, which it will, it will be determined that there are issues with the patient, not the vaccines. While I think that ultimately all these heavy metals will be removed and all the "conspiracy theorists" vindicated, ultimately I think the main danger with the vaccines is the child has some sort of deficiency or genetic predisposition that makes them more vulnerable to the thirmerosal. That is just a guess, which is where all science is right now with research.They begin with an educated guess and run that guess down until the confirm or deny the hypothesis.
Until we stop protecting the pharmaceutical industry and running scared every time some new study maybe possible links heavy metals with ASD, the problem with autism is going to continue to get worse.
