?

Log in

November 2014   01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Leaping salmon
Posted on 2014.11.26 at 09:49
I've recently taken up breakdancing, Swing and African Dance. These three very unique dance styles have common origins, as this video shows.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zu0dmom4og

African-American slaves developed songs and dances based on traditional forms for entertainment, to boost their morale, and to preserve their culture. Some of these dances developed into national dance crazes, such as the Cakewalk, the Black Bottom, the Charleston, and ultimately Lindy Hop swing dance.

Breakdancing arose in the 70's and 80's, and became popular among many poor, inner-city, minority youths as a creative way to release tension and settle differences without resorting to gang violence. Competitive dance has been a widespread custom in Central and West Africa.

The slang term "hip", meaning "fashionably current", and "in the know", is derived from the earlier form hep, which had become common by the 1930s and 40s, particularly in the African-American dominated jazz scene. Many etymologists believe that the terms hip, hep and hepcat derive from the west African Wolof language word hepicat, which means "one whose eyes are open."

Duckling

Galactic Evolution

Posted on 2014.02.08 at 10:45
The unheralded "Galileo of the 20th century", Halton Arp, has proven that the universe is not expanding. The Big Bang theory is based on the assumption that redshift in astronomical objects always means recessional velocity (speed something is moving away). But Arp discovered that high and low redshift objects are sometimes connected by a bridge or jet of matter. So redshift cannot be a measure of distance.

This paper describes how a highly redshifted quasar sits directly in front of a low redshift active galaxy, NGC 7319, and that "the optical spectra of the QSO and interstellar gas in the galaxy... show that it is very likely that the QSO and the gas are interacting." http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0409215

See also: "Optical redshifts due to correlations in quasar plasmas" http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?arnumber=1265342




But there is more: Arp found that the intrinsic redshift of a quasar or galaxy took discrete values, which decreased with distance from a central active galaxy. In Arp's new view of the cosmos, active galaxies "give birth" to high redshift quasars and companion galaxies. Redshift becomes a measure of the relative ages of nearby quasars and galaxies, not their distance.

As a quasar or galaxy ages, the redshift decreases in discrete steps, or quanta. The huge puzzle for astrophysicists is why a galaxy should exhibit an atomic (quantum) phenomenon - for electrons also orbit the nucleus in shells. Niels Bohr noted that when the electron jumped to an orbiting shell closer to the center, it radiated off (lost) energy, and when it jumped to a farther shell it gained energy.

In Niels Bohr’s experiment, in an Einstein equation, if the electron gained energy by shifting to a lower frequency shell (further out), it gained mass. That means in relation to gravity, it’s mass-gravity effect increased. If it radiated off its energy by jumping to an orbiting shell closer to the center (a higher frequency wave-particle relationship), its mass-gravity effect would also be reduced.

It is similar to what we observe in particle accelerators the more a particle is distorted, or polarized, in an electric field, the more massive it appears to become. Since it has been found that the mass of the electron increases progressively in a globally changing electrical environment, it will require to compensate at intervals by executing small quantum jumps to new resonant orbits closer to the nucleus. The energy of those orbits will be higher and the result is a quantized shift away from the red end of the spectrum. The quasar becomes brighter and less redshifted.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnZJlv-Buhk

Arp wrote, "Somewhat related to the question ... is the proposal by James Lovelock that the earth might be considered as a living (organically evolving) entity. The pertinence of the Gaia hypothesis to the astronomical observations discussed
is that for the first time we have hard observational evidence for the
evolution of different forms of organized extragalactic objects, the birth and maturing
of younger objects into older objects."

"Perhaps most important of all we have the
beginning of evidence of how matter materializes from the 'diffuse' state of the
cosmos. We do not know that it returns to an all-pervading state—but it may through
the decay of elementary particles. In any case the various bodies in the Uroboros
(ancient symbol of the universe as a snake with its tail in its mouth) are arranged in a continuum of size.

"The interesting aspect of this concept is the analogy between the huge
numbers of bacteria and viruses that inhabit the human body and the humans that
inhabit the earth. The bacteria, though a very successful life form, would probably have
difficulty grasping the operational purposes of the humans they inhabit. By analogy,
humans might have great difficulty recognizing intelligence in much larger organized
entities than themselves."


Uroboros Galactic Evolution

Duckling

A new understanding of viruses

Posted on 2013.09.04 at 09:28
The word ‘virus’ comes from the Latin for a poisonous liquid, and before that from the Sanskrit for the same. The hunt for them started when, towards the end of the 19th century, it was suggested that invisible living particles much smaller than bacteria might cause the epidemic illnesses for which no bacterial cause could be found.

As more of these were searched for and found in sick people, many illnesses became blamed on them. They became the invisible enemy, the nano-terrorist we must fear. We were instructed that one of our first duties for our newborn children is to vaccinate them against this dreaded foe. Thus was an ever-growing multibillion-dollar pharmaceutical industry created.

But, as I have travelled through the science that underlies this industry, I have gradually learnt to ask questions. I now realise that there is another way to see this story that fits all the data. I have learnt from biologists that our cells naturally produce viral-like particles without being invaded or infected, both when healthy and sick.

Currently such particles are named by asking what illnesses they cause as if this is their raison d’être, their only importance, the sole reason for cells making them. They would be named far more positively and comprehensively by asking what cells produce them and for what purpose.

Scientists like Barbara McClintock, who won a Nobel Prize for finding that cells operate with intelligence and seek to repair themselves, have given us a very different understanding of the particles they make.

We now know that our cells create multitudes of tiny transport particles (vesicles) to carry the proteins and genetic codes needed within and between cells. The ones that travel between cells, those our cells use to communicate with each other – are puzzlingly just like those that we have long blamed for illnesses.

"Barbara McClintock and the discovery of jumping genes" - http://www.pnas.org/content/109/50/20198.full

It now seems that we may have broadly misconceived the virus; that most of them may be simply inert messages in envelopes carried from cell to cell. In the last ten years scientists have begun to rename them as ‘exosomes’, ‘particles that leave the body’ of the cell, thus removing the inference that they are all poisons.

Distinguishing the healthy particle from the pathogenic is now an enormous problem for the virologist, for it has been discovered that our cells make them all in the same way, in the very same place. It also seems we cannot stop this process without risking severely damaging our cells.

So, perhaps we need to halt the juggernaut of virology with its virus hunt, and look to see if there is another way of helping us keep healthy. We need to know how we can strengthen the malnourished cell, rather than use the many medicines that try to prevent it from making particles by interfering with its essential processes.

We need to know if a poisoned cell may produce unhealthy messengers or viruses. We need to learn far more about cells – for only now are we starting to understand how they communicate and the very important role played in this by the particles we had totally demonised as viruses.

http://www.whale.to/a/intro.html

-

There are some basic facts about viruses all biologists agree on. Viruses have no metabolism so they cannot produce energy or eat. They have no nervous system, no sensory system, no intelligence that can facilitate any kind of invasion or hi-jacking of a cell a billion times larger.

But, the conventional theory of viral hijacking is that, after the short genetic code of a virus has been absorbed by a cell, the ‘viral genes’ absorbed start to ‘direct the production of proteins by the host cellular machinery.’ It is assumed they are able to force the host cell to do this. It is said they force the cell to assemble proteins into a shell or ‘capsid,’ to insert into this a clone of the original viral genetic code and then to launch it out of the cell by using the same machinery that the cell uses to harmlessly produce its own exosomes and other extra-cellular particles or vesicles.

But I had to ask, would cells give such minute and ‘dead’ messenger vesicle the extraordinary ability to pirate vastly larger and intelligent cells – including cells of the same organism? This is the quandary we are left with if we agree that viruses are not alive and thus incapable of having a survival instinct.

But what if cells create viruses as weapons – against other cells? If they do, then this would be remarkably suicidal as viruses usually pass from cell to cell within the same organism.

I went to consult a standard textbook, ‘Introduction to Modern Virology’ by N. Dimmock and S. Primrose, published by Blackwell Scientific Publications.

On page 230 I found it surprisingly reported that, although people have presumed that flu is spread by coughing, ‘transmission experiments from people infected with a rhinovirus to susceptibles sitting opposite at a table proved singularly unsuccessful. Equally unsuccessful was the transmission of influenza from a naturally infected husband/wife to his/her spouse.’

Also on the same page it reported: ‘it has been shown that recently bereaved people are susceptible to infectious diseases. Thus one’s resistance is influenced by one’s state of mind.’ It then went on to discuss winter life styles; such as living crowded in unventilated and over-heated rooms, all things it says might make us produce the symptoms of illness – and all things that make cells ill without any need of help from viruses.

It then concluded on page 212: ‘Evidently viruses do not kill cells by any one simple process and we are far from understanding the complex mechanisms involved …[it] seem more akin to death by slow starvation than acute poisoning. Lastly it is by no means clear what advantage accrues to the virus in killing its host cell. This situation may represent a poorly evolved virus-cell relationship or virus in the ‘wrong’ host cell.’

See: "Questioning Aerosol Transmission of Influenza" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2725811/

http://iseektruth.wordpress.com/2009/07/16/poisoned-cells-make-viruses/

-

It thus seems that cells may be sick, poisoned, stressed or malnourished in some way before they show the symptoms of ‘viral infection.’ There is a considerable body of research that indicates cellular illness or malnourishment often precedes the production of viruses, rather than the converse.

For example: it is reported that deficiency in selenium, a metal our cells use as an antioxidant, can precede the symptoms of colds, flu and even AIDS. (There is also a strong co-relation between selenium levels in soils in African countries and the prevalence of AIDS symptoms.)

Dr Melinda Beck reported that selenium-deficient mouse cells show symptoms of illness and emit viruses. She and her co-authors deduced from this that a lack of selenium made viruses dangerous – and consequently that these viruses made the cells ill. But was this deduction soundly based? Selenium is a component of glutathione peroxidase (GPX), an enzyme that protects cells from oxidative stress. Selenium-deficiency thus makes cells ill with oxidative stress without any need for a viral illness. They consequently could produce viral-like particles as waste or for repair purposes.

"Selenium Deficiency Causes Flu Virus To Mutate" - http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20010511055027data_trunc_sys.shtml

Another research paper reported that, when cells are suffering from ‘oxidative DNA damage’ (such as from chemotherapy), then they are more likely to get hepatitis due to HCV viral infections. Again, what comes first? The authors presume the virus must cause the illness – but surely the illness started with the earlier oxidative stress.

The first observation of retroviruses is credited to Peyton Rous. ‘It is generally accepted that Peyton Rous discovered retroviruses in 1911 when he induced malignancy in chickens by injections of cell-free filtrates obtained from a muscle tumour.’ But, when I went back to his records, I found that he also suggested that the cause of his chickens’ illness might be a chemical toxin in his filtrate! If retroviruses were indeed also present, might they have appeared as a defence against this toxin?

I had long presumed the evidence for illnesses like polio, AIDS, measles, mumps, flu and colds being due solely to viral infection must be overwhelming – but I have found to my surprise that scientists have long known that the guaranteed way to make cells produce viruses in the laboratory, including flu and measles virus, is not primarily by getting them infected, but by exposing them to stress and toxins!

In 1928 the President of the Royal Society of Medicine’s Pathology Section, A. E. Boycott, in a report on the ‘nature of filterable viruses,’ stated that with toxins ‘we can with a considerable degree of certainty stimulate normal tissues to produce viruses.’

Then in 1963 the famous Sloan-Kettering Institute for Cancer Research reported that viruses multiplied after cells were exposed to ‘x-ray, ultraviolet light or certain mutagenic chemicals’ and that this exposure seemed to ‘alter the benign relationship’ that otherwise existed between cells and bacteria.

Then in the 1980s Robert Gallo reported that, when he added certain chemicals to cell cultures, these cells produced retroviruses. Gallo thus named these chemicals his viral ‘growth factor’ – and Montagnier at the Institut Pasteur used the same. If retroviruses were indeed thus produced, then surely this can be explained as a cellular response to stress from toxins?

In 2007 Dr Dominic Dwyer, a Senior Medical Virologist, formerly of the Institut Pasteur in Paris, testified that to persuade blood cells to produced HIV retroviruses, ‘we stimulate them with compounds such as PHA.’ He added; if we want to persuade cells to produce the flu virus ‘we use other things like tryspin.’ – thus that they expose cells to different chemicals to make them produce different viruses! (Tryspin is destructive to proteins, and Phytohemagglutinin (PHA) is mitogenic. ) This surely suggests that virus production can be a cell’s response to being stressed and poisoned – and that there might thus be no need for it to be infected beforehand?

Dr David Gordon, the Chair of the Clinical Drug Trials Committee at Finders University in Australia, testified, at the 2007 Parenzee trial in Australia, that there is no need to ‘purify a virus in order to identify it’. He repeated emphatically: ‘No need to purify’ then rhetorically questioned: ‘Has any virus ever been purified?’ He explained: ‘The issues are exactly the same with any virus.’ He doubted if any virus was ever isolated from sick cells. It seemed that a cellular illness was all the proof he needed to conclude that unseen viruses were present – no matter how artificial the laboratory circumstances or what chemicals were added.

