Autism Blog - Callous Disregard: Epilogue

17 Nov 2010

Author: Sullivan
Comments: 102

Callous Disregard: Epilogue

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.

Link to this post?

If you want to reference this post in your site, use the code below to link to me from your website.

<a href="http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2010/11/callous-disregard-epilogue/">Callous Disregard: Epilogue</a>

Comments

102 Responses to “Callous Disregard: Epilogue”

Tweets that mention Autism Blog - Callous Disregard: Epilogue « Left Brain/Right Brain -- Topsy.com
November 17th, 2010
07:36:51

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Kev, Alltop Autism. Alltop Autism said: Callous Disregard: Epilogue http://bit.ly/annyrg [...]
Brian Deer
November 17th, 2010
07:43:22

This is a man who once declared his favourite music to be a particularly oily work of pop-opera.
Julian Frost
November 17th, 2010
11:47:17

That paragraph gives me the creeps. That’s all I can say.
MikeMa
November 17th, 2010
15:17:40

The irony in the image of the lost child is lost on Wakers. He has, by his own callous disregard of facts, ethics, and honor caused many to be lost.

That he now professes a love of all things country and Texan shows a marked tendency to play to his audience.
Emily
November 17th, 2010
16:52:54

If he were really into all things Texan, he’d know that those aren’t cedars but junipers. As an actual Texan, I’m offended that he namechecked Willie like that.
MikeMa
November 17th, 2010
16:59:38

@Emily,

I had assumed Wakefield would be better at the ‘playing up’ than that. My bad, and his. My apologies.
Gray Falcon
November 17th, 2010
17:40:36

“I’d trade all my tomorrows for a single yesterday”. An appropriate song for Wakefield. He’s stuck in the past, when he was respected and trusted, and tries to convince parents to look to a past that never was, rather than the present that is, and the possibilities of the future.
Prometheus
November 17th, 2010
17:46:51

Wakefield writes (at least, I assume it’s Wakefield’s writing – I’d hope a ghost writer would do a better job):

Stars creep into the night sky and the forest begins to move.

For some reason, that line took me back to Macbeth (with apologies to William Shakespeare):

Macbeth shall never vanquish’d be until great Birnam wood to high Dunsinane hill shall come against him.

The woods are moving, McWakefield.

Prometheus
Brian Deer
November 17th, 2010
18:34:32

Yes, he absorbs these kind of things and recycles them. Nothing is original. So, for example, he took his oft-used line about “I’m not going away” from a speech by a corrupt state senator in The Wire who evades conviction by playing the race card.

Wakefield hides behind the children and their mothers, but since he has no true empathy for their situation, but only fakes the appearance of concern, he can’t pitch his sentiments authentically.

I think some of the people in Austin eventually saw through him, but I think if you merely encountered him in conference hotel ballrooms and bedrooms, you wouldn’t necessarily get it.
Jim Thompson
November 18th, 2010
01:41:58

Does the term “safety first” occur in this quick read of Dr. Wakefield?
Sullivan
November 18th, 2010
01:54:14

Jim Thompson,

does the term “safety first” occur—yes. Do the actions signify a person who puts safety first? No.

Example: subjecting disabled children to lumbar punctures, not clinically indicated, in order to collect data for a research project whose goal is to further litigation.
Jim Thompson
November 18th, 2010
01:59:52

Not quite the same as injecting newborns with vaccines with Thimerosal for purposes of collecting mercury in blood data by Pichichero investigators!
Chris
November 18th, 2010
02:48:52

Mr. Thompson can you please tell us which vaccines given to newborns have thimerosal in the USA or UK?

And perhaps tell us how that statement pertains to the MMR vaccine, which is not given to newborns and has never had thimerosal since its introduction in 1971.

Also, could you please clarify and provide documentation for this statement: “purposes of collecting mercury in blood data by Pichichero investigators!” ? How often does that happen?

All I can find is Mercury Levels in Premature and Low Birth Weight Newborns after Receipt of Thimerosal-Containing Vaccines and Mercury Levels in Newborns and Infants After Receipt of Thimerosal-Containing Vaccines. Both of these studies used subjects in Argentina (which is not part of either the USA or UK).

I am sure it is a follow up of this study done almost ten years ago:
Lancet. 2002 Nov 30;360(9347):1737-41.
Mercury concentrations and metabolism in infants receiving vaccines containing thiomersal: a descriptive study.
Pichichero ME, Cernichiari E, Lopreiato J, Treanor J.

