Callous Disregard: Epilogue

17 Nov

We’ve already discussed Andrew Wakefield’s book, Callous Disregard, a few times here at LeftBrainRightBrain. I discussed his chapter discussed “Why”, which is painful to read, both for Mr. Wakefield’s approach to the subject and his attempt at creative writing. I discussed his chapter 1, and some of the “myths” he claims there are in the discussion of the paper in The Lancet. In that piece I referred to wading through “Callous Disregard” as a land war in Asia. Around every corner there is a statement which just doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. Given that, you probably won’t be surprised to see that I have skipped to the end, the epilogue of the book. I’ll quote two paragraphs.

The first is voiced as a statement to those those would promote vaccines:

There is no place for indulging futile displacement activity, sanctimonious posturing, and self protectionism. In the battle for the hearts and minds of the public, you have already lost… Why? Because the parents are right; their stories are true; their children’s brains are damaged; there is a major, major problem. In the US, increasingly coercive vaccine mandates and fear mongering advertising campaigns are a measure of your failure–vaccine uptake is not a reflection of public confidence, but of those coercive measures, and without public confidence, you have nothing.

Mr. Wakefield likes to position himself as a moderate, someone still asking whether MMR causes autism. How exactly that squares with a clear statement, “..their children’s brains are damaged…” I don’t know.

The final paragraph is a closer to his “why” chapter.

Sinking low, out over Crystal Mountain, the Texan sun still hurts the land. The cedars draw on parched earth. And the sun is gone. Stars creep into the night sky and the forest begins to move. My children are asleep and my beer is cold. From the lops of Willie Nelson, the ballad of Bobby McGee falls with a salty melancholy: “I’d trade all my tomorrows for a single yesterday”. And for a moment I am there, on the cold, wet precipice of Hounds Ghyll viaduct, 180 feet above oblivion as a small boy looks questioningly into my face, slips my hand, and is gone.

I found the essay (for want of a better word) “Why” to be a bit disturbing. This closing paragraph only confirms that impression.

About these ads

105 Responses to “Callous Disregard: Epilogue”

  1. Prometheus November 20, 2010 at 00:12 #

    Sullivan,

    I wonder where all the evidence that was supposed to exonerate Andy Wakefield went? We were promised that it would be revealed “soon” and I – like many others, I suspect – expected it to be in his book, Callous Disregard.

    Instead, all he provides is a pack of transparent lies, some whinges about how everybody has been so terribly mean to him, and half-……hearted attempts to elevate his own moral standing by smearing the reputations of others.

    If this is the stuff he thought would vindicate him and raise him triumphant above the GMC and his myriad other critics, Dr. Wakefield is in desperate need of profession help (and I don’t mean an editor, although that would have helped his book).

    He had an opportunity to present his “evidence” and tell his story at the GMC hearings and apparently (according to his later statements) did not. His book was a second, if inferior, opportunity to provide exculpatory evidence, yet he didn’t provide it there, either.

    Is this it? Is the sum total of his defense really that people have been mean to him and “persecuting” him and that he did it all “for the children”?

    Can he really think that would convince anyone outside of his sycophantic circle (who don’t need any convincing)? Is he really that deluded?

    Prometheus

  2. Jim Thompson November 20, 2010 at 06:14 #

    The style of numbered points is used here because some in this forum seem overeager to attack any messages contrary to the apparent collective viewpoint here that all vaccine components are scientifically proven safe.

    Here are three points to reconsider.

    (1) Mercury is a heavy metal.

    (2) Mercury kills brain cells.

    (3) Pichichero et al injected newborns with vaccines with thimerosal preservative with the equivalent mercury by weight of that found in four U.S. ounces of D009 mercury hazardous waste. This action ignored the “Joint Statement of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the United States Public Health Service—July 7, 1999 4:15 PM” that “the Public Health Service, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and vaccine manufacturers agree that thimerosal-containing vaccines should be removed as soon as possible.”

    And here two new points to consider:

    (1) The FDA, after eleven years, has yet to ban mercury from all vaccines and issue a recall for all mercury containing vaccines.