So – viruses may not be the primary causes of illnesses – they might instead be caused by a cell being poisoned. Why do our cells make them? Could they be possibly a protective reaction?

–Janine Roberts, "Fear of the Invisible" (2008)

Humpbacks

Electric Galaxies

Posted on 2013.08.15 at 07:15
Astrophysicist Hannes Alfvén first proposed his theory of “electric galaxies” in 1981. Galaxies and their motions resemble a homopolar motor more than they do anything else. A homopolar motor operates because electric current creates a magnetic field, which causes a metal disc to spin at a rate directly proportional to the supplied current.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-46CJ5Pt7U

The meter attached to the wall in most backyards that determines monthly electric bills is a homopolar motor. A homopolar motor is driven by magnetic fields induced in a circular, rigid conductive metal plate. The metal plate is placed between the poles of an electromagnet, causing it to spin at a steady rate proportional to the input current.

The homopolar motor owes its existence to the discovery of electromagnetism in 1820 by Hans Christian Ørsted, although that line extends much farther back in time. It was a so-called "voltaic pile," one of the earliest batteries, that opened Ørsted's eyes to the relationship between electricity and magnetism.

In 1800, Alessandro Giuseppe Antonio Anastasio Volta invented an apparatus made up of discs that included copper, zinc, and cardboard that was impregnated with a salt solution. He alternately stacked the discs and attached conductive wires to the top and bottom of the stack. When the two wires were connected in a circuit, an electric current flowed through the voltaic pile.

Ørsted noticed that a magnetized compass needle was deflected from its north-south orientation whenever the compass came close to the current flow. It was his observation that electric current and magnetism were related, coupled with André-Marie Ampère's mathematical analysis of said "electromagnetic" effect, that ultimately led to Michael Faraday's experiment.

Faraday built a device out of a wire, a battery, and a mercury bath. The wire hung down loosely from a hook so that it made contact with the mercury. A permanent bar magnet stood upright in the mercury pool, which was connected to the negative battery terminal. The positive battery terminal was connected to the hook holding the wire. When current ran through the circuit going from positive to negative, the wire's magnetic field interacted with the bar magnet, causing a circular magnetic field around the wire, which began to spin around the bar magnet.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2011/arch11/110510faraday.htm
-

“Dark Matter” was first postulated by Fritz Zwicky in 1933, who wished to account for the speed of rotation of the galaxies that occur in clusters. Just as the sun holds together the planets revolving round it so, the gravitational model proposes, the innermost mass of a cluster of galaxies holds together the outer galaxies as they revolve.

The trouble is, that the estimated mass of the inner parts of the cluster is not by a long way enough to provide the necessary attractive force of gravitation to do the job of holding together the outermost galaxies – they revolve too quickly for that and without extra mass within the cluster providing the attraction, would fly out of their galactic orbital path.

A similar effect occurs for individual galaxies. Assuming the gravitational mass to be due only to the visible matter of the galaxy, stars far from the centre of galaxies are observed to have much higher angular velocities than gravitational stability would allow. The solution to the difficulty, said the theorists, is to propose that extra matter exists besides what is actually detected but which will have the same gravitational property as the ordinary matter that can be detected. The name given for for this extra but undetectable matter was “Dark Matter”.

Although the hypothesis of dark matter became the most popular theory explaining these astronomical observations of galaxies and galaxy clusters, there has been neither direct observational evidence nor confirmation for it. Some other theories have been proposed to explain these velocity observations without the need for a vast amount of undetected matter, but none of these theories has achieved widespread credence. The Electric Universe paradigm, however, is distinguished from all such Gravitational Universe assumptions, in that the observed velocities become explainable from uncomplicated electrical principles.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2013/08/09/shaping-what-is/
-

A galactic disc is like the metal disc of a homopolar, or Faraday motor, named for its inventor Michael Faraday. Immense electrical currents flow into galactic axes and out along the disc. Stars in the disc are powered by those currents. Galaxies, in turn, receive their power from intergalactic electric currents that are visible in space as filamentary structures traceable by their magnetic fields. They are detectable by the radio signals they induce.

Gamma ray (and X-ray) observations of the galactic core also reveal a plasma torus structure there known as a "plasmoid." High frequency radiation from the plasmoid is similar to that from electrically excited stars. A strong electromagnetic field in the plasmoid accelerates particles to high speed, causing them to spiral in the resulting magnetic field and emit X-rays and gamma rays. It is the Milky Way's plasmoid that generates the glow from our galactic core.

Dark matter can be dispensed with when electric currents flowing through dusty plasma are recognized as providing the attractive force that is otherwise unaccountable in a gravitational model of the universe and its galaxies. Electric charges flowing through dusty plasma energize and sustain clusters, galaxies, and stars.

Filaments of electricity can be seen everywhere: static electricity sparks, lightning flashes, “jets” of x-rays that pour from galactic poles, and the “strings” of superclusters that make-up large-scale structures in the Universe. Birkeland currents are drawn toward each other in a linear relationship, with a long-range attraction potential 39 orders of magnitude greater than gravity, so the need for dark matter influences can be dismissed as completely unnecessary.

—Stephen Smith

http://electric-cosmos.org/galaxies.htm

Arctic Nat'l Wildlife Refuge

The WWF's Vast Pool of Oil Money

Posted on 2013.04.08 at 08:45
"the conservative, upper-class naturalists who founded WWF [in 1961] did not have a problem with approaching oil companies for funding…WWF’s earliest corporate sponsor was the petrochemical giant Royal Dutch/Shell. In 1961 it gave WWF-UK the remarkable sum of £10,000."

-From the 2011 book titled 'Saving the World’s Wildlife: WWF – the first 50 years'. Written with the cooperation of WWF officials, the author was granted access to archives that are usually off-limits to the public. Page 145.

In today’s world, that donation is equivalent to $663,000 US dollars.

On page 146 we read that John Loudon served as president of Shell for 15 years and then as president of WWF International for four years.

And on page 271 we’re told that the WWF began to “phase-out” fossil fuel funding from companies such as “BP, Shell and others” in the year 2000.

In other words, the WWF’s very first corporate sponsor was an oil company – one which wrote it an enormous cheque. The WWF then continued to accept oil money from various sources for another four decades.

http://nofrakkingconsensus.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/saving-the-worlds-wildlife-p-146.pdf
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2012/04/11/the-wwfs-vast-pool-of-oil-money/

[1990] Twenty-nine individuals on WWF's Board of Directors and its National Council are directors, CEOs or vice presidents for corporations including Union Carbide, Exxon Chemical Co. and Monsanto. Nearly one in three of WWF's Board of Directors and one in five members of its National Council are affiliated with corporations. WWF director Eugene McBrayer is president of Exxon Chemical Co., a subsidiary of Exxon USA, the corporation now best known for North America's worst oil spill.

According to Gayle Bingham, vice president of WWF, corporate executives like Exxon's McBrayer are on the board because they "care about the environment, too." She says, "It's in our interest as an environmental organization to help corporations engage in their economic activities in a more sound environmental manner."
According to Jon Welner of WWF's Congressional Affairs office, the group is "pretty much staying out" of the debate over pending oil spill legislation, specifically the "Oil Pollution Liability and Compensation Act." Furthermore, Welner says that the organization has "not taken a position" on the Exxon boycott. When asked about McBrayer's possible interest in diminishing WWF's support for tough legislation, Bingham responded, "I think that kind of speculation is so negative that it's not helpful."

http://www.multinationalmonitor.org/hyper/issues/1990/03/donahue.html

William K. Reilly [was] Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989-1993), president of World Wildlife Fund (1985-1989), president of The Conservation Foundation (1973-1989), and director of the Rockefeller Task Force on Land Use and Urban Growth (1972-1973). He headed the U.S. delegation to the United Nations Earth Summit at Rio in 1992.

In May 2010, Reilly was appointed by President Obama to co-chair the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling.

Mr. Reilly is Chairman Emeritus of the Board of World Wildlife Fund, Chairman of the Board of the ClimateWorks Foundation, Chairman of the Advisory Board for the Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions at Duke University...

He recently rotated off the boards of directors of DuPont and the National Geographic Society, and he currently serves on the boards of ConocoPhillips, Royal Caribbean International and Energy Future Holdings, for which he serves as Chairman of the Sustainable Energy Advisory Board.

http://worldwildlife.org/leaders/william-k-reilly


Isopods

Grand Unified Theory - Taking apart the old

Posted on 2013.03.14 at 08:17
Throw a stone in a lake and watch he waves propagate away from the point of impact. Listen to a distant sound that has traveled to you from its source. Shake a rope and watch the waves travel down the rope. Tune in a distant radio station, the radio waves have traveled outward from the station to you. Watch the waves in the ocean as they travel into the shore.

In short, waves propagate, its their nature to do so, and that is what they invariably do. Maxwell's equations unequivocally demonstrate the fields propagate at light speed. Matter waves, however, remain "stuck" in the matter. Why do they not propagate? What "sticks" them?

An answer to this question was presented by Erwin Schrödinger and Werner Heisenberg at the Copenhagen conventions. The Copenhagen interpretation states that elementary particles are composed of particle-like bundles of waves. These bundles are know as a wave packets. The wave packets move at velocity V. These wave packets are localized (held is place) by the addition of an infinite number of component waves. Each of these component waves has a different wavelength or wave number. An infinite number of waves each with a different wave number is required to hold a wave packet fixed in space.

This argument has two major flaws. It does not describe the path of the quantum transition and an infinite number of real waves cannot exist within a finite universe.

Max Born attempted to side step these problems by stating that the wave packets of matter are only mathematical functions of probability. Only real waves can exist in the real world, therefore an imaginary place of residence, called configuration space, was created for the probability waves. Configuration space contains only functions of kinetic and potential energy. Forces are ignored in configuration space.

-Frank Znidarsic

"Forces of constraint are not an issue. Indeed, the standard Lagrangian formulation ignores them...In such systems, energies reign supreme, and it is no accident that the Hamiltonian and Lagrangian functions assume fundamental roles in a formulation of the theory of quantum mechanics.."

-Grant R. Fowles University of Utah

"In order to obtain such relations that we conjecture to be true, we use the method of abstraction from a Lagrangian field-theory model. In other words, we construct a mathematical theory of the strongly interacting particles, which may or may not have anything to do with reality, find suitable algebraic relations that hold in the model, postulate their validity, and then throw away the model."

-Murray Gell-Mann, one of the fathers of quantum chromodynamics

At its simplest, the Lagrangian is just the kinetic energy of a system T minus its potential energy V.
L = T – V

What I will show is that the Lagrangian, rather than advancing a deep understanding of physics, actually blocked an understanding of the real fields involved. Because Lagrange (and Hamilton) misassigned the fields or operators, and because this formulation has been so successful and authoritative, many generations of physicists have been prevented or diverted from pulling this equation apart.

What do I mean by that? Well, if we take Lagrange at his word, we would seem to have only one field here. In celestial mechanics, the gravitational field causes both the kinetic energy and the potential energy. In quantum mechanics, charge causes both the kinetic energy and the potential.

But let's start with celestial mechanics, since that is where the Lagrangian initially came from. The motions of celestial bodies are gravitational, we are taught, and the potential energy is gravitational potential. That being so, the Lagrangian must have originally been a single field differential. In other words, we are subtracting a field from itself.

Our first question should be, is that even possible? Can you subtract gravity from itself, to get a meaningful energy? Or, to be a bit more precise, can you subtract gravitational potential from gravitational kinetic energy? That would be like subtracting the future from the present, would it not? Potential energy is just energy a body would have, if we let it move; and kinetic energy is energy that same body has after we let it move. So how can we subtract the first from the second?

Another problem is that for Newton, the two energies would have to sum to zero, by definition. This is clear for a single body, and a system is just a sum of all the single bodies in it. Therefore, both the single bodies and the system of bodies must sum to zero, at any one time, and at all times. In fact, Newton actually used this truism to solve other problems. He let potential energy equal kinetic energy, to solve various problems. But here, we are told that potential energy and kinetic energy don't sum to zero, and aren't equal, otherwise the Lagrangian would always be either zero or 2T. A Lagrangian that was always zero would be useless, wouldn't it, as would a Lagrangian that was just 2T.

Many people have told me I am off my rocker, questioning the Lagrangian. They tell me that Newton never summed V and T to zero, and no one else did either. Interesting, since the physics book I now have in my lap says otherwise. In the chapter on Gravity, subchapter on Energy Conservation, we get the problem of an asteroid falling directly to Earth:

"Since gravity is a conservative force, the total mechanical energy remains constant as the asteroid falls toward the Earth. Thus, as the asteroid moves closer to the Earth and U becomes increasingly negative, the kinetic energy K must become increasingly positive so that their sum, U + K, is always zero."
Of course we can see that straight from the equations:

V = -GmM/r
K = GmM/r

If it isn't those energies Lagrange is summing, which energies is it? What other energies does a body have in Celestial Mechanics? The mainstream cannot tell me E/M, since they have told us E/M is negligible in Celestial Mechanics. I will be told a body can have sideways motion, as in an orbit, but since orbits also conserve energy—we are taught—the total kinetic energy must still equal K and still sum to zero with V. Otherwise the body would either be gaining or losing energy all the time, and the orbit wouldn't be stable.

