What a marvelous post - one that I think epitomizes the slogan of this forum: Edcuating instead of medicating.
I can almost feel the apologists rushing to contact their masters and asked how to counter it.
Thanks so much for the holiday gift, Raynbo.
Happy Thanksgiving!
DQ
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/69427.php
The Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A: Current Issues, an authoritative journal featuring original toxicological research, has published, “A Case Series of Children with Apparent Mercury Toxic Encephalopathies Manifesting with Clinical Symptoms of Regressive Autistic Disorders,” by Geier and Geier (2007).
This new study leaves little doubt there is a direct causal link between mercury exposure from Thimerosal-preserved biological products (vaccines and Rho(D) products) and mercury poisoning diagnosed as an autism spectrum disorder (ASD).
Thimerosal (49.55% mercury by weight) is a highly toxic mercury compound used as a preservative in some OTC and prescription drugs, including most flu shots given to pregnant women, infants, children, adults, and the elderly.
On April 19, 2007, Dr. Larry L. Needham, Chief, Organic Analytical Toxicology Branch, CDC, announced to the US National Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Medicine that Thimerosal was among the “Chemicals Linked to ASD.”
Thus, Geier and Geier (2007) provide the first clinical case-series of ASD patients that confirmed this causal role for Thimerosal-preserved drugs in patients having a regressive ASD diagnosis.
The Geiers describe a case-series of eight patients who had:
– a regressive ASD diagnosis,
– elevated levels of androgens,
– excreted significant amounts of mercury after a chelation challenge,
– biochemical evidence of decreased function in their glutathione pathways,
– no known significant mercury exposures except from Thimerosal-preserved vaccines and Rho(D)-immune globulin preparations, and
– alternative causes for their regressive ASDs ruled out.
This clinical study also found a significant dose-response relationship between the severity of the ASD symptoms and the total mercury dose these children received from Thimerosal-preserved drugs.
Based on differential diagnosis, these patients were exposed to significant mercury amounts from Thimerosal-preserved biologic drugs during their fetal and neonatal development as well as between 12 and 24 months of age. Thus, these initially normally developing children suffered mercury toxic encephalopathies that manifested with clinical symptoms consistent with their regressive ASD diagnosis.
Hence, mercury poisoning should be considered as a cause for those children exhibiting the symptoms of an ASD in any differential diagnosis designed to assess underlying causes.
Today, any parent or other healthcare provider can easily confirm whether, or not, a non-chelated autistic child is mercury poisoned by having urinary porphyrin profile analysis (UPPA) testing run at LabCorp (Test#120980) or Laboratoire Philippe Auguste (Urine Porphyrin Profile).
For additional information on UPPA testing for mercury poisoning, please visit the “UPPA” page on CoMeD’s web site, www.Mercury-freeDrugs.org.
Dr. King
www.dr-king.com
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=69427
What a feeble effort to come back with nothing but a mainstream denial quoting from no less of a mainsteam source than the Pediatrics Journal itself - as if they would EVER publish anything that admitted that they have been poisoning our children for years? That will happen about the same time the American Dental Association puts out a warning about mercury amalgam fillings.
If you aren't paid to take such beatings and post such pathetic defenses of indefensible practices, then you really must have had your brains beaten out in past debates on the merits, or rather lack thereof, of vaccinations. And to see just how ineffective those past defenses have been, all one has to do is go back a few pages and follow the threads.
You talk about a collapse? Your arguments not only collapsed, they were liquified.
If mercury is so safe, why is it considered so dangerous in the rest of the world, and why are healthcare workers here given strict warnings about handling it? I mean what is it about the rest of the world that bans such "healthy" things as mercury, growth hormone, GMO foods, etc.? Could it be the same reason that the US is by far the leading spender on health care and by far the leading profit center for the world pharmaceutical empire and mainstream medicine but ranks a pathetic and still declining 42nd in the world now in life expectancy?
Your post was so transparent and pathetic that you even felt compelled to use one of the oldest tactics in the books for a thoroughly unsupportable argument - concluding that anyone who disagrees could only do so for two wrong reasons of your own furnishing. Or was that your own masters furnishing?