    (2) Just as the FDA rejects a “precautionary principal” for dental fillings, this principal is rejected as well in regards to vaccine safety, i.e. failure to remove all “thimerosal-containing vaccines” as “soon as possible” for our children, and instead requires iron clad “proof of injury” before banning mercury. So our children are basically treated like guinea pigs.

    See http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20101115005878/en/Mercury-Linked-Alzheimer’s-Disease and the statement that “Norway, Sweden, and Denmark officially banned the use of mercury in dental fillings based on the Precautionary Principal, a protective doctrine requiring proof of safety — a doctrine rejected by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).”

    p.s.

    The question of “… exactly what dangers children are in by getting the HepB, Hib, DTaP and IPV vaccines–especially when compared to getting those diseases?” is irrelevant in regard to the discussion of the dangers of a mercury compound injected into children and pregnant women in the form of thimerosal vaccine preservative. These are separate issues. It is inappropriate to ignore dangers of chronic mercury brain injury by stating in effect that “these diseases are bad and helping prevent them is good and so it is just not important enough to discuss side effects of a toxic vaccine preservative.”

  3. Brian Deer November 20, 2010 at 11:02 #

    Prometheus makes an excellent point. Even on Wakefield’s website, whoever built it said they were going to be posting the documents that proved his innocence, blah, blah, and the person who said this may have believed it.

    I know the Wakefield documents very well indeed. I don’t recall a single one in which anything like a sentence appearing, out of context, to support his story wasn’t overwhelmed by something quite clearly and emphatically incriminating him. I mean, there may be one that I can’t remember, but if he was to publish the documentation, he would have to white-out huge chunks to stop his shrunken band of acolytes seeing the truth.

    In his ludicrous “book”, he’s able to slide around the truth, particularly using his habitual false synopses of the case against him. But whoever said that his book contains evidence has to be suffering from some pretty strange delusion.

  4. Joseph November 20, 2010 at 15:31 #

    @Jim: I take it you’ve given up on your point about “toxic waste”, and that you’re unable to address the counter-arguments provided.

    I’m not sure what your most recent rant is attempting to argue. Are you under the impression that we’ve never heard mercury is a heavy metal and that it can kill brain cells? See, a lot of the regulars here have been immersed in this debate for years.

    I’d recommend you read the OAP decisions. If you do not have that level of familiarity with the debate, you’re wasting everyone’s time here.

  5. Jim Thompson November 20, 2010 at 17:15 #

    Again, the EPA SDWA MCL for mercury is 2 parts per billion.

  6. MikeMa November 20, 2010 at 17:32 #

    Mr ‘Stuck in a rut’ Thompson,
    We all see that you really, really like to quote EPA limits. Marvelous that you can continue to do this in spite of the fact that what is allowable in the environment, where the metal collects permanently, has nothing whatever to do with injectable limits because they flush out of the body.

    Simply, EPA limits have nothing to do with injection and body tolerance. Mercury is flushed out of the body rapidly. Mercury collects in the environment forever, hence the lower limit.

  7. Dedj November 20, 2010 at 17:39 #

    “Again, the EPA SDWA MCL for mercury is 2 parts per billion.”

    Again, you are requested to explain why you hold to the EPA limit and not the one from the relevant authourity, the FDA.

    If you hold to the validity of one standard, you must hold to the validity of the other, unless you present good and applicable reasons for doing so.

    One is for waste, which has the expectation of being constant and consistant and in high volumes, all far above that which is reasonably found in vaccine.

    The other applies to irregular, short term, low total volume doses with a reasonably derived positive cost/benefit analysis.

    Your inability to apply the proper standard or to see why you’re attempting to apply the improper standard does you no favours.

    You have yet to explain why you hold to one authourity but not the other.

    You will:

    Explain why your claims in 05:11:25 were found to be utterly incorrect to the point where it can only be assumed that you were being deliberately dishonest.

    Explain why you chose to defend the low skill and poor logic in your earlier posts with the counter arguement of “The style of numbered points is used here because some in this forum seem overeager to attack any messages contrary to the apparent collective viewpoint here that all vaccine components are scientifically proven safe.” when the concern laid before you was that the construction of your posts, not the chosen style, that was of insufficient quality, to the point of obscuring your own arguement and raising concerns over your ability to construct appropriate and cogent points in plain English.

