1. Patients launch a $1.27 million crowdfunding campaign for ME/CFS gut microbiome study.
    Check out the website, Facebook and Twitter. Join in donate and spread the word!
August 8th - What is the one thing about suffering with severe ME that the world needs to know?
Andrew Gladman brings our coverage of the Understanding & Remembrance Day for Severe ME, airing the voice of patients ...
Discuss the article on the Forums.

CDC Caught Hiding Data Showing Mercury In Vaccines Linked to Autism

Discussion in 'Action Alerts and Advocacy' started by caledonia, Mar 3, 2014.

  1. caledonia

    caledonia

    Messages:
    2,727
    Likes:
    1,317
    Cincinnati, OH, USA
  2. PennyIA

    PennyIA Senior Member

    Messages:
    221
    Likes:
    257
    Iowa
    I keep wondering about the safety of mercury in vaccines and dental work...

    I would almost bet that some of the final outcome will be that for folks with no methylation issues, that it's small enough doses to be harmless and their methylation abilities allow the body to deal with the little doses with no ill effect. And those with methylation issues and genetic defects... that it's probably a bigger problem. I've heard a TON of incidental notes tying them together, but of course, unlike dental work - you can't remove vaccines to test the absense of them.

    What bugs me the most about vaccines is that mercury is used mostly as a preservative. I'm old enough to have worn contacts at a time when the saline solution (storage solution back in the old days) contained mercury as a preservative as well. Since I had a bad reaction to the mercury (doctors called it an allergy, now I'm wondering if it wasn't always a sign of my inability to handle and eliminate toxins). But within about ten years they came out with mercury-free storage solutions (and less than five years later an all-in-one cleanser and storage that was mercury free). If folks had just stopped FIGHTING over whether it was cause or just contributory factors and focused on the fact that mercury in general is not a good idea, they would have probably already been able to find another, safer preservative to use in vaccines. But nope, as far as I know they aren't even looking for an alternative. Far easier, I guess to dismiss possible concerns with lies.
    taniaaust1 likes this.
  3. Ema

    Ema Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,153
    Likes:
    3,259
    Midwest USA
    Interesting follow up to a Forbes article criticizing the initial press release:

    http://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/prnewswire/press_releases/North_Carolina/2014/02/28/MN73622

    Iquitos and snowathlete like this.
  4. caledonia

    caledonia

    Messages:
    2,727
    Likes:
    1,317
    Cincinnati, OH, USA
    Oh, yes, I had a horrible reaction to thimerosol in contact lens solution too. Back about 1986. The whites of my eyes turned bright red and I missed three days of school because of extremely painful light sensitivity. Now that I know about my MTHFR issues, I wonder about that too.
  5. daisybell

    daisybell Senior Member

    Messages:
    146
    Likes:
    246
    New Zealand
    I didn't know about that, but I had horrible reactions to all the contact lens solutions... Eventually I had too many episodes of inflammation in my eyes and I had to give up wearing contacts... Now I have chronically dry eyes, and was told recently by a vitreo-retinal specialist that my eyes look about 20 years older than I actually am. Coincidence?
    taniaaust1 likes this.
  6. snowathlete

    snowathlete

    Messages:
    2,017
    Likes:
    2,054
    UK
    I'm convinced govts know about proven issues with vaccines but play it down on the basis of the 'greater good' they do. I think it's disgusting.
    Tristen likes this.
  7. Snow Leopard

    Snow Leopard Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,221
    Likes:
    1,573
    Australia
    Is it the mercury though, or just the vaccination? There was a very large surveillance study in Norway that found no difference in risk between the mercury containing vaccine and the non-mercury containing vaccine. But if the risk was the vaccine itself and not the mercury, well...
    helen1 likes this.
  8. Hip

    Hip Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,626
    Likes:
    2,398
  9. barbc56

    barbc56 Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,286
    Likes:
    659
    Hip likes this.
  10. barbc56

    barbc56 Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,286
    Likes:
    659
  11. Iquitos

    Iquitos Senior Member

    Messages:
    339
    Likes:
    470
    Colorado
    Just another proof of how much the federal health bureacracy is influenced by BigPharma.

    The mercury is only "needed" when used in areas that don't have refrigeration, but BigPharma doesn't want to have two different manufacturing lines.
  12. Kina

    Kina Moderation Team Lead

    Messages:
    5,128
    Likes:
    3,444
    Ontario, Canada
  13. Tristen

    Tristen Senior Member

    Messages:
    611
    Likes:
    421
    Northern Ca. USA
    I strongly suspect saving the herd at the expense of a few, will eventually come around and bite us in the back side......hard.
  14. Hip

    Hip Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,626
    Likes:
    2,398
    Why is it disgusting to do things on the basis of the greater good?
    helen1 likes this.
  15. Ema

    Ema Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,153
    Likes:
    3,259
    Midwest USA
    I think that it's the vaccines themselves which are typically only tested in a healthy population, not in those that are immunocompromised.

    This is a great article on how all the hysteria over vaccines has often led to us missing the *real* risks of vaccines.

    http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110525/full/473436a.html

    I'm also concerned about federal laws that protect vaccine makers from lawsuits. It seems like these are cases our courts should be hearing.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/22/AR2011022206008.html

    snowathlete likes this.
  16. Hip

    Hip Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,626
    Likes:
    2,398
    A solution to these vaccine side effects may soon be with us in the form of DNA vaccines, which are a completely different approach to vaccination — an approach which appears to be much safer (lower incidence of adverse effects).

    The challenge is to get DNA vaccines to be as effective as conventional vaccines:
  17. Daffodil

    Daffodil Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,721
    Likes:
    707
    LOL CDC...do people still take them seriously?
  18. Tristen

    Tristen Senior Member

    Messages:
    611
    Likes:
    421
    Northern Ca. USA
    Hey this is interesting......thanks for sharing.
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2014
  19. snowathlete

    snowathlete

    Messages:
    2,017
    Likes:
    2,054
    UK
    the greater good is subjective, for a start. Who's to say they make the right judgement?
    And if theg do, should they have the power to decide to save some at the expense of others? no, governments don't own us and we should have the right to decide for ourselves based on the true facts.
  20. WillowJ

    WillowJ Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,890
    Likes:
    2,288
    WA, USA
    The problem is that in most cases, they are unable to take criticism that vaccination programs could be made safer.

    Any criticism, however warranted, is immediately seized upon and the person making such criticism is basically bullied as "anti-vaccine" (do we call all claims that a certain medication or class of medication is causing a certain undesirable effect as "anti-medication"?), selfish, and basically anti-good-of-all-humans-everywhere. During this interaction, it will be claimed that vaccines are entirely safe.

    When the simple fact is that vaccines do have known side effects, occasionally very severe ones. It is probable that other effects go unreported.

    Vaccines should be like any other medication and engaged with on a benefit:risk basis, but taking into consideration that the benefit may extend beyond oneself (so the acceptable risk may be higher than for other things).

    But the benefit:risk is different for different vaccines. People should be allowed to pick and choose without automatically being labelled evil. Purtussis vaccines don't even appear to work, yet refusing that is deemed entirely unacceptable. Tetanus vaccines don't help anyone else, as far as I know, yet refusing prophylactic tetanus vaccines is also deemed unacceptable. Using a modified schedule (note, this is using vaccines, or at least many vaccines) gets one an "anti-vaxxer" label the same as if one advocated for not using any vaccines generally.

    And it should be ok to say we can make vaccine programs safer and better.

    And the response to that should not be: everything is perfectly safe and efficacious and as perfect as can be--get on board or walk the plank, ye scurvy dogs.

    They are worried everything will fall apart and no one will use any vaccines at all, particularly in developing countries, if there is any criticism tolerated at all, but I think people are smarter than that. Besides, I think an honest benefit:risk discussion would likely go a lot further than this perception that there are criticisms that the governments supplying the vaccines don't care about. Also people in African nations and similar places are as able as anyone else to find a disconnect between the entirely safe/efficacious propaganda and the reality where the rubber meets the road, which is somewhat different.
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2014
    merylg, Iquitos, PennyIA and 2 others like this.

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page