I do not think the level of danger to the children is as high as giving colonoscopies or lumbar punctures. So could you please show us exactly how infants receiving vaccines come to danger, especially compared to getting the actual diseases. Really, do tell how the DTaP is more dangerous than pertussis, tetanus and diphtheria.

Or where on earth MMR has thimerosal and is given to infants.
Jim Thompson
November 18th, 2010
03:13:30

(1) all flu vaccines in multidose bottles (91 million estimated by the CDC)and recommended for pregnant women and 6 month olds.

(2) the statement pertains to the concept of using newborns as guinea pigs to collect Hg in blood data as opposed to Wakefield et al doing a case study to establish a hypothesis that may result in safer vaccine practice.

(3) the second reference “Mercury levels in Newborns…” is the one

(4)These studies were sponsored by the NIH & most of the authors from the US

(5)Low level toxicity of heavy metals is well known. Flu shots have the equivalent of 4 U.S. ounces of D009 hazardous waste.

(6) Mercury has not been used in paint since 1990 either but it is still used in flu shots.
Sullivan
November 18th, 2010
03:16:00

Chris,

keep in mind that Pichichero did his studies in South America. This study, for example, was performed in Argentina.

This is where Pichichero and Wakefield differ. Pichichero was monitoring children who were getting thimerosal containing vaccines anyway. It was (and may still be) the standard of care.

The objective of this study was to evaluate the pharmacokinetics of mercury in blood in a cohort of prematurely born infants with low birth weight who received a birth dose of hepatitis B vaccine containing thimerosal in concentrations still in use in vaccines provided through the World Health Organization (WHO) and to evaluate the excretion of mercury in these prematurely born infants by examining mercury levels in their stools and urine.

Andrew Wakefield, on the other hand, performed tests that are not, and are still not, the standard of care. They were tests laid out in his research plan and were applied to all children (one-size-fits-all) to collect data for his research.

Very different cases, indeed.

But, Jim Thompson has left an important question unanswered. If, in his view, Wakefield and Pichichero are ethically in the same boat, are they both to be criticized or not? It appears that he wishes to apply one standard to Wakefield and another to Pichichero.
Jim Thompson
November 18th, 2010
03:33:33

(1) (again) the Pichichero work was sponsored by NIH and most authors were from the US. The US AAP and PHS declared that Thimerosal should be removed from childhood vaccines eight years prior to that publication by Pichichero et al.

(2) Try not to mistake others’ views. They are not considered in the same boat ethically.
Chris
November 18th, 2010
03:58:19

I know the two more recent studies were done in Argentina, Sully. Obviously they wanted to test more babies, and since the American HepB vaccine did not contain thimerosal, they had to go to where that vaccine still had it.

Mr. Thompson:

all flu vaccines in multidose bottles (91 million estimated by the CDC)and recommended for pregnant women and 6 month olds.

Since when are six month old babies still considered “newborn”? The flu vaccine is available without thimerosal, plus very few children actually get the flu vaccine.

Last time I looked the flu vaccine is not the either of the MMR vaccines “studied” by Wakefield. And a reminder that the MMR is not given to newborns, and has never contained thimerosal since its introduction almost forty years ago (the American MMR).

As to the three (3, that is all! just three!) studies with Pichiero, the vaccines to the children would have had on the Argentinian schedule. It was testing the mercury level of children for a vaccine they was (quoting the first study I cited, with added bolding): “All children received exposure to thimerosal containing Hepatitis B vaccines as routinely administered in Argentina (described below),”.

Now answer these questions: What vaccines given to newborns contain thimerosal? Don’t try to get out of the fact you said “newborn”! Something recommended for children older than six months does not count. Also, remember Argentina is still not part of the USA or the UK. Even if the Americans went there to conduct the study, it in no way changes the American vaccines.

How does giving children the standard recommended vaccines equate to non-medically indicated lumbar punctures and colonoscopies? Please tell us exactly what dangers children are in by getting the HepB, Hib, DTaP and IPV vaccines. Especially when compared to getting those diseases.
Jim Thompson
November 18th, 2010
04:12:22

(1)In most states today the CDC offers grants for “free” flu shots to state health departments and most shots are in multidose form with Thimerosal.

(2) Don’t confuse the Pichichero et al example of treating newborns like guinea pigs with the injection of flu shots with thimerosal into pregnant women and 6 month olds.