  8. Dedj November 20, 2010 at 17:41 #

    Also, Jim will explain why he rejects the finding of the GMC in the Wakefield case.

  9. Dedj November 20, 2010 at 17:51 #

    “He had an opportunity to present his “evidence” and tell his story at the GMC hearings and apparently (according to his later statements) did not. His book was a second, if inferior, opportunity to provide exculpatory evidence, yet he didn’t provide it there, either.”

    This is what annoys me.

    Wakefield must have known that his supporters were travelling from all over, at their own expense or at the expense of a third party, and that they would attend on a regular basis, and that they would attend for long periods.

    So, Wakefield knew, or should have known, that:

    parents of autistic children were paying out-of-pocket to travel,

    and/or

    that parents were paying out-of-pocket to stay at accomodation,

    and/or

    that parents may have been using leave from work (paid or unpaid) to attend,

    and/or

    that parents will have been paying out-of-pocket expenses for multiple meals at central London prices,

    or were claiming from a fund that could have been used for other purposes.

    And yet he knowingly and deliberatly chose not to present the very thing they travelled/stayed over for, and did so for an extended period

    I would advise any parent supporter of Wakefield who attended the hearing to consider the possibility of claiming expenses from the person of Andrew Wakefield. This does not constitute legal advice, nor is it delivered in my professional capacity.

  10. Brian Deer November 20, 2010 at 17:59 #

    Well, I take your point, but I think the only people who really would have been entitled to claim their expenses would have been his witnesses.

    And he called no witnesses.

    I don’t know whether the GMC’s 31 witnesses, including the mother of one of the children, three co-authors of his Lancet paper and the world’s most eminent expert on autism, received expenses.

  11. Jim Thompson November 20, 2010 at 19:17 #

    (1) The USEPA has numeric criteria for maximum mercury exposures, including drinking water and hazardous waste liquids and solids. There is no FDA standard numeric criteria for mercury exposure from the vaccine preservative thimerosal.

    (2) Data shows that inorganic mercury collects and is retained in the brains of infant monkeys exposed to the vaccine preservative thimerosal.

    “The half-life of inorganic Hg is too long (greater than 120 days)
    to be accurately estimated from the present data.”

    See Burbacher et al 2006 “Comparison of Blood and Brain Mercury Levels in Infant Monkeys Exposed to Methylmercury or Vaccines Containing Thimerosal,” page 33.

  12. Dedj November 20, 2010 at 19:28 #

    (1) Explain what relevance this has to your arguement. This is what you have been repeatedly requested to do. At no point have you successfully done this. Any reasonable person can easily assume from your repeated failure to even try that you are being deliberatly avoidant.

    (2) The Burbacher study has been heavily discussed here and elsewhere. This bear no relation to your misuse of the EPA standards. Your inclusion of this can only be seen as a a deliberate attampt at deception and/or avoidance of the issue.

    I noticed that you have not addressed any of the other concerns regarding your behaviour, despite those concerns indicating a level of dishonesty and/or incompetance that would not be acceptable on many discussion sites. Your repeated failure to correctly address the responses to you can only be taken as indicating a level of dishonesty or lack of consideration that is simply unacceptable.

    Shape up or get lost.

  13. MikeMa November 20, 2010 at 19:38 #

    Mr ‘I still dont get it’ Thompson,
    Ethyl vs methyl mercury fail.

  14. Dedj November 20, 2010 at 19:44 #

    “Well, I take your point, but I think the only people who really would have been entitled to claim their expenses would have been his witnesses.”

    I was more thinking along the lines of his supporters suing him for compensation, rather than claiming expenses under an organised scheme.

    The difficulty would be proving that:

    a) Wakefield was under a professional obligation to act to a minimal standard of behaviour whilst attending, and that he failed to adhere to this standard willfully and insightfully,

    and that,

    b) By direct or indirect cause, his actions led to parents ending up needlessly out-of-pocket, when fulfilling a) would have provided legitimate cause for them to be out-of-pocket,

    and that,

    c) Wakefield knew, or should have known, that his actions were the cause of, or a major contributing factor to, the willingness of the parents to believe his cause and endure the expense associated with attending the hearings.