I fully expected that you would have no choice but to make a response to the post on behalf of those who either brainwash you or compensate you - or both. I am beginning to believe more and more that there surely has to be some compensation involved. If so, I hope for your sake you are paid by the post and not by the results or effectiveness. Who is it, Merck? Perhaps the same folks who funded the study you quoted? You do acknowledge that it was an industry funded study, don't you? In which case, pehaps it might be germaine to mention that industry funded studies have been found to return favorable results to those who fund them by a mere 5 to 1 margin compared to independent studies (such as the independent studies quoted here by others).
The masters you so weakly serve, whether voluntarily or otherwise, attempt to play God and better nature, but they aren't and they can't. When it comes to nature versus the efforts of man, nature wins hands down and always has. It is only when it comes to profits versus man that both mankind and nature loses out. That is happening all too much these days and I, for one, am sick and tired of it. Fortunately, I do use nature and not man made poisons, so I am not nearly as sick and tired physically as many of are who are trapped in our system of managed illness.
You continually post here about your concerns for how dangerous it would be to deprive our children of the benefits you say happen when we subject their young and devloping bodies to the horrors of being injected with vaccines containing a devils brew of agents such as mercury, aluminum, formaldehyde, spermacide, unborn human and animal fetal matter, anthrax, monkey kidney cells, calf serums, rhesus monkey material, formalin, phenol, coal tar, aspartame, MSG, various strains of deadly viruses and microbial contaminants.
For all I know, you may even somehow believe your contention that introducing such frightening chemical and biological agents really is beneficial - although there is no indication at all that you have bothered to take an open-minded look at a great many references that have been pointed out to you. We here at CureZone on the other hand, have been bombarded with the mainstream premises and propaganda our entire lives, and we have rejected it and sought to educate ourselves about other points of view. In doing so, I would say that we are far more qualified to make objective decisions about what we put in our bodies and our children's bodies than you are - and it really serves you no good at all to continue to repeat what we have already heard and rejected too many times to imagine.
I would like to give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you do what you do out of true concern. Somehow, though, I cannot shake the feeling that if you were honest with us and yourself you would likely agree that only a few years ago you would have also been here voicing the same concerns about avoiding another prior industry mainstay and pointing to similar industry studies avowing the safety of Vioxx.
If your masters had their way, this is what future man would look like:
DQ
The body of evidence i have seen posted here largely suports the opposite of your conclusion. Of course that evidence by and large consists of studies funded by people who do not have a financial stake in the outcome of the study. It is the body of industry funded evidence you surely refer to.
All you appear able to do is to parrot your previous discredited posts and studies, including the one about autism rates should be declining. And THAT is precisely what we have come to expect from YOU.
You are right though - I do tend to get carried away at times. Sorry, you really do seem like a decent guy - but it is simply maddening to see so much clear evidence presented to you time and again and see you refuse to take an objective look at it, but rather merely come back time again and again with the same contentions and same studies that have been shot down in virtually every single instance.
How about an easy one:
Why do you suppose it is that autism is virtually non-existent in home studied children who have NO vaccinations? If not mercury, could you tell us just what it is about vaccinations that is the causal agent?
DQ
The surely you must jump at the chance to make an easy ten grand.
You say that there are no facts at all on her website. As rediculous and unsupported as your statement may be, all you have to do to collect the money is to refute a SINGLE FACT on her website.
I hereby offer a reward of $10,000 to any of your members who will come on my internet radio broadcast and successfully refute my documents posted at www.drcarley.com. The listeners will determine who is telling the truth.
DQ
In which case I challenge you to do so with NON INDUSTRY FUNDED STUDIES, since we can absolutely prove their bias
DQ
And who exactly did fund the study - hmmm? I can't wait for your answer and how you will be able to convince us that the funding sources were not tied to industry or would not profit by the results the study rendered.
No one ever said that non-industry studies were all immaculate, just that they returned favorable results for those who funded them up to five times more often than did non-industry funded studies.