(3) Funded with US funds and studied by US investigators—all the while thimerosal preservative was considered important to remove from vaccines in the US since 2000.

(4) Each shot by Pichichero with thimerosal preservative had the same mercury by weight as 4 U.S. ounces of D009 mercury hazardous waste!

(5) Each flu shot with thimerosal preservative in the US today given to children 6 months and older and to pregnant women has the same mercury by weight as 4 U.S. ounces of D009 mercury hazardous waste!
Chris
November 18th, 2010
04:35:58

Answer the real question: How does giving children the standard recommended vaccines equate to non-medically indicated lumbar punctures and colonoscopies? Please tell us exactly what dangers children are in by getting the HepB, Hib, DTaP and IPV vaccines. Especially when compared to getting those diseases.

Why are you avoiding that?

Also, in the percentage of children between the ages of 6 to 23 months getting the flu vaccine was less than 3%. It may be slightly more now, but it also does not change the fact that the vaccine is available without thimerosal. Plus, several states have laws prohibiting children from getting vaccines with thimerosal. And again, they are not newborns! You said newborn, stop moving the goal post.

Pichichero did three studies, two in another country The reason was that it was no longer used in the USA.

So stop that silly argument, moving of the goal posts and answer the above question.
Jim Thompson
November 18th, 2010
05:02:10

(1) asked and answered

(2)and by the way, D009 mercury hazardous waste is exactly how unused vaccines with thimerosal preservative must be disposed in the US. It is considered too toxic to flush down a toilet.

(3)the CDC 2006 data referenced above gives the estimate of 6 to 23 month olds vaccinated for flu at 48.4 %(don’t mistake the data of 2.9 million children as 2.9%).

(4)the word newborns was used only in the Pichichero et al comparison—try not to confuse that with the flu shot statements about 6 month olds and pregnant women.
Chris
November 18th, 2010
05:16:19

Apologies for misreading the table. You are correct, I was wrong. It does say almost 50%. But, still that is not all of them. In my state they would have only had thimerosal free influenza vaccine (legal mandate).

(1) asked and answered

Where? I must have missed it. Where is the documentation? What studies did you cite? How exactly is DTaP more dangerous than pertussis, diphtheria and tetanus.

Answer this question with real references: How does giving children the standard recommended vaccines equate to non-medically indicated lumbar punctures and colonoscopies? Please tell us exactly what dangers children are in by getting the HepB, Hib, DTaP and IPV vaccines. Especially when compared to getting those diseases.

Stop moving goal posts. Pichichero used actual newborns for a vaccine used on newborns that no longer contains thimerosal. The influenza vaccine is not approved for newborns. Newsflash: the influenza vaccine is not the hepatitis B vaccine, and is available without thimerosal.
Jim Thompson
November 18th, 2010
05:43:59

The shots given by Pichichero et al had Thimerosal preservative.
—and—
“All vaccines were administered by the investigators at the time of the enrollment visit.” (See page e209 of Pichichero et al)

—and—

“the Pichichero work was sponsored by NIH and most authors were from the US. The US AAP and PHS declared that Thimerosal should be removed from childhood vaccines eight years prior to that publication by Pichichero et al.” (from previous answer above at November 18 3:33:33)
Jim Thompson
November 18th, 2010
05:51:56

Finally it is obscene that 2.9 million children at 6 to 23 months got flu shots in 2006 (or any year)—when thimerosal preservative is still incorrectly recommended by CDC as safe.

So going back to the first comment, “Does the term “safety first” occur in this quick read of Dr. Wakefield?”—SAFETY FIRST may likely be why your state does not allow thimerosal in vaccines for children or pregnant women.
Chris
November 18th, 2010
06:43:55

Answer this question with real references: How does giving children the standard recommended vaccines equate to non-medically indicated lumbar punctures and colonoscopies? Please tell us exactly what dangers children are in by getting the HepB, Hib, DTaP and IPV vaccines. Especially when compared to getting those diseases.
Sullivan
November 18th, 2010
07:06:29

Chris,

I will leave you to Jim Thompson. Given that he appears to appears to have a double standard ongoing and is doing an effective job of thread-jacking, I’ll sit out from here.

Given that Thimerosal in vaccines has been shown to not be a primary cause of autism, nor any other condition for that matter, and that the children in south America would have gotten the same vaccines without Pichichero’s team’s activities, I find the accusatory nature of Mr. Thompson’s statements to be baseless.