I will be told that mainstream physicists are more interested in applying the Lagrangian and Hamiltonian to quantum physics, as in the Schrodinger equation. OK, but since they have taught us that gravity is negligible at the quantum level, both V and T must come from charge or charge potential, right? In which case we should also have conservation, in which case we should have a sum to zero.
They just forget all this when it comes time to derive the equations, and they let themselves say and write whatever they want.

We can see another problem in this quote from Wiki:

"For example, consider a small frictionless bead traveling in a groove. If one is tracking the bead as a particle, calculation of the motion of the bead using Newtonian mechanics would require solving for the time-varying constraint force required to keep the bead in the groove. For the same problem using Lagrangian mechanics, one looks at the path of the groove and chooses a set of independent generalized coordinates that completely characterize the possible motion of the bead. This choice eliminates the need for the constraint force to enter into the resultant system of equations."

The problem there is that one solves by ignoring forces, looking only at the path. Why is that a problem? Because if you are studying the path and not the forces, you will come to know a lot about the path and nothing about the forces, which is what we see in current physics. The Lagrangian calculates forces by ignoring forces. It goes right around them. If that were just a matter of efficiency, it might be tenable, but we have seen that historically, the Lagrangian and action were chosen to avoid the questions of forces, which physicists were not able to answer. They weren't able to answer them in the 17th century and they aren't able to answer them now. So they misdirect us into equations that “summarize the dynamics of a system” by ignoring the dynamics of a system. Dynamics means forces.

Yes, we are told at Wiki that the Lagrangian is “a function that summarizes the dynamics of a system.” So here is yet another problem. We are then told that T is the kinetic energy of the system. Well, shouldn't the kinetic energy already be a function that summarizes the dynamics of the system? Dynamics means motions caused by forces, so the motion of the particles should be an immediate measure of all the forces on them. In other words, the gravity field should already be causing motion, so there is no reason to add or subtract it from the kinetic energy. Either the gravity field is causing motion, or it isn't. If it is, then it should be included in the kinetic energy. If it isn't, why isn't it?

But physicists have never bothered themselves with these logical questions. Why haven't they? Because they found early on that the Lagrangian worked fairly well in many situations. Like Newton's gravitational equation, it was an equation that they were able to fit to experiments. This is very important to physicists, for obvious reasons. But the fact that the Lagrangian worked meant that the kinetic energy and potential energy did not sum to zero, which meant that the bodies were not in one field only. To express energy as a differential, you must have two energies, which means you must have two fields. One field can't give you two energies at the same time. You cannot get a field differential from one field. As soon as the Lagrangian was found to be non-zero, physicists should have known that celestial mechanics was not gravity only. It had to be two fields in vector opposition.

By the same token, as soon as the Lagrangian was discovered to work in quantum mechanics, the physicists should have known that QM and QED were not E/M only. The non-zero Lagrangian is telling us very clearly that we have two fields. Just as gravitational potential cannot resist gravitational kinetic energy, charge potential cannot resist charge. Charge potential is not charge resistance, it is future charge. You cannot subtract the future from the present in an equation!

This proves once again that gravity is present in a big way at the quantum level, and that E/M forces are a major player on the cosmic scale.

-Miles Mathis

Giant Sequoia

Prescott Bush stole Geronimo's Bones

Posted on 2013.01.11 at 10:47
Harlyn Geronimo, the famous warrior's great-grandson, and other descendants are suing Yale University and the secret society known as the Order of Skull & Bones, claiming Geronimo's skull was stolen back in 1918 by Yale students, members of the secret order. One of the alleged grave-robbers: Yalie Prescott Bush, the father and grandfather of presidents 41 and 43.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qq5CP2iFmXk

Membership into Skull and Bones marks the elite of the elite at the Ivy League school. Only 15 Yale seniors are asked to join each year. Members swear an oath of secrecy about the group and its strange rituals, which include devotion to the number "322" and initiation rites such as confessing sexual secrets and kissing a skull.

Members of the Skull and Bones, who guard their organization’s secrecy, could not be reached for comment. Though the society is not officially affiliated with the university, many of Yale’s most powerful alumni are members, among them both Bush presidents, Senator John Kerry, President William Howard Taft, numerous members of Congress, media leaders, Wall Street financiers, the scions of wealthy families and agents in the CIA.

“Of all the items rumored to be in the Skull and Bones’s possession, Geronimo’s skull is one of the more plausible ones,” said Alexandra Robbins, the author of “Secrets of the Tomb” (2002), a book about the society. "I spoke with several Bonesmen who told me that when you walk in the door of the Tomb, there's a glass display case containing a skull, and the Bonesmen have always called it Geronimo."

"If it is found that Geronimo's skull is really in there, that's a crime."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/us/20geronimo.html
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/studentnews/02/24/transcript.wed/index.html

-

In 2005, Yale historian Marc Wortman discovered a letter written in 1918 from one Skull and Bones member to another that seemed to lend validity to the tale.

The letter, sent to F. Trubee Davison by Winter Mead, said Geronimo's skull and other remains were taken from the leader's burial site, along with several pieces of tack for a horse.

"The skull of the worthy Geronimo the Terrible, exhumed from its tomb at Fort Sill by your club and Knight Haffuer, is now safe inside the T... together with is well worn femurs, bit and saddle horn," Mead wrote. 'T' is believed short for the Tomb, the Bonesmen's private club.

Ten years later, the army covered the grave with concrete and replaced a simple wooden headstone with a stone monument, making it nearly impregnable.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-05-09-geronimo_x.htm

-

Geronimo, whose given name was Goyathlay, put up fierce resistance to white settlers, fighting the Mexican and United States armies for nearly three decades. He finally surrendered, with only 35 men left, to Gen. Nelson A. Miles on the New Mexico-Arizona border in 1886. Geronimo died of pneumonia at Fort Sill, Okla., in 1909.

EMIL HER MANY HORSES, NATIONAL MUSEUM OF THE AMERICAN INDIAN: "He died as a prisoner of war, so he was not free and he was not free to be buried in the old customary ways that the Apache would have been buried at that time."

GERONIMO: "When you desecrate a grave like of this nature, you know, you upset the spirits. And sooner or later, you know, the spirits will come after you."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/18/geronimos-descendants-sue_n_168082.html

Part I:
http://bitterbonker.livejournal.com/91876.html

Part II:
http://bitterbonker.livejournal.com/91997.html

Similarly to the measles outbreaks in highly vaccinated populations, there is no evidence that smallpox (or any disease) was eradicated by the vaccine. As I already noted, these diseases had almost completely declined by the time vaccination was imposed on a mass scale. And, as Dr. Glen Dettman pointed out: "It is pathetic and ludicrous to say we ever vanquished smallpox with vaccines, when only 10% of the population was ever vaccinated."

Furthermore: “Whereas in the high vaccination period [in Leicester] of 1866-72 there were 107 deaths per thousand living at that age, now there are only 34 per thousand, being a decrease of 73 per thousand, or a saving of 68 per cent. This represents a saving of over 2,200 lives each year of children living under five [that only fell after they repealed the compulsory vaccination law.] --J.T. Biggs, 'Leicester: Sanitation vs. Vaccination'

"The town of Leicester rejected vaccination in favour of sanitation. Her experience during the past fifty years makes nonsense of the claims of the pro-vaccinists. When her population was thoroughly vaccinated she suffered severely from smallpox. As vaccination declined to one per cent of the infants born, smallpox disappeared altogether." --Lilly Loat, The Truth About Vaccination and Immunization [1951]

Plenty of additional authorities over time have pointed to these trends as well (http://www.whale.to/a/smallpox_hoax.html). Most likely, smallpox vaccine was withdrawn not because it was successful, but because it backfired so badly, outcry from a well-informed citizenry became so great, that it became impossible to deny the facts any longer. The same with thimerosal, and the MMR in certain regions.

Archie Kalokerinos MD, PhD, sheds some light on this: "You cannot immunize sick, malnourished children and expect them to get away with it. You'll kill far more children than would have died from natural infection... It needs to be appreciated that children in developing countries are at a much greater risk of complications from vaccination and from mercury toxicity...because poor nutrition, parasitic and bacterial infections and low birth weight."

(These types of conditions were also prevalent in the U.S. a century or so ago)

"They went through Africa, South America and elsewhere and vaccinated sick and starving children...They thought they were wiping out measles, but most of those susceptible to measles died from some other disease that they developed as a result of being vaccinated. The vaccination reduced their immune levels and acted like infection. Many got septicaemia, gastro-enteritis, etc. or made their nutritional status worse and they died from malnutrition. So there were very few susceptible infants left alive to get measles. It's one way to get good statistics. Kill all those that are susceptible which is what they literally did!"

http://www.vaccinesuncensored.org/third.php

In short, it looks like people who are genuinely committed to a certain conception of reality are willing to bend over backwards to defend their paradigm. I don’t think there’s necessarily anything sinister behind it. Indeed, vaccination wouldn’t be defended so vigorously if people didn’t truly believe in it. But this can lead to scientific bias. Alfred Russel Wallace wrote in Vaccination a Delusion (1898):

"It is said to be the rule for Army surgeons to enter small-pox cases as skin-disease or some other ‘appropriate illness’… The result of this method, which is certainly very general though not universal, is such a falsification of the real facts as to render them worthless for statistical purposes… The result of this prejudiced and unscientific method of registering small-pox mortality is the belief of the majority of the medical writers on the subject that there is an enormous difference between the mortality of the vaccinated and the unvaccinated, and that the difference is due to the fact of vaccination or the absence of it."

"During the last considerable epidemic at the turn of the century, I was a member of the Health Committee of London Borough Council, and I learned how the credit of vaccination is kept up statistically by diagnosing all the revaccinated cases (of smallpox) as pustular eczema, varioloid or what not—except smallpox." --George Bernard Shaw

"In the thirty years ending in 1934, 3,112 people are stated to have died of "chicken-pox," and only 579 of smallpox in England and Wales. Yet all the authorities are agreed that chicken-pox is a nonfatal disease."—M. Beddow Bayly, M.R.C.S., L.R.C.P., ‘Case Against Vaccination’, 1936.

In this last regard, Medical director Dr. William Osheroff of California's Pacificare Health Systems HMO said of the chickenpox vaccine Varivax, "We've maintained that while the vaccine has shown short-term effectiveness, we know contracting the disease in early childhood is relatively benign and offers life-long immunity… Chickenpox as an adult is a serious disease." (http://www.allbusiness.com/medicine-health/public-health-communicable-disease-control/7218680-1.html#ixzz1et1mM1s3)

Furthermore, in the mid-‘80s when the stepped-up vaccine campaigns triggered this autism controversy, infectious disease rates were undoubtedly very low across the board. Why was it necessary to give all these extra vaccines for diseases that people didn’t have, or that were innocuous… which coincidentally involved very lucrative government contracts?

But all this applies to your comments about the JEV vaccine. In response to my assertion that vaccination is a primary cause of encephalitis (see: The Mechanism of Encephalitic Damage from Vaccines, http://www.vaccinationnews.com/DailyNews/May2002/MechEncephDamVax.htm ; Vaccines and Brain Inflammation, http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2011/06/01/vaccines-and-brain-inflammation/), you said:

“Do you enjoy just randomly making stuff up? ‘Encephalitis caused by the herpes simplex virus is the leading cause of more severe cases in all ages, including newborns.’ (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0002388/). Vaccine-induced encephalitis (which is not a primary cause of encephalitis) is linked primarily via ALLERGIC reactions to vaccines--not immune overload.”

(and is not the immune system response a substantial portion of the allergic reaction? –B)

“Keep in mind that encephalitis is a relatively COMMON complication of many diseases that are vaccinated against. A measles infection has a 1 in 1000 chance of triggering encephalitis, yet a measles vaccination is at MOST 1 in 3 million (but has yet to be definitively proven). (http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/QuestionsaboutVaccines/ucm070425.htm). JE causes encephalitis in 1 of 300 cases, but are at or under 1 in 2.3 million for the vaccine. (http://depts.washington.edu/druginfo/Vaccine/HealthDept/JEVax.html )”

In response to this, consider the insights of medical historian Harris Coulter: “In examining the enormous literature on infectious encephalitis, I realized very quickly that the long-term effects of encephalitis are totally congruent with what we see today in the DSM3 of the American Psychological Association as ‘Disorders usually evident in infancy or childhood’ (developmental disabilities). That includes autism, hyperactivity, dyslexia, attention span difficulties and several dozen other conditions.”

“This is, at first glance, a startling omission… mental health professionals should have immediately appreciated the tie with encephalitis. Furthermore, it had long been known that a variety of encephalitis was caused by vaccination. But this is precisely why physicians shied away from the topic! Since no one wanted to impugn the [vaccination] programs, encephalitis was never discussed openly and fully.