YOU of all people here at CureZone want to tell US to have an "open mind and be willing to discard old prejudices"?
Now that is a classic!
DQ
You walked right into the trap I laid like a blind hog who sniffed a truffle.
To contend that studies funded by the national institutes of health is not industry related is like saying that the FDA is an agency that protects the public from Big Pharma.
Such national institutes are noted for their ties and fealty to industry.
A quick Google search of "National Institute of Health ties to Industry" reveals on just the first page alone:
Group asks US National Institutes of Health to reveal industry ties. Janice Hopkins Tanne. 1New York. This item has no abstract. ... www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/ |
Clinical academic medicine has long had ties with industry—academics are funded ... He coauthored the technical report for the National Institute for Health ... www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/ [ More results from www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov ] |
The issue of medicine's ties to industry has been a hot one of late. ... National Institutes of Health | Department of Health & Human Services ... www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_56236.html - 17k - |
Group asks US National Institutes of Health to reveal industry ties. Tanne JH. Publication Types:. News. MeSH Terms:. Conflict of Interest; Industry* ... www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed& |
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML sign a letter asking the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) to reveal ties to industry among. scientists on its advisory committees. ... www.isciii.es/htdocs/internacionales/ |
Group asks US National Institutes of Health to reveal industry ties ... director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Carolyn Deal, ... www.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/334/7585/115-a - |
Ignoring challenges that it overly relied on industry-funded research, the 12-member expert panel set up by the National Institute of Health's Center for ... www.cspinet.org/integrity/watch/200708131.html - 27k - |
SEARCH THE DATABASE of Scientists' and Non-Profits Ties to Industry ...... National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences; Nickel Producers ... www.cspinet.org/integrity/corp_funding.html - 194k - [ More results from www.cspinet.org ] |
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is the U.S. government's "primary ... federal risk-assessment center is guided by a company with manufacturing ties. ... www.sourcewatch.org/index. |
Institute advised to break its close links with the drug industry. LONDON (British Medical Journal / September 20, 2003) -- The National Institute for ... www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2003/ |
What the links did was present a case for industry bias and ties. One that bias and connection is established, the connections between the industry's vaccines and the institute logically follow, unfamliar as you may be with the concept.
And, much as you may be unfamiliar with another concept, I merely ran the search and presented it intact and unbiased and with no picking and choosing either for duplications or for just the links that supported my argument (as opposed to someone who might pick only sites that ended in .gov or otherwise came from a mainstream publication),
Here, let's try it again and narrow the search a bit. How about a Google search for "national Institute of Health bias in studies ties to industry"? Now that does not say biased in favor of industry, mind you just bias and ties to industry.
Ready? Here goes:
Scholarly articles for national Institute of Health bias in studies ties to industry
|
|
Bias in published cost effectiveness studies: systematic ... - Bell - Cited by 25 Who pays for the pizza? Redefining the relationships ... - Moynihan - Cited by 130 Review of the quality of studies on the economic effects ... - Scollo - Cited by 19 |
Ignoring challenges that it overly relied on industry-funded research, the 12-member expert panel set up by the National Institute of Health's Center for ... www.cspinet.org/integrity/watch/200708131.html - 27k - |
The National Institutes of Health and other federal agencies have invested more than ... WIth Ties to Industry can be found at: www.integrityinscience.org. ... www.cspinet.org/integrity/watch/200605222.html - 21k - |
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML "science" under the auspices of the National Institutes of Health. .... to more than 100 government-funded studies. About a dozen industry-funded ... www.ahrp.org/cms/index2.php?option=com_ |
About a dozen industry-funded studies found no effects. ... Mackar, of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, said the chemical reviews ... ahrp.blogspot.com/2007/03/ |
online.wsj.com/article/SB115257995935002947.html - |