Put simply:

a) Giving infants thimerosal containing vaccines is standard practice in much of the world still, and no evidence exists that it causes autism.

b) Giving disabled children lumbar punctures carries far more risk and was unwarranted for many of the children that Mr. Wakefield’s team used in their research project.

(b) is a clear cut case of not putting safety first, and (a) is the part of a study which was clarifying the safety issues surrounding vaccines.
MikeMa
November 18th, 2010
14:36:23

The toxicity of ethyl mercury, the type used in Thimerosal, is quite different and far less than methyl mercury. Ethyl mercury is rapidly flushed from the body while methyl mercury takes much longer to do so and thereby presents the greater hazard.

Your 4 oz claim is disingenuous and the classifications of waste products have nothing whatever to do with the effect of the minuscule doses in flu shots.

Wakefield pushed for tests which were only necessary for his litigation sponsored research. They represented no help to his patients.
Jim Thompson
November 18th, 2010
14:47:56

(1) The threshold for mercury hazardous waste D009 is 0.2 parts per million. Flu shots with thimerosal preservative, recommended as safe by the FDA for 6 month old children and pregnant women, have over 200 times that level.

(2) Ask any U.S. hospital staff if they dispose of unused vaccines with Thimerosal preservative as D009 mercury hazardous waste with a licensed hazardous waste facility.

(3) The penalties for noncompliance of regulations under the US Rescource Conservation and Recovery Act include fines and jail time.
Joseph
November 18th, 2010
15:18:40

The threshold for mercury hazardous waste D009 is 0.2 parts per million. Flu shots with thimerosal preservative, recommended as safe by the FDA for 6 month old children and pregnant women, have over 200 times that level.

And yet, the FDA recommendation is perfectly fine and safe. Can you think of the reason why that is, Jim? Bonus question: Why does the EPA limit have to be so low?
daedalus2u
November 18th, 2010
15:56:31

Jim, do fish processors dispose of their fish waste with more than 0.2 ppm mercury as hazardous waste? Canned tuna fish has about 0.5 ppm mercury.
MikeMa
November 18th, 2010
16:02:09

Not to repeat a point but daedalus2u’s 0.5ppm is the bad, slow flushing mercury. Hmm, tuna for lunch today too.

Sounds like, “Oh, noes, the toxins!” Fear mongering at its finest.
Chris
November 18th, 2010
16:37:27

Mr. Thompson you really don’t want to answer the question. Please try again: How does giving children the standard recommended vaccines equate to non-medically indicated lumbar punctures and colonoscopies? Please tell us exactly what dangers children are in by getting the HepB, Hib, DTaP and IPV vaccines. Especially when compared to getting those diseases.

Here is an article that should help you: £500,000 for boy left fighting for life after being used as MMR guinea pig
Roger Kulp
November 18th, 2010
17:52:03

Daedalus2u
November 18th, 2010
15:56:31

Jim, do fish processors dispose of their fish waste with more than 0.2 ppm mercury as hazardous waste? Canned tuna fish has about 0.5 ppm mercury.

You may want to ask these people

http://www.hawaii-seafood.org/.....peakers-2/

Any might be an interesting interview subject for this blog.

This

http://www.lhwmp.org/home/mercury/fish.aspx

says it used to be toxic waste,but isn’t any more.
Dawn
November 18th, 2010
20:19:51

Well, I can anwer Mr Thompson from a hospital point of view: it doesn’t matter what the medication is or what it contains. Almost all medications are handled as hazardous waste, even a dropped aspirin tablet would go into a hazardous waste bag. Just like anything with body fluids on it. Basically, just about everything in a hospital that has to do with patients is handled as hazardous waste. So, yeah, hepatitis B vials are considered hazarous waste. So are penicillin vials. So are almost all vials a nurse uses, with the exception perhaps of normal saline or sterile water. However, as we are accustomed to throwing everything else in hazardous waste bags, I would bet most of us throw those vials in there too.

Also, Mr Thompson, as has been pointed out to you before, you can’t compare apples (ethyl mercury) with oranges (methyl mercury). They are excreted at different rates by the body and you can’t use the FDA levels for methyl mercury for both. It’s not appropriate.