    Like I said, this is not legal advice and is not given in any professional capacity.

    We expect supporters to end up out of pocket (after all, people can put forward honest defences, but still be wrong), but the question is whether his supporters were unduly influenced and negatively affected by Wakefields lack of appropriate action, despite it being clear to him what the effect of his inaction would have been.

  15. Jim Thompson November 20, 2010 at 19:47 #

    (1) Try not to confuse the FDA’s lack of numeric criteria for mercury in vaccines with an “FDA standard”–as was done at 17:39:53.

    (2)”irregular, short term, low total volume doses ” is not a numeric value.

    (3) The Burbacher reference is provided in response to a statement that mercury is flushed from the body at 17:32:34.

  16. Jim Thompson November 20, 2010 at 20:11 #

    This lack of numeric criteria for mercury injected into 6 month old children and pregnant women, in the form of Thimerosal vaccine preservative, by the FDA reflects this agency’s current rejection of the precautionary principal.

    Here is an example of failure to use the precautionary principal in Germany and the UK back in 1961.

    http://www.bonkersinstitute.org/medshow/thalidomide.html

  17. Dedj November 20, 2010 at 20:56 #

    (1) I mentioned nothing about a numerical standard. That is pure invention by you.

    It is clear from context and the previous responses that others have delivered to you that we are not talking about a strict numeric standard from the FDA.

    Please refrain from inventing arguements and randomly attributing them to other people. Stick to only that which has some semblance of connection to what has been put to you.

    Try to remember and take into account what has been said to you more than one or two posts ago. It might help.

    (2) I did not say it was. The point was that you were conflating the EPA recommendations for waste as if they applied to non-waste items.

    (3) Then you should have made that clear. We are not here to presume what is going on in your head, nor are we here to presume who you are talking to. That is your job. Please learn to correctly address responses, it will make your posts look less chaotic and disjointed.

    If you persist to engage in deliberate avoidance and misdirection, I will have no recourse but to suggest that you refrain from visiting this website.

    I will not respond to you further unless you prove yourself capable of acting in an upright and capable fashion.

    I’d advise everyone to do the same.

  18. Chris November 20, 2010 at 21:04 #

    Mr. Thompson is now a Ferrous Cranus troll. His skull is welded shut to any information that goes against his preconceived ideas. He will not answer the questions, nor will he stay on topic preferring to persevere on the old, outdated and thoroughly discredited “thimerosal causes autism” hypothesis.

    Like, Dedj, I also suggest we ignore him.

    Brian Deer:

    Prometheus makes an excellent point. Even on Wakefield’s website, whoever built it said they were going to be posting the documents that proved his innocence, blah, blah, and the person who said this may have believed it.

    The only thing that comes close on that website is a list of papers that supposedly “independently replicate” his finding. The problem is that most of them have nothing to do with the MMR, several include Wakefield as an author (the opposite of “independent”), and are just a silly Gish Gallop of nonsense.

    Last month he gave a talk at a public library in Boulder, Colorado which was attended by several members of the Mile High Skeptics Meetup Group. The anti-vaccine group that sponsored it have promised to put up a video of that talk, but it has not shown up. I am kind of curious of what kind of questions were asked and how they were answered when not all of the participants were sycophants. I would assume it is similar to this account:

    After the talk, which earned Wakefield a standing ovation from the crowd of around 80, I had the opportunity to pose the last questions of the Q&A session. I asked Wakefield if he had any regrets or saw any flaws in his work. No, he said, except being “a bit brash sometimes” to authorities such as the GMC.

    I also invited his thoughts on what to say to the parents of children who die from preventable diseases such as measles because their classmates do not get vaccinated. Over jeers of “big pharma shill,” I was chided for even insinuating that anyone was ‘anti-vaccine’ or that there was somehow a larger public health responsibility. That was it; the question session was over.

  19. Joseph November 20, 2010 at 21:14 #

    The USEPA has numeric criteria for maximum mercury exposures, including drinking water and hazardous waste liquids and solids.