Clinical academic medicine has long had ties with industry—academics are funded ... He coauthored the technical report for the National Institute for Health ... bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/332/7549/1063?rss - |
The new study, by scientists at the National Cancer Institute, ... participating in a research project by the National Institutes of Health and AARP, ... www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12155793/ - 53k - |
If physician-investigators were to refuse any financial ties to industry, ..... A service of the National Institutes of Health. Accessed 20 June 2004. ... www.academicmedicine.org/pt/re/acmed/fulltext. |
National Institutes of Health: The Lottery. Kenneth M. Heilman, MD ... ties, industry, foundations, and government. Collaboration ... doi.wiley.com/10.1002/ana.21133 - |
(Photo courtesy National Institute of General Medical Sciences) ... Francisco Institute for Health Policy Studies, says the tobacco industry - like other ... www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jul2003/2003-07-14-10.asp - 37k - |
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML bias, study size (e.g., <100 couples; <1000 uses), populations that are less ...... Can J Public Health. 1994; 85(1):53-55. 87. National Institute of Health ... www.niaid.nih.gov/dmid/stds/condomreport.pdf - |
Other Public Health. Right arrow, Health education (including prevention and ... a new study conducted by the National Institute of Health and Family ... bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/322/7286/575 - |
Marijuana and Health: Report of a Study by a Committee of the Institute of Medicine, Division of Health Sciences Policy. Washington, DC: National Academy ... www.nih.gov/news/medmarijuana/MedicalMarijuana.htm - 130k - |
This National Institutes of Health (NIH) State-of-the-Science Conference on Symptom ... Potential impact of study design bias, confounding, and chance on ... consensus.nih.gov/2002/ |
National Institutes of Health State-of-the-Science Conference ..... More recent observational studies suffer from selection bias because they are limited to ... consensus.nih.gov/2004/2004EndOfLifeCareSOS024html.htm - 68k - [ More results from consensus.nih.gov ] |
National Institutes of Health (NIH) consensus and state-of-the-science statements are prepared by independent panels of health professionals and public ... www.annals.org/cgi/content/ |
Investigators from another study concluded that 600 mg of valerian (LI 156) did not have a .... National Institutes of Health Bethesda, Maryland 20892 USA ... ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/valerian.html - 56k - |
NIH/National Institute of Mental Health, National Alliance for Research in ... Public Release: 17-Oct-2007 Aging and Mental Health USC study examines ... www.eurekalert.org/nih/fundednews.php?start=100 - 57k - |
The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health's National Institute of Mental ... researchers from NIH describe how sources of bias in other, ... www.eurekalert.org/nih/releases.php?start=25 - 55k - |
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML indoor public places. Nevertheless, environmental tobacco smoke ..... NCI. 1991. Smokeless Tobacco or Health, Monograph 2. National Institutes of Health. ... ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/ |
Google Groups results for national Institute of Health study bias to public
|
|
Sainsbury's supermarket chain in UK details its bans of ... - alt.support.diabetes - Nov 10, 2007 vegetarianism - alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian - May 6, 2007 The Truth about Peer-reviewed studies - misc.health.alternative - Nov 10, 2007 |
What? I am shocked!
Well, not really.
"So your response to what the Geiers and Wakefield have done is "Well, no one's perfect.""
No, my response is that bias can exists in both industry funded and non-industry funded studies. However studies have shown that it exists by a factor of 5 to 1 when it is industry funded.
Yep, that smell is definitely roast pork!
DQ
Maybe I could suggest some good natural remedies for eyesight and cognitive impairment? Just because you pick and choose, does not mean that the unaltered results I posted were selected by me - they were selected by Google, and then you decided to pick and choose the ones you wished to quote.
And I see you fail to comment on the fact that not one single result came back indicating that the NIH just might be biased towards the public.
Cut and paste you say? I figured that maybe doing so might be something you could grasp, as it differs little from your picking and choosing from mainstream and .gov sources, as well as cut and pasting, to justify what has been thoroughly taken apart here: vaccine safety and effectiveness. Certainly facts and reasons you won't accept have not worked.
OK, let's cut to the chase - is there or is there not any bias or conflict of interest (which equates to bias) at the NIH regarding industry.