Obviously, Mr Thompson is of the thimerosol causes autism camp (along with the fact that the NIH is EVIL, we are all paid by Big Pharma, and we are all “sheeple”), and, like Kim Stagliano, is sure that even if the baby never got any vaccines with it, it MUST be from something in the mother – her fillings, her childhood vaccines, her flu vaccine with thimerosol while pregnant (even if most physicians don’t seem to give that version either. Both my ob/gyn and my primary only carried the single dose/thimerosol free version).
Jim Thompson
November 19th, 2010
01:16:25

(1) The USEPA mercury hazardous waste threshold is twenty five times lower than that for lead (Pb).

(2) Mercury in fish is not safe for infants or pregnant women and so two wrongs do not make a right.

(3) Thimerosal preservative is not medically indicated.

(4) The AAP and PHS declared that Thimerosal should be removed from childhood vaccines eight years prior to the published work by Pichichero et al.

(5) Unused vaccines with thimerosal preservative are D009 hazardous waste. They they are too toxic to be flushed down a sanitary sewer.
MikeMa
November 19th, 2010
01:56:24

Jim Thompson is a tape recording. He cannot respond or evaluate, only parrot the same copy and paste information. Sad but unsurprising.
Chris
November 19th, 2010
02:04:57

Mr. Thompson you have ignored my question. Why are you going on about thimerosal when Wakefield’s shoddy and fraudulent research was on the MMR? The MMR, I repeat, has never contained thimerosal in its almost forty years of use.
Jim Thompson
November 19th, 2010
05:11:25

The question is not ignored. Look again at the repeated answers at:

03:13:30—and—03:33:33—and—04:12:22—and—05:02:10—and—05:43:59—and—01:16:25
Jim Thompson
November 19th, 2010
05:19:28

Surely there must be some cognitive dissonance here upon learning that those “safe” vaccines with thimerosal preservative recommended by the FDA and CDC for 6 month olds and pregnant women are in reality considered hazardous—so hazardous that it is illegal to flush them down the toilet or place them in a municipla waste landfill.

Any thoughts?
Chris
November 19th, 2010
06:06:48

Mr. Thompson:

Any thoughts?

My thought is that you are not really reading and understanding the responses. For some reason you worship Wakefield and refuse to see that he is a fraud. You are also stuck into one issue, which is really a non-issue. Flu vaccines are available without thimerosal. Some states have mandated that pregnant woman and children receive those vaccines only for political reasons (and to shut people like you up), not for any scientific reason.
Jim Thompson
November 19th, 2010
13:07:49

(1) Again, it is obscene that 2.9 million children at 6 to 23 months got flu shots in 2006 (or any year)—when thimerosal preservative is still incorrectly recommended by CDC and FDA as safe.

(2) In reality those flu shots are considered hazardous—so hazardous that it is illegal to flush them down the toilet or place them in a municipal waste landfill.

(3) Dr. Wakefield acted in an effort to help children.

(4) Pharmaceutical companies, using Thimerosal preservative, act in an effort or profit from them.

(5) Pichichero et al, including six investigators affiliated with U.S. facilities (see Pichichero et al, Pediatrics, 2008), 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.” They wanted mercury in blood data from these newborns.
MikeMa
November 19th, 2010
14:43:32

Mr Thompson,
Thimerosal has not been shown to cause harm. It was removed from vaccines voluntarily, not as a point of error or danger. Once removed autism rates did not fall. No effect was uncovered or ever proved.

Why do you continue to conflate waste levels with injection levels? They are tied to very different concerns and therefore have differing set points. The level of ethyl mercury in flu shots is safe and effective for its intended use.
Joseph
November 19th, 2010
14:49:11

Surely there must be some cognitive dissonance here upon learning that those “safe” vaccines with thimerosal preservative recommended by the FDA and CDC for 6 month olds and pregnant women are in reality considered hazardous—so hazardous that it is illegal to flush them down the toilet or place them in a municipla waste landfill.

Any thoughts?

@Jim: Have you stopped to think that perhaps the cognitive dissonance is yours? Note that you’re assuming you know better than experts in the field from the FDA. I suppose that’s possible, but is it likely? Typically, if you think you’ve noticed something that thousands of experts have not, you’re probably wrong.

See, the EPA guidelines apply to thiings like industrial wastewater. Suppose your drinking water had 0.2 ppm mercury. Since you drink 2 liters of water a day, you’d be getting about 400 micrograms of mercury every day. This is quite a bit. It’s the equivalent of about 20 tuna sandwiches per day. Clearly, you don’t want water that might be used for drinking to have anything close to 0.2 ppm mercury.