    @Jim: But do you understand now that drinking water and industrial wastewater are completely different things to vaccines that are given only occasionally, in very low volumes, and typically for a limited time?

    Indeed, are you aware that the EPA has different ppm limits for fish, soils, liquids, etc.? Why do you think that is?

    (BTW, it is a different kind of mercury, but this is not the key point, to the extent that the EPA could, in principle, have a similar standard for ethylmercury too.)

  20. Jim Thompson November 20, 2010 at 21:40 #

    Dedj, regarding (1) and (2) above, there is no conflation nor is there exaggeration in regards to the threshold at which the USEPA determines waste fluids to be toxic. The purpose of a numeric threshold is to protect humans from exposure. That is exactly why unsed vaccines with thimerosal preservative (in the US) are treated as D009 mercury hazardous waste and why they may be only disposed in a licensed facility. And yet FDA, with no numeric criteria, allows this mercury compound to go directly into the human body via IM injection. Look at battery acid. It should not be injected into humans either, even though it performs well in batteries only a feet away from our bodies in vehicles on a daily basis. It contains sulfuric acid and lead above the USEPA thresholds and is hazardous waste.

  21. Dedj November 20, 2010 at 22:31 #

    Sigh, I said I wouldn’t but I can’t resist.

    Yes, Jim, there is conflation. The standard for mercury as a waste product is the EPA standard. The ‘standard’ for whether thimerosal can be included in a medical product is provided by dint of the FDA recommendation. You have provided no reason for why you believe one but not the other.

    As for “nor is there exaggeration in regards to the threshold at which the USEPA determines waste fluids to be toxic”, again, I mentioned no such thing. You are either deliberatly attempting to misdirect or you have woeful reading comprehension skills.

    You have thus far failed abomnibally to justify a single one of your arguements, have failed to justify the inherent contradiction in your valueing of the EPA but not the FDA, and have demonstrated a habit of making odd or bizarre assumptions about responses that have been clearly laid out to you.

    No other person in this thread is having the intellectual difficulty that you are having. Why is this?

    I would suggest that as Jim can provide no further value to this thread, and that as he lacks insight into his lack of skills and knowledge, that this thread be considered spoiled if he responds further.

    Well done Jim, you’ve ruined a previously good thread merely to further your own ends. You can go away happy with yourself now.

  22. Chris November 20, 2010 at 22:32 #

    Mr. Thompson, have you ever considered taking some basic classes in reading and science at your local community college. You seem to have issues understanding our questions, science or what Dedj said last:

    I will not respond to you further unless you prove yourself capable of acting in an upright and capable fashion.

  23. Joseph November 20, 2010 at 22:43 #

    And yet FDA, with no numeric criteria, allows this mercury compound to go directly into the human body via IM injection.

    And you still don’t understand why that is, Jim, after several honest attempts to try to explain it to you? Are you completely unteachable, or are you just trolling?

    I’ll make a final attempt by means of a very simple example: Dandruff shampoo.

    There’s typically 1% Selenium Sulfide in Dandruff Shampoo, or 10,000 ppm.

    Now, if you look in e-CFR § 261.24, you’ll see that Selenium is considered toxic at 1 ppm (with mercury listed at 0.2 ppm) when it’s part of “solid wastes.”

    So, explain to me, how is the FDA allowing people to put a substance on their heads that is (OMG!) 10,000 times more toxic than toxic waste?

  24. Julian Frost November 20, 2010 at 22:44 #

    Um, Jim, you do know that a vaccination is a very small amount, like 5ml. Do the maths. If the concentration was a ridiculous 200 parts per billion, the injection would still only contain a nanolitre of mercury.
    To give you some idea, I love sushi and a blowout at a sushi restaurant contains far more mercury than an inoculation.

  25. Chris November 21, 2010 at 04:25 #

    I have more question for Mr. Thompson: Did you notice that you were able to derail this thread? Do you think any one of us could have done the same at the blog you are a contributor to, Age of Autism?

    There are actually blogs created by people who were banned from commenting on Age of Autism like Todd W.’s “silencedbyageofautism” and Kim Wombles “kwomblescountering.” You friends at AoA have even tried to get Orac and others in trouble at work.