“The Vaccine Compensation Bill of 1986 provided for the establishment of a committee under the The National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine to review data on vaccine damage. This committee has published two books – one in 1989 and one in 1993 on the damage of various vaccines and they have stated in the first of these books that the evidence supports the existence of a causal relationship between the DPT vaccine and encephalitis. That has changed the whole terms of the debate because now you can talk of vaccine damage in terms of encephalitis–that is a much more solid scientific basis.

“But no biological phenomenon is either all or nothing. Vaccination cannot be considered to either leave a child perfectly normal or have a very severe impact on a child. There’s got to be a range of effects—how about the children in the middle? How about those who are slightly affected by the vaccine?

“Anybody who knows anything about the biology of medicine knows that this has to be because it would be impossible to stress a large group of people, like two million babies a year in the United States and not have the reactions go along a whole range of effects....Some of the side effects or long term affects make themselves felt not the next week or two weeks later but five or ten years later when the parent realizes that their child is not acting or behaving like other children act and tries to figure out what the reason for that is....”

This indicates that the numbers of people who are damaged by vaccines are much higher than the ‘one-in-a-million’ types of statistics you are spouting. These are based on only considering the extreme, immediate reactions that are easily traced to the vaccine—which are admittedly pretty rare. And of course, by systematically coming up with any other explanation besides vaccine adverse reactions, thus making the statistics essentially worthless.

Note that Japanese encephalitis has many similarities to the condition known as polio; for example, you mentioned it afflicted primarily children and the elderly. But don’t take my word for it. According to ‘Poliomyelitis-like illness due to Japanese encephalitis virus’ (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9660579):

“Acute flaccid paralysis remains common among Vietnamese children despite a pronounced fall in the incidence of poliomyelitis… JEV causes an acute flaccid paralysis in children that has similar clinical and pathological features to poliomyelitis. In endemic areas, children with acute flaccid paralysis should be investigated for evidence of JEV infection.”

Am I saying that JEV and polio may be virtually the same? It’s not implausible. Ralf R. Scobey, M.D., president of the Poliomyelitis Research Institute, Inc. (Syracuse, NY) lists 170 diseases of polio-like symptoms and effects but with different names such as: epidemic cholera, cholera morbus, spinal meningitis, spinal apoplexy, inhibitory palsy, intermittent fever, famine fever, worm fever, bilious remittent fever, ergotism, etc. (in the Archives of Pediatrics, Sept. 1950)

Dr. Stephen Cooter noted that polio strongly resembled beri-beri, a vitamin B1 deficiency. Dr. Edward and others reversed polio by administering iodine. Dr. Klenner reversed many cases of polio using mega-doses of vitamin C (http://www.orthomed.com/klenner.htm).

By the way, if I may digress, you misrepresented the findings of Pauling & Cameron’s paper 'Supplemental ascorbate in the supportive treatment of cancer'(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC431183/). You said “Pauling didn't CURE cancer. He extended the life of terminal patients... Read for yourself--nowhere in his paper does he claim to cure or reverse cancer.”

First of all, extending the life of patients for whom conventional ‘slash-burn-poison’ treatments COULDN’T DO A DAMN THING is certainly an accomplishment! Secondly, note how long the lifespan was lengthened for 10% of the study group—20 fold!

“The data indicate that deaths occur for about 90% of the ascorbate-treated patients at one third the rate for the controls, so that for this fraction there is a 3-fold increase in survival time, measured from the date when the cancer was pronounced untreatable. For the other 10% of the ascorbate treated patients the survival time is not known with certainty, but it is indicated by the values in Table 1 to be more than 20 times the average for the untreated patients…”

Since the mean survival time for the controls was 50 days, these 'ten-percenters' in the ascorbate group are recorded as living about 2 years 9 months longer. But this is misleading, because it does not mean that they necessarily died, just that the study ended. "Eighteen patients, marked with a plus sign in Table 1, were still alive on 10 August 1976, 16 of them clinically 'well'."

I wonder how much better the results would have been if the vit-c treatment had been started in the early stages of the disease, and before the patient had received a full battery of highly stressful medical interventions. Moreover, the paper refers to “the published evidence that ascorbic acid can sometimes produce quite dramatic remissions in advanced human cancer (4, 5).”

Sounds an awful lot like a cure, eh? Since you can’t deny that the treatment has some value, how do you explain why is it not used on a large scale, as an alternative option or adjunct to conventional therapy? Why hasn't there been more research into use of multiple vitamins and minerals in therapy? After all, nobody has a deficiency of chemotherapy or inoculations. Maybe it should be administered along with vaccines as well, since vaccines only provoke an immune response, they do nothing to build up the body’s resistance:

“If the Vitamin C status of an infant is borderline, the administration of a vaccine, particularly (but not only) pertussis vaccine, can result in endotoxaemia. This results in a severe reaction to the vaccine, a tremendous increase in the need for Vitamin C, and the precipitation of some of the signs and/or symptoms of acute scurvy. The onset of this may be so rapid that the classical signs of scurvy may be absent. Sudden death, sudden unconsciousness, sudden shock or sudden spontaneous bruising and haemorrhage (including brain and retinal haemorrhages) may occur. Haemorrhage and bruising in such cases can be wrongly attributed to the ‘battered baby syndrome.” -- Dr Archie Kalokerinos, M.D.

Which reminds me of something else.

"In studies from the United Kingdom, (48) Texas, (49) and Australia, (50-51) preterm infants in hospital settings were administered DPT (diphtheria-pertussis-tetanus) and/or Hib (Hemophilus influenzae) vaccines and monitored for episodes of apnea (respiratory collapse) and bradycardia. In each study the results were compared with unimmunized infants serving as controls. Each study showed significant increases in apnea and bradycardia following immunizations. In some instances oxygen desaturation required supplemental oxygen. A report from the United Kingdom in 1999 cited four infants with apnea severe enough to warrant full resuscitation measures following DPT and Hib vaccines. (52) Similar studies from Switzerland using the acellular DTaP vaccine, Hib, inactivated polio virus (IPV), and Hepatitis B vaccine showed comparable incidence of apnea and bradycardia. (53)

"It is sobering to reflect that if similar instances of prolonged apnea with oxygen desaturation were to take place unwitnessed in a home, many infants might have progressed into full respiratory arrest. The resultant brain hypoxia would set in motion fulminating brain edema. As described by Geddes and coworkers, the combination of hypoxia with sudden increase in intracranial pressure from the brain edema would be the true source of brain and retinal hemorrhages.(54-55) With this scenario, the person last in attendance of the infant at time of collapse would likely be accused of child abuse, or in case of death of the infant, of murder."
http://www.freeyurko.bizland.com/buttram6.html

"As yet based largely on observation and a limited but suggestive body of medical literature, in many cases thought to represent Shaken Baby Syndrome (SBS) it appears that we may be witnessing the adverse effects from interactions of highly potent vaccines given in combination, which potentially include: Hepatitis B (hemorrhagic vasculopathies, autoimmune reactions, neuropathies), Hemophilus influenza (Hib) (hypersensitization), tetanus (hypersensitization), and pertussis (hypersensitization, brain edema, and hypercoagulability with vascular inflammation from endotoxin).

"A study by Terpstra found the Hib vaccine to exceed even the pertussis vaccine in the latter’s sensitizing potencies.(Terpstra OK, Clin Exp Pharmac Physiol, 1979) Usually within a period of 12 days these interactions bring about a combination of brain edema, hypercoagulability of the blood, and inflammation of blood vessels, these in turn resulting in a shearing effect on subdural blood vessels and subdural hematomas, thus mimicking what is now thought to represent the SBS."
http://www.woodmed.com/ShakenBabyAlan.htm

Now this is not a one-dimensional matter, parental or caretaker abuse does occur, but there do appear to be instances where people are falsely accused of shaking a baby to death, in the absence of convincing evidence (http://www.healthychild.com/toxic-sleep/sids-crib-death-factors/)... and this includes instances where vaccination was likely a main factor. Keep in mind that I don’t think this is intentional, but in many cases reflects a well-meaning but misguided faith in vaccines.

Of course, in a system where the parents themselves are criminalized and demonized, for attempting to seek compensation for their children who were likely harmed by vaccines, it isn't too surprising that justice would stray this far. Even in the Hannah Poling case, one of the few instances where the government acknowledges anything about this at all, she was found to have suffered from vaccine-inflicted encephalopathy with “features of autism spectrum disorder”.

What, precisely, is the difference between this and full-blown DSM-IVR autism, as she has been clinically diagnosed with? Don't forget that Jon Poling, Hannah’s father, is a neurologist who did his residency at Johns Hopkins. He also has a Ph.D. in biophysics. Hannah’s mother is a nurse and an attorney. How many other kids don't have these advantages, and can't even get as much as that?

This mishandling of diagnoses was evident in the case of polio as well. According to Dr. Bernard Greenberg, chairman of the Committee on Evaluation and Standards of the American Public Health Association during the 1950s, during Congressional hearings in 1962:

“Prior to 1954 any physician who reported paralytic poliomyelitis was doing his patient a service by way of subsidizing the cost of hospitalization... two examinations at least 24 hours apart was all that was required... In 1955 the criteria were changed... residual paralysis was determined 10 to 20 days after onset of illness and again 50 to 70 days after onset... This change in definition meant that in 1955 we started reporting a new disease...

“Furthermore, diagnostic procedures have continued to be refined. Coxsackie virus infections and aseptic meningitis have been distinguished from poliomyelitis... Thus, simply by changes in diagnostic criteria, the number of paralytic cases was predetermined to decrease...”

Makes sense! After all, everyone "knew" that polio was eradicated by the vaccine, so those people must've come down with something else! Don’t buy it? Well, dig this NY Times article (http://www.nytimes.com/1991/10/08/science/outbreak-of-polio-alarms-officials.html?src=pm):

“Experts from the W.H.O., the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta and Oman investigated the outbreak and were perplexed to find that 118 children, including many who were vaccinated, developed polio despite a program that immunized 87 percent of Oman children by age one year.

“A few similar outbreaks have occurred in Taiwan, Gambia and Brazil. But experts said Oman was the most dramatic and best documented. Polio had disappeared from Oman until January 1988, when the latest outbreak was detected... polio struck hardest in the region of Oman that had one of the highest immunization rates.

" ‘What was new in Oman was an outbreak of this magnitude after the vaccine was administered properly and indeed had a fairly high efficacy,’ said Dr. Peter A. Patriarca, an epidemiologist at C.D.C. who investigated the outbreak.

“Dr. Patriarca's team said an exhaustive search found no probable cause for the outbreak. The vaccine was stored properly, no breaks in technique could be identified, and tests showed its potency met W.H.O. standards... The scientists concluded that a substantial proportion of fully vaccinated children were somehow involved in the chain of transmission, Dr. Patriarca said. ‘You could not explain it solely by the virus going from one unvaccinated kid to the next,’ he said.

“Dr. deQuadros, the Pan American Health Organization official, strongly disagreed. ‘If that explanation was correct, the Americas would be full of polio and it would be impossible to eradicate polio," he said. "If they are correct, they deserve the Nobel Prize and we will have to stop the program in the Americas because what we are doing would be nonsense.’ "

That’s the one thing deQuadros said that I actually agree with. Here is yet another example of vaccination being unquestioned in the face of evidence that it does more harm than good. This is why it doesn’t phase me that some of the studies I cited earlier gave lip service to the vaccine program, even though their results suggested something very different.

Here seems a good place to add the testimony of Khura Nkuba: "In Africa polio is really very rare... If you want to help children why begin with diseases that they don't have? ... Uganda spent $9,000,000 of its meager resources marketing this European product... the money spent could have built 120,000 protected water springs giving 30% of the country clean water."

What does this all mean? Well, poliomyelitis is blamed on the polio virus, but the disease was not contagious and showed no signs of being infectious. It would often arise in widely dispersed clusters. Dr. Ralf Scobey and others linked polio cases to pesticide contamination (ironically, DDT was liberally sprayed to "prevent" polio, as it is today to "control" JEV, to destroy the mosquitos presumed to be vectors of the disease). On this basis, polio appears to primarily result from poisoning compounded by nutritional deficiency. Polio virus was weakly associated with the disease; other viruses, such as coxsackie and echoviruses, were also found to be associated.


The basis of that idea was that by injecting tissue matter containing poliovirus into the spines of monkeys, a polio-like illness could be induced. But this is totally different from the proposed mode of human infection. There has never been much evidence of poliovirus invading the body in a natural setting and causing paralysis.

Moreover, viruses are certainly CORRELATED with many diseases, but it's not borne out by the evidence that they are the PRIMARY cause of all those diseases. Dr Ben Sandler, who studied the polio outbreaks, stated, "for every frank case of polio during an epidemic there are about 200 healthy carriers of the virus."

He continued, "Most researchers also believe that there must be some inherent factor of susceptibility present in the bodies of those who fall victims of the disease, a factor which lowers the resistance of the body for a period of time and permits the virus to penetrate the surface membranes and invade the central nervous tissues."