The context matters, otherwise a concentration expressed in ppm means nothing. Example: I have 1 milligram of water with a mercury concentration of 2 ppm. How much mercury is in it, and how dangerous is it? Do the math, and get back to me.
Chris
November 19th, 2010
16:46:23

Mr. Thompson:

(3) Dr. Wakefield acted in an effort to help children.

Oh, really? The evidence says something else. He acted to bring himself cash and fame. He only studied the MMR (a vaccine that has never contained thimerosal) because a lawyer paid him for certain results.

A man who wants to help children does not order unnecessary colonoscopies or lumbar punctures.
Jim Thompson
November 19th, 2010
16:47:38

(1) Thimerosal contains mercury which is a heavy metal.

(2) Lead is a heavy metal.

(3) Hazardous waste threshold levels for lead (D008)and for mercury (D009)are set to protect humans, especially the most vulnerable in society—infants and the developing fetus.

(4) The mercury (Hg) D009 hazardous waste threshold is twenty five times lower than that for the lead (Pb)D008 hazardous waste threshold.

(5) The USEPA term for these thresholds is Maximum Concentration of Contaminants for the Toxicity Characteristic.

(6) These levels are not established as safe by the USEPA. Unused vaccines with these levels are illegal to dispose in a sanitary sewer or municipal waste landfill.

(7) The USEPA SDWA MCL (maximum contaminant level) for drinking water for lead is 15 parts per billion. For mercury it is 2 parts per billion.

(8) A flu shot with thimerosal preservative has the same amount of mercury by weight as 4 U.S. Ounces of D009 mercury hazardous waste.
Jim Thompson
November 19th, 2010
16:52:13

Read Callous Disregard by Dr. Wakefield. Dr. Wakefield acted in an effort to protect children.
Jim Thompson
November 19th, 2010
16:56:19

Pichichero et al wanted data for mercury in newborn blood.
MikeMa
November 19th, 2010
17:10:03

Mr Thompson,
Conversing with you is like playing with a broken talking doll that only has one answer repeated over and over no matter how many times you pull the string.

The callous disregard was all on Wakefield’s side.

He disregarded the safety of the children in his care.

He disregarded ethical standards by accepting money from lawyers to find legally valuable problem with the current MMR.

He disregarded conflict of interest rules by trying to push his own vaccine to replace the MMR.

He disregarded the truth by (allegedly) doctoring data about the presence of measles in the gut of his victims (patients).

He disregarded the honor of his profession by lying about his project for over 12 years. He continues to do so at the risk of children getting sick, suffering, and even dying from preventable disease.

Pretty callous, I’d say.
Brian Deer
November 19th, 2010
17:13:28

Well, I’ve read Callous Disregard, named from an incident when Wakefield bought blood from children at a birthday party and then laughed about them crying fainting and vomiting.

I also know that he wanted to get into children’s guts to prove his utterly defunct theory that measles virus caused Crohn’s disease. Developmentally typical children’s parents would never allow such a thing, leaving Wakefield waiting years to get his evidence, based on the normal, lawful, throughput at the Royal Free.

But, lo and behold, along comes a group of parents who would let him do anything to their children. Mostly desperate, often working class, mothers at their wits end.

Sickening. Just sickening.
Dedj
November 19th, 2010
17:25:07

“Read Callous Disregard by Dr. Wakefield. Dr. Wakefield acted in an effort to protect children.”

The highest relevant authourity found that he didn’t, as evidenced by multiple cases of unethical behaviour and professional misconduct. The huge gap between what Wakefield claimed happened and what the evidence (including that generated by himself) showed was so significant, that it attracted repeated and exasperated comment from experienced professionals who were fully privy to all the information.

Rather odd that you’d hold an authourity (the EPA) in flawless regard when they agree with you, but you dismiss without cause or justification authourities like the FDA and the GMC when they don’t.

Please explain why you hold these contradictory values.
Dedj
November 19th, 2010
17:42:34

“The question is not ignored. Look again at the repeated answers at:

03:13:30—and—03:33:33—and—04:12:22—and—05:02:10—and—05:43:59—and—01:16:25”

They don’t answer the question.

Lets have a look:
03:13:30 : contains only one point that is relevant to the subject of the question, and does not address the concerns raised in the question. You merely repeated the assertion that had been questioned. Fail.

03:33:33 : The first half of this post fails to make grammatical sense as it seems to start halfway through an idea and fails to properly inform anyone else what that idea is even supposed to be related to. The second half merely asserts the view that were already under question. No answer there. Grammer and logic fail.