    You are in a really bad crowd. And with your severe lack of logical writing, critical thinking, mathematical reasoning and refusal to discuss honestly you should probably turn in your PE license.

    (what is it with engineers who think they can pontificate intelligently about things that they are clueless about? — this includes Andy Cutler (chemical engineer) at Autism/Mercury Yahoo group, Gary Goldman (computer science) at Medical Veritas, Amy Lansky (computer science) who claims homeopathy cured autism, and Andy Schlafly (electrical engineer turned lawyer) of Conservapedia … gah, makes me want to deny that I was ever an engineer!)

  26. Jim Thompson November 21, 2010 at 05:23 #

    Joseph:

    FDA banned thimerosal preservative in over the counter eyedrops because of the mercury toxicity.

    Julian:

    Seasonal Flu vaccinations are one half milli-liter with approximately 50 parts per million mercury by weight. The D009 hazardous waste threshold is 250 times lower than that.

    Dedj:

    “dint of the FDA recommendation” is not a numeric criteria.

    Moderator:

    It might be appropriate at this point to request a degree of civility in the conduct of the discussion in this forum.

  27. Chris November 21, 2010 at 05:51 #

    Where to you think you are, Mr. Thompson, Age of Autism? What Dedj wrote is mild compared to the “civility” at AoA.

  28. Joseph November 21, 2010 at 15:25 #

    I’m out. Mr. Thompson is incapable of having a discussion. He just changes the topic when it suits him, and ignores all rebuttals.

  29. Jim Thompson November 21, 2010 at 16:29 #

    Joseph:

    Looking at the MSDS for SeS2, it is not something that should be injected via IM into infants and pregnant women either. As for a two percent concentration usage in shampoo, that also carries warnings of toxicity. Thanks for the heads up.

  30. Dedj November 21, 2010 at 16:35 #

    “Dedj:

    “dint of the FDA recommendation” is not a numeric criteria.”

    Again: never said it was, nor is it what the discussion is about.

    Why do you think it’s important enough to keep mentioning?

    We are talking about the contradiction inherent in saying “One authourity says this, which is clearly about mercury as a waste product, the more relevant authourity say this about a variant of mercury when used in a medical product in a radically different volume. I’ll go with the less relevant authourity and the standard for a radically different use and volume thanks.”

    Why do you trust one authourity but not the other? You have been asked this multiple times, yet have failed to answer.

    If you cannot validate why you apply the standard of mercury-as-waste to the use of a mercury variant when used in a radically different context, volume , then please leave.

    Also, please stop repeating your talking points robotically and start linking them to some semblance of arguement. Until you start having consideration for your readers and start properly and appropriatly forming your arguements, and properly and appropriatly linking your evidence to those arguements, you are a fine one to talk about civility. Coming into any discussion and putting the onus on your readers to assume your argument and do the intellectual grunt work for you is far from civil. It’s rather demanding, self-centered and ignorant.

    Let’s not even get into how many times you have intentionally avoided questions, attempted to derail the discussion or deliberatly misattributed arguements to other people.

    Civility is not the absence of insults or ‘mean language’, but your attitude to other people and their views. Your attempts at riding roughshod over other people with your mechanical asssertions and blithe assumptions certainly stink.

    Again, please leave if you can’t behave.

  31. Jim Thompson November 22, 2010 at 03:16 #

    Dedj said “Why do you think it’s important enough to keep mentioning?”

    Because without numeric criteria there are no safe Thimerosal preservative levels established.

    Dedj said “Why do you trust one authourity but not the other?”

    Because one authority, the USEPA, sets standards like:
    (a) the mercury RfD for fish http://www.epa.gov/hg/exposure.htm
    and
    (b) the mercury MCL for drinking water http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/basicinformation/mercury.cfm .
    And to borrow language from Jane M. Hightower’s book “Diagnosis Mercury, Money, Politics, and Poison,” this is done by the USEPA to establish a “threshold dose of mercury that can be consumed with out doing harm.”

    In addition the USEPA classifies unused vaccines with thimerosal preservative as D009 mercury hazardous waste, which are considered too toxic to flush down a sanitary sewer, http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/get-cfr.cgi?TITLE=40&PART=261&SECTION=24&TYPE=TEXT .