In this regard, you said:

“It's pretty hard to carry a virus without being infected since a virus can't reproduce without infecting. I think what you mean to say is that symptoms don't always develop. Furthermore, humans are not carriers of "dormant" JE virus. We kill it (typically in a matter of days), or it infects the nervous system (also within a matter of days) producing neurological symptoms. It doesn't just sit there for eons without causing damage... This is just another example of you misunderstanding basic concepts (remember thinking MMR was three vaccines?*)”

[*MMR is a single injection, but it's debatable whether it's one or three vaccines, since it is intended to immunize against three separate viral entities. Neither of us can dump on the other for this.]

“that suggests that even if you did read a technical paper, that you lack the knowledge required to understand it correctly.”


Well, that’s funny.

“Latent virus
A nonactive virus which is in a dormant state within a cell. Herpes virus is latent in cells of the nervous system.”
http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/latent+virus

“In latent infections, overt disease is not produced, but the virus is not eradicated.”
http://virology-online.com/general/latent_virus_infections.htm

Examples of JEV latency:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1453365/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1453274/

Dr. Incao clarifies: “It is important to remember that an infection with a particular virus or bacterium does not necessarily cause illness unless the resistance of the individual is low. In the case of Japanese Encephalitis Virus (JEV), most infections cause no symptoms and less than 0.1% of infected individuals develop severe encephalitis. 12 Individuals living in poor conditions, with poor hygiene, nutrition and education are at higher risk of serious illnesses from JEV or any other infection.”

So here we have an example of you grasping frantically to find something to criticize and discredit me on. Perhaps you were hoping that everybody would be so mystified by your words that they wouldn’t bother to think about them critically. Clearly, according to your own analysis, YOU “lack the knowledge required to understand” a technical paper. Now that we’ve established that, let’s continue.

According to Neil Miller, "Dr. Sandler claimed that sugars and starches lower blood sugar levels causing hypoglycemia, and that phosphoric acid in soft drinks strips the nerves of proper nourishment. Such foods dehydrate the cells and leech calcium from the body. A serious calcium deficiency precedes polio [26-29]. Weakened nerve trunks are then more likely to malfunction and the victim loses the use of one or more limbs [26:146].

"In 1949, before the polio season began, he warned the residents of North Carolina, through the newspapers and radio, to decrease their consumption of these products. That summer, North Carolinians reduced their intake of sugar by 90 percent--and polio decreased by the same amount! The North Carolina State Health Department reported 2,498 cases of polio in 1948, and 229 cases in 1949 (data taken from North Carolina State Health Department figures) [26:146;29]."

Dr. Sandler's account is fascinating (http://www.whale.to/v/sandler.html), and I generally agree that, in part, "children and adults contracted polio because of low blood sugar brought on by a diet containing sugar and starch".

Although I respectfully disagree with his view that "it is more advantageous to eat animal protein than plant protein." He justifies this view by saying, "High biological value proteins more nearly resemble the proteins of human tissues in chemical make-up than do the proteins of lower biological value." If this were a valid assertion, we would expect there to be NO herbivorous animals at all. ALL proteins are based on plant proteins, after all.

By the way, humans physiologically resemble herbivorous animals (http://www.tierversuchsgegner.org/wiki/index.php?title=Taxonomy) more closely than carnivores (such as cats) or omnivores (such as dogs).

A proper vegan diet contains an adequate amount of high-quality protein (http://www.vrg.org/nutrition/protein.htm), and low starch (http://lowcarbdiets.about.com/od/whattoeat/a/whatveg.htm).

What I'm trying to get across is that poliovirus is only a co-factor, along with poor sanitation, malnutrition, excessive toxin exposure, and perhaps some other things. Most of these conditions have been wiped out in the Western world; we are still exposed to toxins, but regulations and processing methods have improved considerably, so the burden is much less.

And DDT, which is particularly dangerous, has been banned in America, but is still used widely in areas where polio is endemic. Studies have been done that show how strongly DDT and paralytic polio outbreaks were linked in the US; modern researcher Jim West has compiled them.

This raises truly fascinating questions about what viruses really are. Dr. Scobey writes:

“It is not generally realized that some so-called virus diseases may result from the effects of poisons on the human body, thus, herpes zoster may follow exposure to carbon monoxide or the administration of arsenic, bismuth, lipiodol, gold, mercury, tuberculin, alcohol, etc. An epidemic of herpes zoster and peripheral neuritis, similar to the "jake" paralysis epidemic in this country, followed the ingestion of arsenic in beer in Manchester, England in 1900.76-78 The toxic agent was determined to be arsenic arising from dextrose made from starch by the use of crude sulfuric acid containing this poisonous substance.

“Herpes simplex, another so-called virus disease, has followed the ingestion of alcohol, benzol, arsenobenzol, mercury, and the inhalation of ether, among other poisons. Van Rooyen[79] noted its appearance after sulfapyridine therapy. Herpes simplex has followed the injection of vaccines, milk and colloidal metals.

“Inclusion bodies have been defined as products of virus activity or the elementary virus bodies themselves. Inclusion bodies have been found in poisoned humans and experimental animals.

“Dalldorf and Williams[80] (1945) found large acidophilic inclusion bodies in the kidneys of rats poisoned by lead. Blackman[81] (1936) found intranuclear inclusion bodies in the tubular epithelium of the kidney and in the liver cells of 21 children dying from the effects of acute lead poisoning and lead encephalitis.

“Cox and Olitsky[82] (1934) found that the injection into animals of aluminum hydroxide produced inclusion bodies similar to those seen in infectious encephalitis.

“Van Rooyen and Rhodes[83], in their textbook (1948), "Virus Diseases in Man," state: "Histological changes similar to those seen in infectious encephalitis may be produced by carbon monoxide poisoning, brain injury, arteriosclerosis, uremia, pregnancy toxemia and toxic agents like alcohol and lead."

“Olitsky and Harford[84] (1937) were able to produce inclusion bodies indistinguishable from those observed in virus infections by the injections of aluminum compounds, ferric hydroxide and carbon.”

Here is another example of this: ‘Induction of avian tumor viruses in normal cells by physical and chemical carcinogens.’ (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4332981) This raises the possibility that viruses are endogenous products that can arise within the body, as well as being transmitted through contamination, contagion, insect vectors or vaccines.

You are free to disagree, but is there any other explanation as to where viruses actually originate? It’s entirely plausible to conclude this.

If so, this challenges the fundamental basis of the vaccine paradigm. But there is much to be desired in the overly simplistic idea of ‘antibodies (to one virus or strain of a virus) = immunity’ anyways. According to Barbara Loe Fisher, president of the NVIC:

“Vaccines do not confer the same type of immunity that natural exposure to the disease does... In most cases natural exposure to disease would give you a longer lasting, more robust, qualitatively superior immunity because it gives you both cell mediated immunity and humoral immunity.

“Humoral is the antibody production. The way you measure vaccine-induced immunity is by how high the antibody titers are. But the problem is, the cell mediated immunity is very important as well. Most vaccines evade cell mediated immunity and go straight for the antibodies, which is only one part of immunity. That's been the big problem with the production of vaccines...

"When you put pressure on a virus or bacteria that is circulating with the use of a vaccine that contains a lab altered form of that virus or bacteria, it doesn't seem illogical that the organism is going to find a way to adapt in order to survive."

Why isn’t this really talked about? Well, the predominant thrust of research initiatives and dollars has been towards studies that go along with the general assumptions of vaccination. Where is the funding into alternative research? It comes from independent sources, is far less lucrative, and is mostly ignored by the CDC, FDA, AAP, mainstream media, etc.

Wrapping up, Dr. Scobey continues, “Several commissions, appointed during the first quarter of this century to investigate the cause of pellagra, concluded from their studies that pellagra was an infectious, contagious disease. Harris[85] (1913) was able to inject Berkefeld filtered tissue material from pellagra victims into monkeys to cause a corresponding disease in these animals.

“He concluded from these experiments that a virus was present in the injected material and that it was the cause of pellagra. If the work of Harris had been followed exclusively, various strains of this 'virus' might have been discovered and a vaccine, effective in experimental animals, might have been developed, as in the case of poliomyelitis.

“Today, as a result of unlimited research, however, we know conclusively that pellagra is not caused by a virus but rather that it is a vitamin deficiency disease. It is obvious that if the investigations of pellagra had been restricted to the virus theory, it would still be a mystery.”

This brings us back to the initial topic of this discussion. You are free to disagree with the evidence I have provided, but science is supposed to be about open exchange of evidence and ideas, and I stand behind the credibility of my viewpoint. But one thing that seems quite clear is that animal testing is indeed a highly questionable practice, and that in terms of how it is actually used (not 'ideally'), it does more harm than good. I don’t need to argue this any further; you have already proven it better than I could with your arguments.

So, I have spent more time than I care to think about to give you your long-awaited “point-by-point”. If I receive the same type of hair-trigger, rhetorical answers that I have so carefully refuted above, I will be very disappointed. I have found this conversation stimulating and enlightening. I hope that you have enough integrity and courage to learn something too.

Sincerely,
Bryan

http://artvoice.com/issues/v10n37/week_in_review/monkey_business

Isopods

Monkey Business: Debate with Randy, Part 2

Posted on 2011.11.27 at 12:09
Part I:
http://bitterbonker.livejournal.com/91876.html

Randy said:

“Oh, look. Now we've got an animal study (remember back when you were insisting they're totally not predictive of human outcomes?) showing a theoretical link between a military vaccine adjuvant and a disease totally unrelated to autism [Aluminum adjuvant linked to gulf war illness induces motor neuron death in mice -
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17114826 ].”

Well, well, well. Randy, the man who absolutely refuses to debate fairly. Since you seem to be so keen on putting words into my mouth, let me clarify that I never said that animal tests are “totally not predictive of human outcomes”. The truth is more subtle than that… although it is true that in many cases animal tests hopelessly confuse the issue of drug/chemical safety.

In some cases, they can be quite accurate. For example, I don’t know of a SINGLE animal test, or biological test such as in vitro tissue culture, that shows that Thimerosal is not harmful. The crap seems to be universally dangerous to all living things (except for pathogenic bacteria, ironically—it has been shown to be a poor vaccine preservative). Please refer to RFK jr’s “Tobacco Science and the Thimerosal Scandal” [http://www.robertfkennedyjr.com/docs/ThimerosalScandalFINAL.PDF ] for references to animal tests that have shown the neurotoxicity of Thimerosal, and evidence that Thimerosal doesn’t even effectively sterilize vaccine mixtures.

If it were up to me, we wouldn’t have to do animal tests to show that substances like mercury and aluminum compounds (which are in many vaccines, not just “military” vaccines) should not be injected into young children. But you would likely counter that this is an emotional, not scientific point of view. So I provide animal tests, which is presumably what you wanted to see. The study has already been done, it doesn’t make a difference for the victims whether I use it here or not.

Yet you still shoot it down. Funny thing is, this is what I predicted. I said that animal tests tended to be ignored when they provided unfavorable outcomes, and promoted when they showed the desired outcome. Your arguments support this contention, because you are doing this yourself. So I guess we can end this debate now! You seem to concede (a) that animal tests are not a reliable predictor of human outcomes—comparable results can only be verified after knowing the effects in humans.

You said, earlier in this discussion:

“As for your quote ‘More than 800 chemicals have been defined as teratogens in laboratory animals, but only a few of these, approximately 20, have been shown to be teratogenic in humans. This discrepancy can be attributed to differences in metabolism, sensitivity and exposure time.’ (Dr Beat Schmid, Trends in Pharmacological Sciences; 8:133, 1987)

“--This is hardly surprising. This exact notion was also examined by Schardein. First, this does not mean 780 chemicals were teratogenic in animals, but not in man. Only one substance known to be teratogenic in humans had not been found to be teratogenic in animals as of 1985.

“Consider:
1. Most of these compounds aren't drugs, so they have never been systematically administered to humans. They are typically things found in occupational settings, in the environment, in food, etc.

“2. Schardein notes that human epidemiological data outside of the clinical setting is not reliable, and has only ever discovered 3 teratogens. Thus, for most of these 780 substances, there is no means to confirm human teratogenicity.

“3. The only way to prove that these substances are not human teratogens would be to conduct a clinically controlled trial. (Good luck convincing expectant mothers to eat pesticide to see if their babies become deformed).”

Very fascinating testimony. Since “this does not mean 780 chemicals were teratogenic in animals, but not in man”, and since you *insist* that animal tests are generally predictive of human outcomes, even if more than one species needs to be cross-referenced, wouldn’t the logical conclusion be that a good proportion of the chemicals on the market ARE teratogenic? Even if the animal tests provide little insight into precisely which ones? So you concede (b) that animal outcomes “can be deemed inapplicable when necessary, ignored when convenient”, in the words of Dr Robert Sharpe.