04:12:22: contains no reference to the question subject at all. Memory fail.

05:02:10: Again, makes very little grammatical sense and fails to reference what it supposedly refers to. Even if we presume quite a bit, it merely asserts the question has been answered, yet the answer presumably reffered to was itself an unsupported assertion. Grammer fail, logic fail.

05:43:59: Contains no reference to the question subject at all. Again, memory fail.

01:16:25: Also contains no reference to the question subject at all.

Please refrain from lying to us in the future.

Let us return to the question :

“How does giving children the standard recommended vaccines equate to non-medically indicated lumbar punctures and colonoscopies? Please tell us exactly what dangers children are in by getting the HepB, Hib, DTaP and IPV vaccines. Especially when compared to getting those diseases.”

Bearing in mind the observation :

“Andrew Wakefield, on the other hand, performed tests that are not, and are still not, the standard of care. They were tests laid out in his research plan and were applied to all children (one-size-fits-all) to collect data for his research.”

What is your answer? Bearing in mind that you cannot hold to the findings of the EPA without cause, yet dismiss the FDA and GMC without cause.

You will repsond in appropriately and properly constructed sentences, you will ensure that your responses are clear what they are responding to and you will ensure that you do not include any superflous information.
Joseph
November 19th, 2010
17:58:07

@Jim: Second chance. Address the following paragraph of my comment at 14:49:11:

The context matters, otherwise a concentration expressed in ppm means nothing. Example: I have 1 milligram of water with a mercury concentration of 2 ppm. How much mercury is in it, and how dangerous is it? Do the math, and get back to me.
Prometheus
November 19th, 2010
19:12:39

Jim Thompson opines:

“Read Callous Disregard by Dr. Wakefield. Dr. Wakefield acted in an effort to protect children.”

Dr. Wakefield may have thought he was acting “in an effort to protect children”, but a panel of his medical peers disagreed. Strenuously.

Leaving aside for a moment Dr. Wakefield’s innermost thoughts and beliefs (which are, for us, forever unknowable), let us briefly go over his actions (which are all that we can objectively know).

He knowingly violated rules of research ethics by performing invasive tests which were not medically indicated (then or now).

He knowingly violated rules of research ethics by obtaining specimens (blood) from children without obtaining proper informed consent from their parents (research consent forms typically take from 30 minutes to 1 hour to review and sign).

He deliberately witheld information about a serious conflict of interest (his financial arrangements with solicitors preparing a lawsuit over MMR vaccination) from co-workers, his institution and the editors of The Lancet (not to mention everybody who read “that paper”.

[Note: because of this, I dissolve into paroxysms of laughter whenever he – or one of his sycophants – rants about “conflict of interest” in medical research. This isn’t the pot calling the kettle black, it is the heavily smoke-begrimed black iron pot calling the shiny new stainless steel kettle with a few smudgy fingerprints black.]

So, no matter what Dr. Wakefield may now think that his motives might have been – and no matter what he says they were in his over-long, poorly-written apologia – his actions were unethical and more than warranted the punishments he has received.

No doubt this will not stop Andy Wakefield from being a saviour in his own mind.

Prometheus
Chris
November 19th, 2010
19:31:55

Thank you Dedj, I did not have the time nor stomach to go back through those posts. I mostly noted he refused to provide any evidence, so there were no papers listed.

Mr. Thompson, I believe you did not click on the Jack Piper news story, so I doubt you will read these:
Determination on Serious Professional Misconduct (SPM) and Sanction
and
Chadwick Testimony
Dedj
November 19th, 2010
19:48:33

“Thank you Dedj, I did not have the time nor stomach to go back through those posts. I mostly noted he refused to provide any evidence, so there were no papers listed.”

Indeed, I almost gave up.

At no point in any post did Mr Thompson have the common decency, nor apparent ability, to:

Correctly and explicitly refer to the posts he was supposedly addressing, meaning the reader has to do his work for him in finding out a) who he thinks he’s even talking to, b) what point he’s trying to make.

Correctly and explicitly link his evidence to the point he thinks he is making, meaning that the reader has to a) work out what the supposed connection is, b) presume what his arguement is on his behalf. This vagueness is usually frowned upon as it lets the authour claim later that they did not say it or that they meant something else.

He, quite simply, fails to follow even basic standards of conversation or arguementation, and may even be setting us up for a trap, rather than engaging in honest conversation.