From the respected Townsend Letter to Doctors:
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is the "steward of medical and behavioral research for the Nation." Doctors rely on the NIH for unbiased, accurate information; but, current practices have jeopardized the NIH reputation. In his investigative article for the Los Angeles Times (22 December 2004), David Willman describes the permissive NIH culture that allows, even encourages, its scientists to accept consulting fees and stock options from companies whose products they evaluate. The article provides several examples of NIH scientists who have received money, stock, or stock options from biomedical companies and, later, endorsed a company product. When the companies use the consulting scientists to endorse a product, the consultants' NIH positions are emphasized; their collaborations and financial arrangements with the companies are rarely mentioned.
New York
The US National Institutes of Health (NIH) has been criticised by members of Congress for letting employees accept lucrative consultancy assignments from drug and biotechnology companies.
On 22 June the director of the NIH, Dr Elias Zerhouni, told the House Energy and Commerce Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, "In retrospect, there was not a sufficient safeguard against the perception of conflict of interest." He said the NIH would tighten rules about employees' consultancy work.
The NIH's troubles began on 7 December 2003. In a front page article the Los Angeles Times described how a small number of the institutes' 17 000 employees had received millions of dollars of income from outside sources since 1995 ( 2003 December 7;sect A: 1).
That in itself was not illegal, although the public and even many senators and representatives were probably unaware of the practice.
Restrictions on outside work by NIH employees were loosened in 1995 by Dr Harold Varmus, the Nobel prize winner who headed the organisation at the time, in an effort to recruit leading scientists who could earn much more at universities. In his testimony on 22 June Dr Zerhouni outlined what he described as "a major reform" since then.
"We are severely restricting the ability of NIH employees to consult with industry," he said. He suggested prohibiting holding stock in biotechnology or drug companies, consulting by senior staff and staff who award research grants, and receiving stock as payment or holding stock in drug or biotechnology companies, limiting outside work to 400 hours a year, and limiting payment to 25% of salary—as well as random audits to detect unreported outside work. He also called for more public financial disclosures by employees.
However, the Washington Post (2004 June 23;sect A: 19) reported that one researcher at the National Cancer Institute continued to receive consultancy fees, although he testified that he had suspended the agreement. It also reported that the blue ribbon committee had turned up about 100 consultancy arrangements that NIH officials didn't know about. A neurologist at the National Institute of Mental Health, Dr Trey Sunderland, had received more than $500000 (£273250; 410340) over the past five years in fees, honorariums, and expense repayments from Pfizer, but the amounts had not been reported.
The Wall Street Journal (2004 June 22;sect A: 4) reported that the investigation into conflicts of interest is being expanded to 15 other federal agencies.
Source: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/329/7456/10-b
Ignoring challenges that it overly relied on industry-funded research, the 12-member expert panel set up by the National Institute of Health's Center for ... www.cspinet.org/integrity/watch/200708131.html - 27k - Conflicts of interest at the NIH: no easy solution.(Essays ...
|
National Institutes of Health director Dr Elias A Zerhouni says he is forming task force to review possible conflicts of interest among institute scientists ...
topics.nytimes.com/.../organizations/n/national_
"There is no direct disclosure of the interrelationships between NAAR and the Centers for
Disease Control or the National Institutes for Health, who work closely with the drug
industry, but in NAAR literature one observes references to NIH funding of NAAR projects and a
workshop sponsored jointly by NAAR and CDC ( http://www.naar.org). The relationship between
NAAR and the drug industry is evidenced in the Winter 1998 issue of NAARRATIVE, which displays
front-page coverage of the awarding of a "NAAR/Bristol-Myers Squibb Research Fellowship in
Autism and Neuropharmacology." Laura Reude
Oh by the way, if I were you I would not tarry long down here - your mainstream vaccine
autism is like asking the tobacco industry to investigate the link between lung cancer and
smoking," Rick Rollens
masters are getting new alimentary exit canals ripped at the top of the forum. Best consult
with your leaders on a strategy to counter that. I can hardly wait to see what it will be.
And look - one of the posts is from the NIH! It might even bolster your argument about their
lack of bias, although in doing so it will surely sink your vaccine support argument. What a
quandry! !