    Meanwhile the other authority, the FDA, has set no protective numeric criteria for the vaccine preservative Thimerosal to protect children and pregnant women.

    Finally, four U.S. ounces of D009 mercury hazardous waste (which contains the same weight in mercury as a flu shot with thimerosal preservative) is not used in a different context. Would anyone knowingly offer a child or pregnant a half cup of D009 mercury hazardous waste? Of course not.

  32. Jim Thompson November 22, 2010 at 03:22 #

    …Would anyone knowingly offer a child or pregnant woman a half cup of D009 mercury hazardous waste? Of course not.

  33. Skeptiverse November 22, 2010 at 04:01 #

    Jim,

    Not knowing a lot about the medicine behind this debate but being involved in government regulation of waste (not US) the reason that vaccines have to be disposed of as hazardous waste is because they fall under the clinical waste banner. In most jurisdictions around the world clinical waste is always treated as hazardous waste no matter what the waste is nor its actual risk profile. And because it does contain mercury (though very little) it gets put under that category.

  34. Dedj November 22, 2010 at 04:11 #

    “Because without numeric criteria there are no safe Thimerosal preservative levels established.”

    Odd then, that the FDA thinks otherwise. You were asked why you hold your opinion to be more insightful and informed than thiers upthread. You failed to answer.

    “Dedj said “Why do you trust one authourity but not the other?”

    Because one authority, the USEPA, sets standards like:”

    …which does not answer why you take thiers as being superior to the FDA.

    You were not asked to mechanically repeat your opinion. You were asked to justify why you hold it. A sensible person can easily point to the FDA recommendation and say that the EPA standard is therefore evidently false or misleading. A truly sensible person would not try to apply the standard for environmental waste to the standard for medicines, although they may try to use some of the same background data.

    Repeatition is not evidence or arguementation.

    You are a waste of time. Leave.

  35. Jim Thompson November 22, 2010 at 04:37 #

    Dedj, Four million babies are born in this country each year (with the U.S. composing only 5 percent of the world population). Somehow the idea of injecting an organic mercury vaccine component (thimerosal preservative–that is unproven for safety, and that has no numeric criteria assigned to safe levels of exposure, and which may have profound contribution to neurological damage), somehow that fact overshadows any pretext for refusing to engage in a discussion of the above facts and information because of style and form. Respond to the information and do so in a civil fashion.

  36. Jim Thompson November 22, 2010 at 11:40 #

    Skeptiverse, not all vaccine related waste is stored, transported, and disposed as hazardous waste in the U.S.

    For instance, look at the document at this web link. See http://www.ndflu.com/Vaccine/Disposal%20of%20MDV.pdf .

    It provides more detailed information that delineates waste vaccines in terms of the type of disposal required. This document also provides additional links for more information regarding vaccines with thimerosal and regarding hazardous waste disposal companies.

    Per this document, “Proper disposal of expired/wasted vaccines is everyone’s responsibility to protect our environment. To dispose of vaccines appropriately, you need to know if they are either hazardous waste or infectious waste or both or neither. Those that are neither are considered industrial solid waste (normal trash). During the 2009 – 2010 influenza season, unused or expired H1N1 vaccine products may not be returned to the distributor. Instead, providers are responsible for disposing of them.”

  37. Dawn November 22, 2010 at 14:56 #

    @Jim Thompson: Thimerosol was removed from most eye solutions because there were reports of allergic reactions. It had nothing to do with “mercury toxicity”. Please get your stories straight, learn to document sources and use the correct authority for medications (FDA) instead of the authority for environmental issues (EPA).

    Thimerosol has been used for many years, has not been proven to cause any health issues outside of allergic reactions and is a proven antiseptic. Please get off your AOA high horse and learn the real signs of mercury poisoning (which are very well documented) and have almost no commonality with the diagnositic criteria used for autism.

  38. Dawn November 22, 2010 at 14:58 #

    Oh, and Kev and Sullivan: I apologize if I wasn’t civil enough…

    • Sullivan November 22, 2010 at 16:27 #

      Dawn,

      sorry to say, but I’m only skimming over the comments here. A while back I figured that Jim Thompson had one story and had said it. Correct me if I am wrong, but I don’t think he has either supported his story or added to it.