He should be treated with disregard until he demonstrates a proven ability to correctly and competantly engage with the material.
Sullivan
November 19th, 2010
20:11:16

Prometheus,

I can add, I have read Callous Disregard. I have also read much of the GMC transcripts. There really isn’t anything new in Mr. Wakefield’s defense in Callous Disregard. Yes, he tells us how bad people like Brian Deer and Richard Horton are in his mind. Yes, he makes a smear against Eric Fombonne (repeating an ill founded rumor), that sort of thing. But as to his defense, nothing new. Just the same stuff that was totally unconvincing to the GMC.
Prometheus
November 20th, 2010
00:12:54

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
Jim Thompson
November 20th, 2010
06:14:50

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/ne.....;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.”
Brian Deer
November 20th, 2010
11:02:34

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.
Joseph
November 20th, 2010
15:31:52

@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.
Jim Thompson
November 20th, 2010
17:15:55

Again, the EPA SDWA MCL for mercury is 2 parts per billion.
MikeMa
November 20th, 2010
17:32:34

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.
Dedj
November 20th, 2010
17:39:53

“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.
Dedj
November 20th, 2010
17:41:14

Also, Jim will explain why he rejects the finding of the GMC in the Wakefield case.
Dedj
November 20th, 2010
17:51:41

“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.
Brian Deer
November 20th, 2010
17:59:12

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.
Jim Thompson
November 20th, 2010
19:17:35

(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.
Dedj
November 20th, 2010
19:28:37

(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.
MikeMa
November 20th, 2010
19:38:03

Mr ‘I still dont get it’ Thompson,
Ethyl vs methyl mercury fail.
Dedj
November 20th, 2010
19:44:25

“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.
Jim Thompson
November 20th, 2010
19:47:02

(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.
Jim Thompson
November 20th, 2010
20:11:05

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.or.....omide.html
Dedj
November 20th, 2010
20:56:46

(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.
Chris
November 20th, 2010
21:04:23

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.
Joseph
November 20th, 2010
21:14:44

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.)
Jim Thompson
November 20th, 2010
21:40:11

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.
Dedj
November 20th, 2010
22:31:37

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.
Chris
November 20th, 2010
22:32:04

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.
Joseph
November 20th, 2010
22:43:13

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?
Julian Frost
November 20th, 2010
22:44:02

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.
Chris
November 21st, 2010
04:25:30

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!)
Jim Thompson
November 21st, 2010
05:23:58

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.
Chris
November 21st, 2010
05:51:09

Where to you think you are, Mr. Thompson, Age of Autism? What Dedj wrote is mild compared to the “civility” at AoA.
Joseph
November 21st, 2010
15:25:23

I’m out. Mr. Thompson is incapable of having a discussion. He just changes the topic when it suits him, and ignores all rebuttals.
Jim Thompson
November 21st, 2010
16:29:29

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.
Dedj
November 21st, 2010
16:35:14

“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.
Jim Thompson
November 22nd, 2010
03:16:16

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/con.....ercury.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.go.....;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.
Jim Thompson
November 22nd, 2010
03:22:02

...Would anyone knowingly offer a child or pregnant woman a half cup of D009 mercury hazardous waste? Of course not.
Skeptiverse
November 22nd, 2010
04:01:14

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.
Dedj
November 22nd, 2010
04:11:58

“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.
Jim Thompson
November 22nd, 2010
04:37:17

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.
Jim Thompson
November 22nd, 2010
11:40:30

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/D.....%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.”
Dawn
November 22nd, 2010
14:56:24

@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.
Dawn
November 22nd, 2010
14:58:36

Oh, and Kev and Sullivan: I apologize if I wasn’t civil enough…
Gray Falcon
November 22nd, 2010
15:23:00

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.
Sullivan
November 22nd, 2010
16:27:43

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.
Dawn
November 22nd, 2010
17:04:23

Hi, Sullivan. No, the song’s the same. :)
MikeMa
November 22nd, 2010
18:03:16

Dawn,
Yup, JimT is singing the same song, off key and off-topic.
Chris
November 22nd, 2010
18:07:42

(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.
Jim Thompson
November 23rd, 2010
05:23:24

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.co.....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.
Jim Thompson
November 23rd, 2010
07:14:54

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.
Julian Frost
November 23rd, 2010
07:51:40

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.
Chris
November 23rd, 2010
20:54:04

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.