I'd like to take a few minutes to talk about a new report from the Chronicle Herald trying to debunk a study linking childhood vaccines to autism.
Here is an excerpt from their article:
Sadly, there's likely little hope that erroneous conviction will be much altered by last week's news that the 1998 study, which purported to link autism and the MMR [measles, mumps and rubella] vaccine has been declared a fraud by Britain's pre-eminent medical journal. The British medical Journal's condemnation of disgraced former Dr. Andrew Wakefield to work. First published in the Lancet (which last year finally retracted the article) couldn't have been more unequivocal.
The BMJ said that Mr. Wakefield had, in an unmistakably intentional way, altered the data to produce a result that wasn’t there.
Coming on the heels of the Lancet retraction, last year’s decisions by the British General Medical Council to declare Mr. Wakefield’s actions as bringing the medical profession into disrepute and also to strip the doctor of his licence to practise, the BMJ’s denunciation leaves the study’s — and Mr. Wakefield’s — credibility in shambles.
I like to interject here are a few things about the medical studies. There have been a lot of studies in the past that have been funded privately and by the government which have shown results that it's are not up to par with the original reasons for the study, for example, all of the tests that led to all the scandal over in Ontario and that whole groundwater fiasco.
The fact is, when you're doing a study you are taking a large selection of people, and those people it you assume have had no exposure to anything that wouldst weigh the study from one-way or the other. You're basically assuming that there is a Blank Slate.
Here's the steppingstone: the vaccines that it's are in question to use a mercury-base to help break down the virus so that it can be more easily administered. This basically supposed to weaken the virus so that it will not be able to gain a foothold in the body. The problem calms that that heavy metal is still eating inject into the body and the body cannot easily get rid of it in ads to unmount that may be gleaned from a natural environment for example from stock of fish or other wildlife that have been exposed to high mercury levels and other heavy metals that may already reside in the body.
Here's another excerpt for you:
Past investigations had already shown that Mr. Wakefield’s study received funding from lawyers suing vaccine manufacturers and that the researcher, who developed an alternative to the MMR shot, stood to gain financially if the accepted vaccine was dropped from use.
It will make it true that Mr. Wakefield may have received donations to its funding from lawyers who are looking to combat the vaccine manufacturers on behalf of their client and he does not pose that he altered the date and the actual suggestion here has no basis, unless the facts and where they believed that the data was altered was to be published along with this report, which they have not.
As the story goes on to say that no credible scientific study has ever been able to duplicate Mr. Wakefield results now this is this comes across to me as if their studies out there that are literally been discredited. Just because the result they came to not buy the science is used to come result, which is something you'd expect from the British constitution if they are discrediting the results because they do not match the status quo, then we have a bit of a problem.
The problem also stems from the problem that the British medical institution in the American medical institution and by extension, the Canadian medical institution has with the findings of this report the problem is with vaccine manufacturers that level mercury is well within the safe amounts that is the manufacturers are allowed to pull within products, that's highly publicized but we basically as consumers we are allowed to have a certain amount of heavy metal be ingested to products and be it fish in more any other food for that matter will be it any supplies like paint. Any aerosols or any other type both spring on product or by construction materials etc. etc.
The problem is is a combination of all of these factors. It literally means that you may be ingesting peel the lethal dose from two or three or four sources, plus a it's the assumptions made when they monitor. The product, whatever it may be that you're only going to have a short-term exposure to them may be you may use the product lets say(because I don't have exact numbers) once a month at best.
The assumptions made that you'll only be exposed to that product for that duration and only that product having the exposure through only that duration so for example, if the product being tested is a fish that have contamination of mercury in their suit and that you're only going to be eating that said product once a month for 12 months of the year. That basically means if you would eat in that product for a second time during that week you doubled your own allowed dosage for that amount of time, things like heavy metals... They don't break down easily.
No, not trying to scare tactic you hear into not eating fish or not painting, what I'm trying to do is trying to explain to the groundwork that they're working on for this. It's a problem because life is not sterilized lab, and you will not be exposed to one thing at a time... Usually you're exposed to multiple things at a time and you just crossing your fingers and hoping it works out for the best.
Here's the problem with what they're doing here. There is an alternative that does not use heavy metals. There is a healthy alternative that has been proven to work the problem is: it's expensive. It's literally a pennypinching effort, and what's really sad about this is these press releases and conferences are costing way more money than it would take to move the entire infrastructure from a mercury-based that we've been dealing with since the mid-30s and 40s to a more better and healthier type.
It'll just comes down to pennypinching. The truth of the matter is that this could be easily done, and the government does have the funds. However, most of the funds are being misappropriated to other projects that really don't matter such as, and people don't like me saying this, the Olympic bids. Things like that, appearing as the grand spectacle for the rest of world instead of fixing our problems is was getting us into these pits. I mean, look at Vancouver. But that's not a subject for right now.
In summary, I view this as an unfair discreditation. And if they really want people to take them seriously, they should release a facts.
Original Article
(Sorry if this is wierd, I just got Dragon Naturally Speaking 9 and I'm still training it. Work in progress!)