By the way, it isn’t a given that GWS is “totally unrelated to autism”, as you say. For example, please reference the paper Chronic Mycoplasmal Infections in Gulf War Veterans’ Children and Autism Patients
(http://www.gulfwarvets.com/chronic_infections.htm):

“Autism patients have systemic bacterial, viral and fungal infections that may play an important part in their illnesses. We found that immediate family members of veterans diagnosed with Gulf War Illnesses (GWI) often complain of fatigue and other problems, and upon analysis they report similar signs and symptoms as their veteran family members, except that their children are often diagnosed with Autism.”

Dr. Blaylock explains, “Most neurological disorders, both acute and chronic, have a common set of pathological events despite their varying clinical presentations.” Indeed, we are dealing with autistic SPECTRUM disorders. So, despite the bewildering variety of disorders with confusing names and huge wealthy charities seeking “cures” that will never be found, perhaps the truth is that research into the alleged “genetic” basis of these disorders only serves to hopelessly overcomplicate the issue and distract from real solutions.

Here’s an interesting example (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2011/08/11/peds.2010-0887.abstract):

“Dravet syndrome is a rare epileptic encephalopathy linked to mutations in SCN1A (neuronal sodium channel α1 subunit) and characterized by an onset in infancy with polymorphous seizure types and developmental decline. It was reported recently that a proportion of patients previously diagnosed with alleged vaccine encephalopathy might possess SCN1A mutations and clinical histories that enabled a diagnosis of Dravet syndrome, but these results have not been replicated.

“We present here the cases of 5 children who presented for epilepsy care with presumed parental diagnoses of alleged vaccine encephalopathy caused by pertussis vaccinations in infancy. Their conditions were all rediagnosed years later, with the support of genetic testing, as Dravet syndrome. We hope that these cases will raise awareness of Dravet syndrome among health care providers who care for children and adolescents and aid in earlier recognition and diagnosis.”

How convenient that we can always make up new “genetic” diseases to avoid the diagnosis of vaccine complications. However, according to Dr. Michael Godfrey, "It is impossible to have a sudden epidemic of a genetic disease. The genetic factor or other predisposing weakening factor is there but it needed the environmental trigger to make it surface. That's why we think the genetic inability to excrete mercury e.g. Apo-E4 and/or a metallothionine abnormality underlies those that crash after being exposed to mercury injections."

Note that autism has overlapping symptoms with “Dravet syndrome” as well as epilepsy:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21620773

You said:

"Finally, a paper that's actually good [Neurotoxic Effects of Postnatal Thimerosal are Mouse Strain Dependent -
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15184908 ]. It only supports a theoretical link between thimerosal and disruption of neural development a completely abnormal strain of mice though. Now, tell me how well does this strain (whose genetic problems are not limited to auto-immunity) represent human auto-immune susceptibility. The study definitely suggests a link may exist and warrants further examination--but even the authors note that this isn't conclusively demonstrated by this paper.”

Well, see, once more, you’ve called attention to the questionable benefits of animal testing. You ask how this strain of mouse represents human auto-immune susceptibility. Then how does any strain? Why even do the tests at all?
Do you remember when I pointed out that Dr. Somers’ studies that found teratogenicity in mice were dismissed by Chemie Grunenthal on the grounds that he must have been using a “particularly sensitive strain of mouse”? History is repeating itself.

This is what IOM panelist Steven Goodman, MD, MHS, PhD, an associate professor of oncology and epidemiology at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland, told Medscape: "This type of study, while certainly interesting, in no way substitutes for actual human evidence. We don't have an animal model for autism” [it’s highly debatable that we have an animal model for ANY human disorder] “and we don't understand exactly what causes autism or what its exact pathophysiology is in humans.” [and how is animal testing supposed to lead us to this?] “So we don't understand it completely in either system at the moment, and we certainly don't understand to what extent one is a model for the other."

Here is what the author of this study, Associate Professor Dr. Mady Hornig, said: “The same immune response genes in mice that predict mercury-related immunotoxicity also predict neurodevelopmental damage in our model and are associated with the development of features reminiscent of those observed in autism. These include generalised impoverishment of behavioural responses and abnormal reactions to novel environments, brain enlargement, correlated closely with the observed behavioural abnormalities in exploration and anxiety, increased cell packing in the hippocampus, and disturbances in glutamate receptors and transporters.”

This is all very interesting, but the bottom line is that both you and this Medscape article are beautifully demonstrating my point that animal tests are open to interpretation, and this is abused for political-economic purposes.

The article continues: ‘"We didn't say that investigations shouldn't continue in the lab on the effects of mercury, on the effects of thimerosal, and on the causes and profiles of autism," Dr. Goodman said. "Where the committee thought that research dollars probably shouldn't go, at least for the moment, are these large-scale epidemiologic studies linking autism and thimerosal exposure."

‘But Dr. Hornig countered that the design of published epidemiologic studies may have been inadequate to appropriately estimate risk. Although MHC and non-MHC genes, age, sex, nutrition, route and frequency of administration, and maturity of the metabolic, immune, and nervous systems are known to affect mercury toxicokinetics, previous studies have not evaluated such factors.

‘"The pronouncement that research funds are better applied elsewhere effectively forecloses any possibility of federal funding for an entire field of research," she said. "The timing is particularly unfortunate given that we are only just beginning to define the mechanisms by which environmental factors such as thimerosal interact with immune response genes during early development."’

VERRRRY interesting. One of the most important things that you and this article (http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/480683) indicate is that all animals, including humans, differ substantially in their genetics even within the same species, meaning that even if the majority are relatively unharmed, there can still be severe adverse reactions in a minority of the population.

"Even without knowledge of a specific gene association, we can consider the impact of gene prevalence on our statistical capacity to demonstrate effects of potential toxins in a population, should they exist," Dr. Hornig said. Note that there hasn’t been any effort to determine if a small percentage of children are genetically susceptible to being harmed by ‘one size fits all’ mass vaccination policies.

You said:

“This [Autism: A Novel Form of Mercury Poisoning - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11339848 ] doesn't link vaccines and autism. It attempts to equate autism with mercury poisoning.”

–This article points out that autism shares many common features with acute mercury poisoning. It’s ignorant to deny that, and there is no reason to consider it inconsequential.

“…At best, even if this assumption is correct, it still only suggests a possible theoretical mechanisms by with thalidomide [sic] may trigger autism.”
I assume you meant thimerosal, but you actually point to something noteworthy in that Freudian slip. It is not controversial that thalidomide can trigger autism.

Even the shameless Dr. Paul Offit notes: “children whose mothers took thalidomide during pregnancy had birth defects, including malformed ears and shortened limbs. But they also had a significantly greater incidence of autism than babies born to mothers who never took thalidomide. Thalidomide clearly caused autism, but only if mothers took it early in pregnancy. If mothers took thalidomide in the second or third trimester of pregnancy, their babies weren’t at increased risk of autism.” This establishes both that autism can have multiple causes and varying degrees of susceptibility, and that it can be inflicted iatrogenically.

But anyways, as far as the mechanisms of thimerosal and autism, they are indeed “possible theoretical”, because so few proper biological/clinical studies have been done in humans or their cell cultures. The handful of studies that have been cherry-picked to “disprove” the vaccine-autism connection are ALL epidemiological, and these are notoriously susceptible to manipulation. In the words of former EPA Administrator William Ruckelshaus, “risk assessment data can be like the captured spy: If you torture it long enough, it will tell you anything you want to know.”

For example, the “study” ‘Thimerosal and the Occurrence of Autism: Negative Ecological Evidence From Danish Population-Based Data’ (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/112/3/604) reported a 20-fold increase in autism in Denmark after that country banned thimerosal in its vaccines. Yet, it even admits: "since 1995 outpatient activities were registered as well...the proportion of outpatient to inpatient activities was about 4 to 6 times as many outpatients as inpatients...this may exaggerate the incidence rates."

They try to cover this up by saying: “In additional analyses we examined data using inpatients only … to elucidate the contribution of the outpatient registration to the change in incidence. The same trend with an increase in the incidence rates from 1990 until the end of the study period was seen.” Are we just supposed to take their word on this? Where is the data? It’s an awful stretch to say there’s a 4-6 fold difference in the data sets, but that the outcome was the same.

And in an earlier study, ‘A population-based study of measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination and autism’ (http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa021134) based on the same data, they report: “In our cohort, 93.1 percent of the children were treated only as outpatients, and 6.9 percent were at some point treated as inpatients in a psychiatric department.” Sooooo… is there a 13-fold difference, a 4-6 fold difference, or no effective difference?

Ironically, in this case changes in diagnostic criteria seem to have been deliberately used in order to achieve a negative association. After all, one of the authors of the studies, Dr. Poul Thorsen, was found to have falsified documents, and was indicted on fraud, money laundering and tax evasion after stealing $1-2 million in research grant money from the CDC. Yet his “research” is still listed on the CDC website without reservation (http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/articles.html).

Notice that Wakefield’s research was crucified, but this research is widely considered as definitive exoneration of vaccines without any question. And why weren’t the authors of “Lack of Association” accused of child abuse, by the way, when they performed the same testing procedures as Wakefield et al? The hypocrisy is truly staggering.

You said:

“It appears that the "evil" FDA and pharmaceutical industries are coming around to this way of thinking as well considering thimerosal has mostly been phased out. In fact, we should know if this is the cause of the autism increase relatively soon, shouldn't we?”

So you’re basically admitting that what this amounts to is a huge public health experiment on American children. Indeed, here is part of the Joint Statement of The American Academy of Pediatrics and the Public Health Service (FDA & CDC), July 7, 1999:

"The recognition that some children could be exposed to a cumulative level of mercury over the first six months of life that exceeds one of the federal guidelines on methyl mercury now requires a weighing of two different types of risks when vaccinating infants. On the one hand, there is the known serious risk of diseases and deaths caused by failure to immunize our infants against vaccine-preventable infectious diseases; on the other, there is the unknown and probably much smaller risk, if any, of neuro-developmental effects posed by exposure to thimerosal. The large risks of not vaccinating children far outweigh the unknown and probably much smaller risk, if any, of cumulative exposure to thimerosal-containing vaccines over the first six months of life.”

Let me repeat that: “the unknown and probably much smaller risk, if any, of cumulative exposure to thimerosal-containing vaccines”. So what we have here is a situation where the risk is UNKNOWN but it is ASSUMED that the risk is relatively small. Why aren’t you up in arms that the shit was injected into our children in such large amounts for over a decade, when our regulators (claim they) didn’t have a clue if it was safe?! Seems awfully reckless, wouldn’t you agree? Somehow, no, and yet, yes, it seems you would, based on something you said earlier:

“So what you'd need to do to declare animal testing ineffective is prove that animal testing has failed to keep teratogenic [or dangerous] drugs off the market AFTER tests for it had been designed and implemented.”

By your own admission, albeit indirectly, this is precisely what happened! So now you have thoroughly eradicated any claims you could have made as to the necessity or efficacy of animal testing, or our regulatory framework in general. In short, it would appear that the system is designed to fail.

As for the “phase-out”, please don’t forget that the full dose of mercury is still to be found in most of the annual flu shots… for some crazy reason. These shots are even recommended in the first trimester of pregnancy, even though we have already established that this can cause harm that may not manifest if the same insult is suffered later, even later in pregnancy.

Indeed, according to David M. Ayoub and F. Edward Yazbak (http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/165/3/351.full), “several studies have reported dose-dependent fetal deaths in various animal models exposed to thimerosal or its by-product, ethyl mercury (16). Even thimerosal's Manufacturing Safety Data Sheet* discloses teratogenic and reproductive toxicity. A recent review of the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System showed a temporal-geographic cluster of late-trimester fetal deaths following flu vaccination, some with shared vaccine lots (17).”

*[http://www.vaccine-tlc.org/docs/Thimerosal%20Material%20Safety%20Data%20Sheet.pdf ]

So it’s really not clear if we can expect autism rates to decline… the only thing we can determine is that our leading medical authorities are total jackasses, if not sociopaths.

You said:

“Of course, setting aside that none of your articles actually directly link vaccination to increased autism,” (except when they did, and you just chose to ignore it) “most of the hypothetical factors presented by them are proposed to function in a manner that disagrees with Blaylock's theory of repeated immune stimulation which you currently ascribe to. Some papers claimed heavy metal toxicity (which is not equivalent to repeated immune stimulation). Others claimed measles persistence (which results from a single exposure to measeles).”

First of all, Blaylock, like any sensible researcher, knows that the causes of autism are likely multifactorial. I have demonstrated this repeatedly. None of these mechanisms contradict each other. Indeed, Blaylock writes: “It is known that numerous pathological events can trigger excitotoxicity, including ischemia, hypoxia, hypoglycemia, viral and bacteriological pathogens, toxic metals, trauma, autoimmune diseases, and free radical excess.”

This is from ‘The Central Role of Excitotoxicity in Autism Spectrum Disorders’ (http://www.dorway.com/blayautism.txt), a paper which summarizes the diverse factors that evidence would suggest interplay to trigger onset of autism. Note that this isn’t just Blaylock’s theory, he has just done a great job of summarizing the current state of research… since we can’t count on the CDC to do so. I recommend you read this paper if you’re actually interested in getting some answers, and not in just pulling the wool over your own eyes.

Referencing the ‘Multiple Causes’ paper again: “According to Dr. Ellen Grant, nearly all the Autistic children tested at Biolab had zinc, copper, SODase and magnesium deficiencies. We know that mercury displaces essential elements like magnesium, zinc and copper from cells causing disruptions of enzyme systems in the process. Serious vitamin and mineral deficiencies weaken the immune system and lead to developmental problems independently of other factors. Knowing that mercury leads to such deficiencies further worsening any dietary deficiencies fits our multiple causes model.”

C’mon Randy, you’re a big boy—don’t tell me you can’t comprehend that biological-environmental systems are incredibly complex, and diseases are not the result of simple single-cause factors? But then, isn’t this myopic reasoning the very basis of the vaccination program?

Backtracking a bit, you said:

“I also can't get over all your bashing of government disease control institutions considering they're doing these studies that overtly recognize that disease control entails far more than just vaccinating everyone. Vaccines have even been removed from the market once surveillance suggests that they are no longer necessary. Yet you consistently take the view that regulatory agencies are only interested in lining their own pockets by taking substances orally from the flesh-syringe of big pharma three times daily after meals.”

Well, for example, the smallpox vaccine is no longer used. I wonder, why hasn’t smallpox returned, like the media is always trying to scare us into thinking will happen with diseases like measles if people don’t get the MMR? However, take a look at this fascinating case study, ‘Apparent Paradox of Measles Infections in Immunized Persons’ (http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/154/16/1815):

“Results
We found 18 reports of measles outbreaks in very highly immunized school populations where 71% to 99.8% of students were immunized against measles. Despite these high rates of immunization, 30% to 100% (mean, 77%) of all measles cases in these outbreaks occurred in previously immunized students. In our hypothetical school model, after more than 95% of schoolchildren are immunized against measles, the majority of measles cases occur in appropriately immunized children.

“Conclusions
The apparent paradox is that as measles immunization rates rise to high levels in a population, measles becomes a disease of immunized persons. Because of the failure rate of the vaccine and the unique transmissibility of the measles virus, the currently available measles vaccine, used in a single-dose strategy, is unlikely to completely eliminate measles. The longterm success of a two-dose strategy to eliminate measles remains to be determined.”

Why haven’t we been beaten over the head with this information? Why is reporting always so skewed towards scare tactics that one-sidedly tout the purported necessity of vaccination? Why do the authors conclude that the solution might be a ‘two-dose strategy’, and fail to consider that the children would be better off not getting vaccinated at all, as their data suggest?

Part III:
http://bitterbonker.livejournal.com/92255.html

Randy: "Ready to get back to the point-by-point? I mean, it really does look like you're doing your darndest to avoid it."

Read more: http://artvoice.com/issues/v10n37/week_in_review/monkey_business#ixzz1evRRVfpk

Me:

Dear Randy,

Please excuse the amount of time it took for me to get back to you. Because this is a matter of great importance, I’ve taken the time to really study the issue and reflect upon it—something you clearly have not done. I do admit that it can be intimidating to debate with someone like you. I’ve learned a lot as a result of the challenge.

But I can see through you now. The only thing I’m having trouble keeping up with is all the distortions, contradictions, and circular logic in your arguments. You’re clearly a sharp guy, and I’m sure you’ve worked quite hard to get where you are today. But I’m wondering if you haven’t gotten too comfortable with things.

You said:

“It's cute that you went and copied everything (including passages) from general purpose anti-vaccine pages.”

Yes, I did reference ‘anti-vaccination’ pages for guidance. I read the papers, and I used whatever passages I judged most concisely supported my position. Where else am I to find this information? It sure as hell ain’t on the CDC website. Are you suggesting that this ‘regulatory’ body, which is also charged with promoting vaccines, is objective and unbiased? Don’t make me laugh. For example, a July 2003 UPI Report found, after a four-month investigation, a web of close ties between the agency and the companies that make vaccines.

“Members of the CDC's Vaccine Advisory Committee get money from vaccine manufacturers. Relationships have included: sharing a vaccine patent; owning stock in a vaccine company; payments for research; getting money to monitor manufacturer vaccine tests; and funding academic departments.

“The CDC is in the vaccine business. Under a 1980 law, the CDC currently has 28 licensing agreements with companies and one university for vaccines or vaccine-related products. It has eight ongoing projects to collaborate on new vaccines.”
http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2003/07/21/UPI-Investigates-The-vaccine-conflict/UPI-44221058841736/#ixzz1eYiL0X4h

That right there is an UNFORGIVABLE conflict of interests. Vaccination safety should be handled by an independent body. Funny, most of the research that does highlight the connection between vaccines and degenerative diseases IS done by independent bodies. But, according to you, any research that does find such a link is, in principle, suspect; while research claiming otherwise, by corrupt institutions like the CDC, is automatically airtight, regardless of how flawed it really is. Let me show you.

You said:

“This paper [National Autism Prevalence Trends From United States Special Education Data -
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15741352 ] does not indicate a vaccine/autism link. It simply concludes that at least a portion of the increase occurring across a nine year period is due to something other than changes in diagnostic criteria. It specifically recognized that diagnostic criteria did have a detectable effect on prevalence.”

What this paper DOES show is that the rate of autism rose with a near-perfect correlation to the rise is vaccination rates in the U.S. Earlier you referenced the Japanese paper which correlated MMR withdrawal with rates of autism; however, based on this evidence, it would be wise to at least consider the role that ALL vaccines could play. Correlation can be misleading, sure, but in this case it is certainly compelling enough to at least warrant more research.

Sure, changes in diagnostic criteria probably had some effect. Most likely, however, it served to ultimately *lower* the relative reported prevalence, since we learned a lot about the disorder and criteria were tightened as a result. Whatever the case, we agree that a substantial “unexplained” rise did occur. Why do you refuse to acknowledge the strong evidence (based on the undeniable correlation between rising vaccination rates in the late 80’s-early 90’s, and rising rates of autism) that vaccines COULD HAVE been involved?

“Late onset autism (starting in the second year) was almost unheard of in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. Today, such cases outnumber early onset cases by five to one, with the increase paralleling the increase in required vaccines… It is ludicrous to claim that the link between many causes of autism and vaccination is just coincidental.

“As a full-time professional research scientist for 50 years, and as a researcher in the field of autism for 45 years, I have been shocked and chagrined by the medical establishment’s ongoing efforts to trivialize the solid and compelling evidence that faulty vaccination policies are the root cause of the epidemic. There are many consistent lines of evidence implicating vaccines…” --Dr. Bernard Rimland, President of the US Autism Research Institute, after a thorough analysis of the ARI database

You said:

“This paper [Evidence of Toxicity, Oxidative Stress, and Neuronal Insult in Autism -
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17090484 ] also provides no empirical data showing a link between vaccines and autism. The closest it comes is mentioning that there is a THEORY that chronic subclinical or subsequent insults could underly autism. The author does not conclude these things DO lead to autism, nor does she state that others' results provide a link.”

I posted this paper to corroborate the findings of Blaylock et al., which DOES explicitly state and provide empirical evidence that autism can be caused by toxicity, oxidative stress from chronic immune activation, and neuronal insult. Yes, this remains a THEORY, but it’s still only a THEORY that HIV=AIDS for instance, though this has been exhaustively criticised.

[In this connection, perhaps you can explain this, since yer so smart: Why is it that if you register HIV antibodies in your blood, you’re considered “HIV+”, which is like pronouncing a death sentence in the medical world… but if you read positive for antibodies to viruses you’re vaccinated with (using the same or similar tests- Western Blot, ELISA, etc.), you’re considered “successfully immunized”? Which is it?

If your answer is the mysterious (and unproven) gp120 epitope, HIV’s alleged camouflage in the form of envelope/coat proteins that your immune system can't recognize, then perhaps you’d agree that the ambiguous nature of these antigens or outer coat proteins can lead to a high incidence of false positives. I.e., the test registers HIV presence based on reacting with a similar epitope, being fooled in a similar way to the immune system. Moreover, would this problem of unreliability not be shared by all antibody tests to some degree, meaning that confirmation with two or more different types of antibody tests can not necessarily be trusted? But we can’t let this get in the way of our blind embrace of the HIV-AIDS paradigm, regardless of how many holes it has…]

Clearly, some theories remain “theoretical” near-indefinitely, while others are adopted immediately in the absence of any sufficient evidence, for reasons that have more to do with politics than science.

Furthermore, scientists jeopardize their reputations, and possibly their careers, by taking a strong stance on “the wrong side” of controversial matters. It’s much safer to take the more conservative position. Anyways, any time I provide a paper that does come to more definitive conclusions, you dismiss it as “anti-vaccine”; but if I provide one that hedges its bets, you totally dismiss that it supports the autism-vaccine hypothesis in the least.

Sounds like the medical authorities: any time a study points to a vaccine-autism link (for instance), “more research is needed”—none will ever be enough. But any study that does not indicate a strong direct link is greeted with “no further research is needed”—an incredibly nonscientific and suspicious recommendation. But I do agree that the current amount of research is inadequate—either due to underfunding, or due to incredibly poor study design that seems deliberately designed to mask the vaccine-autism link. More on that later.

You said:

“Again, this study [I assume you’re referring to Large Brains in Autism: The Challenge of Pervasive Abnormality -
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16151044 ] did not link vaccination with autism. It did attempt to demonstrate that heavy metals were linked, but did not suggest that vaccination was the cause in any of the associated cases… The authors specifically concluded that the environmental causes for autism are probably many, and the population which is affected is probably susceptible in different ways.”

You are right, this study didn’t explicitly mention vaccination as linked to autism. However, once again it supports the research of Blaylock and other scientists, who DO have the guts to point to the apparent connection between autism and high vaccination rates. Also, this study identifies that autism is a form of encephalopathy.

But I do agree that autism is linked to a variety of chronic and acute environmental stresses, which interplay to increase susceptibility. The paper notes: ‘Oxidative stress, brain inflammation, and microgliosis have been much documented in association with toxic exposures including various heavy metals, pesticides, and air pollution (Kim and others 2002; Zurich and others 2002; Campbell 2004; Ling and others 2004; Shanker and others 2004; Filipov and others 2005).’ This mentions the main proposed mechanism of Blaylock et al. for how vaccines can lead to autism, and lists some other likely co-factors.

According to Dr. Donald J. Cohen & Fred Volkmar, “It is clear that the preponderance of available evidence suggests the importance of multiple biologic factors acting through one or more mechanisms to produce the autistic syndrome.”

According to the paper ‘Multiple Causes of Autism Spectrum Disorders’ (http://www.thenhf.com/article.php?id=367): “There is, for instance, information associating autistic disorders with the use of an artificial hormone (Pitocin) which is given to pregnant women to induce or speed up labor. [11] [It comes from the pituitary glands of cattle, and is used to stimulate the gravid uterus to contract]… Dr Eric Hollander of New York’s Mount Sinai School of Medicine, a physician who specializes in treating autistic kids, reported noticing that 60% of the autistic patients in his clinic had been exposed to this drug as a fetus. [12]”

Later on, it points out: “Speaking about the rise of autism Dr. George Malcolm Morley and Eileen Nicole Simon PhD. say, ‘We propose that increased incidence of autism, infant anemia, childhood mental disorders and hypoxic ischemic brain damage, all originate at birth from immediate umbilical cord clamping. The influence of new environmental exposures, such as iatrogenic birth traumas, such as interruption of placental transfusion at birth, cannot be discounted.’ [19]”

This quote from Dr Rashid Buttar provides some insight: “The underlying common denominator in chronic neurodegenerative disease seems to be either decreasing vascular supply (less blood to the brain) or accumulation of heavy metals, specifically mercury.”

Continuing, “Most recently research is giving us one more reason to favor natural birth over Caesarean section that has implications for later development of neurological problems. A natural birth provides a baby with better protection against diseases and allergies than if it is born by Caesarean section, according to researchers at Glasgow University, who discovered that the gut of babies who had been delivered normally contained higher levels of "friendly" bacteria, such as bifidobacteria. These are particularly important, as they are the first bacteria to enter a child's digestive system and play a crucial role in developing the immune system. [9] …With many indications that autism and immune system weakness are related, we have every reason in the world to favor natural birth.”

So here are a number of feasible mechanisms that could contribute to autism development, consisting of well-meaning medical interventions aside from vaccination. Another fascinating hypothesis is presented in the paper ‘How Electromagnetically-Induced Cell Leakage May Cause Autism’ (http://www.citizensforsafetechnology.org/How-ElectromagneticallyInduced-Cell-Leakage-May-Cause-Autism,16,977):

“There has been a 60-fold increase in ASD in recent years, which cannot be accounted for by improvements in diagnostic methods and can only be explained by changes in the environment. This increase corresponds in time to the proliferation of mobile telecommunications, WiFi, and microwave ovens as well as extremely low frequency fields (ELF) from mains wiring and domestic appliances. We can now explain this in terms of electromagnetically-induced membrane leakage leading to brain hyperactivity and abnormal brain development…

“Neurons transmit information between one another in the form of chemical neurotransmitters that pass across the synapses where they make contact. However, the release of these is normally triggered by a brief pulse of calcium entering the cell. If the membrane is leaky due to electromagnetic exposure, it will already have a high internal calcium concentration as calcium leaks in from the much higher concentration outside. The effect of this is to put the cells into hair-trigger mode so that they are more likely to release neurotransmitters and the brain as a whole may become hyperactive (Beason and Semm 2002; Krey and Dolmetsch 2007, Volkow et al. 2011)…”

And then, according to beyondpesticides.org, “At publication, the database lists 5 studies linking pesticides to autism. A study published in the October 2007 issue of Environmental Health Perspectives shows that children born to mothers living near agricultural fields, where organochlorine pesticides, specifically endosulfan and dicofol, are applied during their first trimester of pregnancy, are six times more likely to have children that develop autism.”

The scientists conclude that the “possibility of a connection between gestational exposure to organochlorine pesticides and autism spectrum disorders requires further study.” [ http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/info:doi/10.1289/ehp.10168 ]

So here we have yet two more plausible mechanisms, which perhaps have not been explored due to the major economic ramifications of doing so. Keep in mind that the fact that there are multiple possibilities as to what contributes to autism in no way diminishes the vast body of evidence implicating vaccination.

Indeed, according to Donald Miller, MD: “Another important factor with regard to mercury on the mind, which officials at the CDC, FDA and the professors in the IOM do not consider, is synergistic toxicity - mercury's enhanced effect when other poisons are present. A small dose of mercury that kills 1 in 100 rats and a dose of aluminum that will kill 1 in 100 rats, when combined have a striking effect: all the rats die. Doses of mercury that have a 1 percent mortality will have a 100 percent mortality rate if some aluminum is there. Vaccines contain aluminum.”

Note that this refers to one of the major flaws in the assumption that animal testing protects humans—toxicological testing rarely considers the effects of multiple compounds or challenges in conjunction. Normally it just looks at one discreet factor, in a hopelessly naïve “all-or-nothing” kind of mentality. Perhaps this is why you are having trouble wrapping your mind around the utter inadequacy of the studies you have been promoting.

You said:

“…Furthermore, other studies have repeated this [Detection and Sequencing of Measles Virus from Peripheral Mononuclear Cells from Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease and Autism - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10759242 ] with a larger number of subjects and not obtained the same outcome.

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0003140#pone.0003140-Uhlmann1”

First of all, this study isn’t THAT big—only 25 participants. Wakefield et al. conducted a much larger study in 2002 (Uhlmann V., Martin C, Shiels, Wakefield AJ, O.Leary JJ. Possible viral pathogenesis of a novel paediatric inflammatory bowel disease. Molecular Pathology 2002;55:84-90), which found measles in 75 of 91 biopsies from autistic children with GI inflammation, and in only 5 of 70 samples from non-autistic children. The Hornig et al. study also uses Professor O’Leary’s laboratory to obtain its results, confirming it with two other labs, thus verifying its validity in the 2002 study.

Why the different results? For one, this study is looking for *persistent* measles virus infection, and all but one of the subjects were given a biopsy more than six months after receipt of MMR. (“Children reported by parents to have received MV immunization within 6 months of planned biopsy [in accord with pediatric provider immunization charts] were excluded.”) Inability to find measles virus thus only indicates that the infection is not persistent, and in no way rules out the possibility that the virus had a ‘hit-and-run’ effect, causing damage and then being excreted, which is how many pathogens and toxins have their effect.

Also, the study uses nonparametric statistical methods, which are far less robust than parametric models. Why it does so is unclear, but it should be noted that using nonparametric standards could be used to weaken an association that is apparent using parametric methods. I’m not saying this DID happen—it’s impossible to tell—but it is really curious that the authors would choose to use the weaker methodology.

Also, this study only looks at five children who were specifically noted to have regressed following MMR vaccination—even less than the eight of Wakefield’s original 1998 study. Incidentally, this was the main grounds for your dismissal of Wakefield’s study, that it relied on “unquantifiable things like parent recollection”. (You also claim that “his accounts in the paper not match the original patient records”, which comes from Brian Deer, a presstitute who seems to have no other job but to try to discredit Wakefield, and should have had no legal way to even access the patient records he claims to possess).

First of all, most of these cases were confirmed by a qualified professional. But anyways, nobody is really more qualified to assess their own child’s development than the parents, who spend more time with them than anyone else.

And don’t you find it the TINIEST bit strange that children can be developing normally, passing all their milestones, and then suddenly they start to regress, sometimes almost immediately after receipt of MMR or DPT, etc.? For a child to *regress* is VERY abnormal… even though we’ve become somewhat used to the idea, since it happens so often these days.

And we have re-challenge in many of these cases too—parents note regression after the first vaccine, but they either don’t immediately jump to conclusions, or else they are coerced to give boosters by overzealous health authorities, and they note further deterioration after the booster. These are very strong indications that the vaccine is causally related. These parents aren’t stupid, or hysterical, or any of the other condescending labels given to them by people like you who have a knee-jerk reaction to dismiss their testimony.

This reminds me of a quote by Dr Irwin Bross: “By science and common sense, when epidemiological studies of humans are positive and laboratory studies of animals are negative, it is prudent public health practice to accept the human evidence as a guide. My employer, the New York State Health Department, not only disregarded the human evidence of the dumpsite hazards, it harassed me into early retirement from the state service.”

Yes, anecdotal evidence should be taken with a grain of salt, which is why we need PROPERLY CONDUCTED epidemiological and clinical studies to assess what these reports mean. Hornig et al.’s study does not provide enough evidence to draw any solid conclusions. But, for the sake of argument, let’s assume that it is sufficient.

It states: “If MMR is causally related to either GI disturbances or AUT it should precede their onset. Similarly, if GI disturbances contribute to AUT they should precede onset of AUT. We approached temporal relationships in the following manner: subjects with MMR administration and GI onset in the same month were considered to have MMR administration before the onset of GI episodes; subjects with GI episode and AUT onset within the same month were considered to have GI onset before AUT onset; and subjects with MMR and AUT onset within the same month were considered to have MMR onset before the onset of AUT.”

Note that this refers to the use of nonparametric standards; under parametric standards, we could have looked at data spanning a longer time period than a month, which would have given us a more complete interpretation of the data.

Anyways, “Only 5 of 25 subjects (20%) had received MMR before the onset of GI complaints and had also had onset of GI episodes before the onset of AUT (P = 0.03).” So, if these results can be extrapolated to the general population, can we then conclude that “only” 20% of children are at risk from developing autism after MMR? Surely you will cry foul—after all, this study is inadequate to conclude much of ANYTHING—it certainly does nothing to disprove Wakefield et al.’s findings.

You said:

“…Just looking at this paper [A Case Series of Children with Apparent Mercury Toxic Encephalopathies Manifesting with Clinical Symptoms of Regressive Autistic Disorder - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17454560 ] at face value...the author wrongly concludes that thimerosal from vaccines is the only source of mercury which the children may have been exposed to based on simple polls of fish consumption and amalgam fillings (there are faaaaaaaar more potential sources of exposure than just these things). Even his analysis of fish consumption was pathetic. He did not check to see if they ate any blacklisted fish, nor did he ascertain what fish was eaten. There are a number of fish that would be considered to be dangerous to eat once per week as the author allowed. Also, this allows for a mother to easily be exposed to more mercury per week than they'd be exposed to from a vaccine…”

My, how meticulous. I wonder, where were your criticisms of the Japanese study you mentioned earlier, which failed to take into account environmental mercury exposures, or indeed ANYTHING other than MMR receipt. Surely you must concede that the Japanese data, which have been widely claimed to serve as a conclusive basis to reject any link between vaccination and autism, in fact do no such thing.

And anyways, since you seem to recognize that mercury is indeed a danger, why do you have no problem with the fact that kids were routinely used as a repository for amounts of ethylmercury far in excess of EPA guidelines for methylmercury exposure in their developing years? You remind me of this quote from George Orwell’s 1984: “How do you talk to the lunatic who gives your arguments a fair hearing, then persists in his lunacy?” Freedom is the freedom to say 2+2=4, comrade.

Indeed, according to a 2001 IOM Immunization Safety Review, ‘TCVs and Neurodevelopmental Disorders’ [http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10208&page=76 ]: "The committee recommends research on how children, including those diagnosed with neurodevelopmental disorders, metabolize and excrete metals, particularly mercury… The committee recommends continued research on theoretical modeling of ethylmercury exposures, including the incremental burden of thimerosal on background mercury from other sources."

Please note that the CDC *failed* to follow up on these very sensible recommendations, leaving it to concerned independent researchers like the Geiers. Perhaps your criticism has some validity, but if so, why aren’t you attacking the CDC, which didn’t do ANYTHING WHATSOEVER to research this? Your double standards are really starting to get on my nerves.

You continue:

“In all, it's really short-sighted, and not surprising considering these two sell a very expensive treatment that attempts to "cure" autism using a chemical that is usually used to castrate sex offenders.”


Speaking of short-sighted, how could someone with your level of expertise fail to grasp the basic importance of the dose-response relationship? I’m sure that you would point this out to me if I noted, for instance, that pertussis vaccine is used to induce allergic encephalomyelitis in laboratory animals (for ex.: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1904045/).

Now mind you, I’ve already expressed my preference for non-drug treatments, but the link between autism and testosterone is well-established, so I can see how judicious use of this drug could have benefits. I have no direct experience with it in this clinical context, but neither do you, or any of the people in the article you cite.

You said:

…………………………………

Oh wait, you never did respond to the report ‘Hepatitis B triple series vaccine and developmental disability in US children aged 1-9 years’ [available @- http://sanevax.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Gallagher-HepB-ASD-study121.pdf ], which states: "This study found statistically significant evidence to suggest that boys in United States who were vaccinated with the triple series Hepatitis B vaccine, during the time period in which vaccines were manufactured with thimerosal, were more susceptible to developmental disability than were unvaccinated boys."

Perhaps you were hoping that if you flooded the page with enough noise, I would overlook that you neglected to address this study, which strains even your epic bullshitting capabilities to explain away.

You said:

“I'll just say it was very appropriate to make that title a question [Mercury and autism: Accelerating Evidence? -
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16264412 ], and it's never a good sign when a scientific paper alleges a conspiracy during the introduction. Citing Geier repeatedly also does little to support the credibility of the writer as they clearly did not evaluate the strength of their sources.”

First off, I’ll reiterate that you have provided no valid reason to question the integrity of the Geiers. With regards to this alleged conspiracy, this paper notes:

“It is of public interest to ask, why thimerosal and dental amalgam, which both consist of about 50% of the most toxic nonradioactive element [16] and, in the case of amalgam, additionally of other heavy metals (eg. tin, copper, silver, zinc), have been used since 70 and 170 years, respectively, and, have been allowed to bypass governmental toxicological testing. It must be noted that until today no controlled, randomized study regarding the safety of amalgam or thimerosal exists.

“Such a future study should consider mercury exposure through pregnancy and vaccinations, because these exposures seem to be crucial in the pathogenesis of autism [17,18]. Furthermore, there is no single study, which compares the health of individuals exposed versus *never* exposed to mercury (from amalgam or thimerosal) with the exception of the one by Mortada et al. [19]… Against this background it is interesting to note that several scientists from the FDA, NIH, and CDC may have been influenced by vaccine manufacturers or dental boards [15, 20–24].

“Despite this information, the Institute of Medicine of the U.S. concluded recently that there is no relationship between thimerosal and autism, and that no further studies should be conducted to evaluate the relationship between thimerosal and autism [25].

“This was done in spite of several biological studies reporting thimerosal to have toxic properties that made it a major suspect for the recent autism epidemic. There were no biological studies presented that did not show major toxic effects of thimerosal. Thus, it is pertinent to question why the CDC committee suggested no further research and emphasize the importance of carefully paying attention to published and unpublished data and note pertinent conflicts of interest.”

These are all excellent points, which you have provided no satisfactory answers for. All you’ve managed to do is point out that a conspiracy is IMPLIED by these FACTS. Presumably, simply by using the word “conspiracy”, it lumps the whole report in with “tin foil hat” nutjobs, thus giving you a free pass from actually having to explain things that you CAN’T account for.

The *ironic* thing is, in response to a subsequent report [Mercury in Medicine - Taking Unnecessary Risks] YOU state, “Ironically, this is exactly how I'd describe the situation.” This report concludes: “Our public health agencies' failure to act is indicative of institutional malfeasance for self-protection and misplaced protectionism of the pharmaceutical industry.” This ‘alleges a conspiracy’ FAR more incisively than the ‘Accelerating Evidence’ paper. Soooo… are we in agreement now?

Oh, don’t worry, I’m just gettin’ started.

Part II:
http://bitterbonker.livejournal.com/91997.html


Previous 10