  39. Gray Falcon November 22, 2010 at 15:23 #

    Also, back on subject, Mr. Thompson, you still haven’t shown that Wakefield has acted in an ethical manner. Attempting to shift the topic isn’t helping you, it’s only making it clear how many different areas you can be wrong in.

  40. Dawn November 22, 2010 at 17:04 #

    Hi, Sullivan. No, the song’s the same. :)

  41. MikeMa November 22, 2010 at 18:03 #

    Dawn,
    Yup, JimT is singing the same song, off key and off-topic.

  42. Chris November 22, 2010 at 18:07 #

    (second try, hope I don’t double post) What Mr. T is doing is increasing the chances of this thread being found in a google search. Which could have some interesting consequences if someone was researching him for employment.

  43. Jim Thompson November 23, 2010 at 05:23 #

    Dawn said: “Thimerosol was removed from most eye solutions because there were reports of allergic reactions. It had nothing to do with ‘mercury toxicity’.” That is correct. My earlier statement to Joseph regarding the reason thimerosal was removed by the FDA from eye drops was not correct.

    For instance see http://www.surveyophthalmol.com/article/0039-6257(82)90126-6/abstract . It states that “The chemical preservatives that are found in soft contact lens solutions cause epithelial toxicity when applied to isolated rabbit corneas. However, corneal toxicity in a clinical setting has not been demonstrated.”

    Thank you for the correction.

  44. Jim Thompson November 23, 2010 at 07:14 #

    Sullivan, as citizens of the US, it is a constitutional obligation to question elected and appointed officials. And today many citizens in the U.S. consider the FDA to be the less relevant authority of the two (FDA and USEPA) regarding the toxicity of mercury. Dr. Jane Hightower has done an excellent job of addressing this in her book Diagnosis: Mercury–Money, Politics, and Poison. It is apparently not accepted by some, if not all, in this forum that injecting human infants with thimerosal preserved vaccines for the purpose of collecting mercury in blood data is unethical. It is my personal opinion, after reading Callous Disregard, that what Dr. Wakefield did in regards to a case study on intestinal problems and children with ASD was ethical. Thank you for the space and time.

  45. Julian Frost November 23, 2010 at 07:51 #

    Jim,

    It is my personal opinion, after reading Callous Disregard, that what Dr. Wakefield did in regards to a case study on intestinal problems and children with ASD was ethical.

    I suggest you read the GMC ruling (I don’t have a link, sorry). It was found that Wakefield: withheld the facts that the study was for litigation purposes and that he had patented his own Measles Vaccination; subjected vulnerable children to highly invasive tests without asking, let alone receiving, approval from the relevant ethics committee, and finally; cooked his data to fit in with a hypothesis of Autistic Enterocolitis.
    Wakefield is a proven fraud and liar. If all you have gone on is his version of events, then you are a very naive person indeed.

  46. Chris November 23, 2010 at 20:54 #

    Julian Frost:

    I suggest you read the GMC ruling (I don’t have a link, sorry).

    I posted it a few days ago here. He will not read it. His skull is welded shut and he is on auto-repeat. Ignore him.

  47. US Building Consultants Inc December 2, 2013 at 23:44 #

    Excellent post! We are linking to this great content on our website.

    Keep up the good writing.

  48. water intrusion testing equipment December 3, 2013 at 09:45 #

    I blog quite often and I seriously appreciate your information.
    The article has really peaked my interest. I’m
    going to book mark your website and keep checking for new details about once per
    week. I subscribed to your Feed as well.

  49. building enclosure December 3, 2013 at 12:41 #

    Hi there, everything is going perfectly here and ofcourse every one is sharing facts,
    that’s in fact good, keep up writing.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Tweets that mention Autism Blog - Callous Disregard: Epilogue « Left Brain/Right Brain -- Topsy.com - November 17, 2010

    [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Kev, Alltop Autism. Alltop Autism said: Callous Disregard: Epilogue http://bit.ly/annyrg [...]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 953 other followers

%d bloggers like this: