A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I meant moral of story. Sorry. I knew it didn't sound right.

No, you meant immoral of the story.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nope, I'm not weaseling. You seem to throw that word around like you throw the word liar around. When someone is on trial, the prosecutors use this tactic. They try to narrow the responses that a person can make down to a minimum to give the impression that there is only one possible explanation for what happened so that the jury will find them GUILTY AS CHARGED! That is similar to what people were doing here; trying to manipulate the questions in such a way that it would look like the claim of efferent vision had to be wrong.

How am I throwing the word around? You've already admitted to weaseling. Quoted above is your own explanation and attempted justification for why you weasel. It's a bit late to try to deny it now.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

How am I throwing the word around? You've already admitted to weaseling. Quoted above is your own explanation and attempted justification for why you weasel. It's a bit late to try to deny it now.

Because I'm not weaseling out of every answer. I may have weaseled out of posts where I was expected to come up with an answer, so I did even though I wasn't sure of the answer. I did that because in the early days of this thread I believed people would have used the fact that I couldn't answer the question, because I lacked expertise in that area, as another reason (among many) to discredit the book --- which in reality does no such thing. At this point I really don't care if people dismiss the book for unsound reasons. If they want to find a reason they will, and if they don't want to find a reason they won't.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because I'm not weaseling out of every answer.

I didn't say you do. I'm asking you about the many instances in which you have weaseled. Why do it? Wouldn't you rather be the kind of person who doesn't weasel when faced with a difficult question? Wouldn't you rather be honest and direct at all times? Wouldn't that be better?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I may have weaseled out of posts where I was expected to come up with an answer, so I did even though I wasn't sure of the answer. I did that because in the early days of this thread I believed people would have used the fact that I couldn't answer the question, because I lacked expertise in that area, as another reason (among many) to discredit the book --- which in reality does no such thing.

Did that really justify your weaseling? Or do you agree that there were better things you could have done? Where you had guessed at an answer and come up with something wrong, wouldn't it have been better to own up to the mistake and either try again or honestly admit that you don't know the answer? If your lack of expertise in an area doesn't amount to a good reason to discredit the book, couldn't you have just said so whilst being honest and direct about your lack of knowledge? Wouldn't that have reflected better upon both you and Lessans than deliberately weaseling and being evasive?

And you seem to think that your weaseling days are all in the distant efferent past. What about your more recent weaseling? For instance, when LadyShea asks a direct Yes or No question about whether autism rates have or have not decreased, why is it that you still weasel instead of answering? It can hardly be because people will discredit the book, for you are no longer even discussing the book. So why weasel?

[ceptimus]

No sensible scientist claims that vaccines are perfectly safe and totally free from side-effects and adverse reactions.

What they do claim is that having the vaccine is safer than not having it. Surely this is all that matters?

Refusing vaccines is like refusing to wear your seatbelt - sure, there are some freak accidents where you would be safer NOT wearing your belt - but in the vast majority of accidents you're safer wearing your belt than not.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because I'm not weaseling out of every answer.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I didn't say you do. I'm asking you about the many instances in which you have weaseled. Why do it? Wouldn't you rather be the kind of person who doesn't weasel when faced with a difficult question? Wouldn't you rather be honest and direct at all times? Wouldn't that be better?

No, because people will take my lack of expertise in a particular area and use it to conclude that Lessans' claims are false, which is untrue. It's false reasoning on their part. It's just like the prosecutor trying to corner the defendant so that it looks as if there is no other explanation possible.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I may have weaseled out of posts where I was expected to come up with an answer, so I did even though I wasn't sure of the answer. I did that because in the early days of this thread I believed people would have used the fact that I couldn't answer the question, because I lacked expertise in that area, as another reason (among many) to discredit the book --- which in reality does no such thing.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Did that really justify your weaseling? Or do you agree that there were better things you could have done? Where you had guessed at an answer and come up with something wrong, wouldn't it have been better to own up to the mistake and either try again or honestly admit that you don't know the answer?

Of course, and that's what I normally do, but I feel pressured in here as a representative of my father to answer all questions and to answer them all correctly because I know how people are judging me, and by association, his knowledge. It's not fair.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If your lack of expertise in an area doesn't amount to a good reason to discredit the book, couldn't you have just said so whilst being honest and direct about your lack of knowledge? Wouldn't that have reflected better upon both you and Lessans than deliberately weaseling and being evasive?

Maybe, but I didn't believe that and I still don't. I believe that people have judged him harshly as a result of the belief that his knowledge did not come from physics per se, and the fact that I don't know all of the answers to certain physics questions, gives people the wrong impression regarding his capabilities and how his findings came about. What can I say? People refuse to take this knowledge seriously. It's a sad state of affairs.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And you seem to think that your weaseling days are all in the distant efferent past. What about your more recent weaseling? For instance, when LadyShea asks a direct Yes or No question about whether autism rates have or have not decreased, why is it that you still weasel instead of answering? It can hardly be because people will discredit the book, for you are no longer even discussing the book. So why weasel?

I was not weaseling. I could not give a yes or no answer because the Danish study that concluded autism rates have gone up since thermiosal was removed has been shown to be flawed.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

No sensible scientist claims that vaccines are perfectly safe and totally free from side-effects and adverse reactions.

What they do claim is that having the vaccine is safer than not having it. Surely this is all that matters?

But they don't know that it is safer to get the vaccine than not, for some children, which is the problem.

Originally Posted by Ceptimus

Refusing vaccines is like refusing to wear your seatbelt - sure, there are some freak accidents where you would be safer NOT wearing your belt - but in the vast majority of accidents you're safer wearing your belt than not.

I don't think that's a good analogy because wearing one's seatbelt correctly saves the majority of lives. There is no large subset of children who were better off not wearing seatbelts, except in extremely rare cases. You cannot say the same thing for vaccines, especially as they finding a correlation between vaccines and a number of disabling conditions.

[LadyShea]

Infant Development Of The Blood-brain Barrier | LIVESTRONG.COM

Prior to research completed in 2010, scientists believed that the blood-brain barrier was not fully developed until well after birth. Researchers announced in 2010 that studies prove the blood-brain barrier is fully developed before birth.

Prior to 2010, scientists believed that the blood-brain barrier did not develop until after birth, based on the belief that astrocytes did not develop until after birth. Researchers at Stanford University and the University of California, San Francisco, discovered in 2010 that pericytes, not astrocytes, are required for blood-brain barrier development and that pericytes are present in the fetal brain. The research proves that your infant's blood-brain barrier is fully developed well before birth.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, because people will take my lack of expertise in a particular area and use it to conclude that Lessans' claims are false, which is untrue. It's false reasoning on their part. It's just like the prosecutor trying to corner the defendant so that it looks as if there is no other explanation possible.

So you think under those circumstances, dishonestly evading questions and weaseling is actually a better tactic than being direct and honest? Let me ask you this: Did it work? Were people actually any less critical of Lessans and his claims when you weaseled out of answering awkward questions?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course, and that's what I normally do, but I feel pressured in here as a representative of my father to answer all questions and to answer them all correctly because I know how people are judging me, and by association, his knowledge. It's not fair.

What has actually happened in those cases where you honestly admitted to not knowing something instead evading and weaseling? Has the outcome been all that terrible? Has it been any worse than when you've evaded and weaseled out of answering? Has anyone ever criticized you or your father on the grounds that you've admitted to not knowing an answer to something?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Maybe, but I didn't believe that and I still don't. I believe that people have judged him harshly as a result of the belief that his knowledge did not come from physics per se, and the fact that I don't know all of the answers to certain physics questions, gives people the wrong impression regarding his capabilities and how his findings came about. What can I say? People refuse to take this knowledge seriously. It's a sad state of affairs.

You didn't believe and still don't believe what? What impression do you think you give when you evade and weasel? Do you think it is a better or worse impression than when you honestly admit to not knowing something?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I was not weaseling. I could not give a yes or no answer because the Danish study that concluded autism rates have gone up since thermiosal was removed has been shown to be flawed.

How did that prevent you from directly answering the question? Do you not realize that 'I don't know' would have been a better response than simply ignoring and evading the question?

[thedoc]

[quote=peacegirl;1160132]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

I don't think that's a good analogy because wearing one's seatbelt correctly saves the majority of lives. There is no large subset of children who were better off not wearing seatbelts, except in extremely rare cases. You cannot say the same thing for vaccines, especially as they finding a correlation between vaccines and a number of disabling conditions.

It's a very good analogy, the great majority of people exposed to a disease are protected from disease by the vaccine as the great majority of people in an accident are protected from injury by the seat belts. There are a small number of people who are adversely effected by the vaccine, and there are only a few accidents where wearing seat belts is less safe.

Your whole argument has been that those few who are effected by the vaccine should dictate the actions of the many who would be helped by the vaccine. If you were ever in an auto accident where the seat belts were a hindrance to your safety, you would be actively campaigning to repeal the seat belt law.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't think that's a good analogy because wearing one's seatbelt correctly saves the majority of lives. There is no large subset of children who were better off not wearing seatbelts, except in extremely rare cases. You cannot say the same thing for vaccines, especially as they finding a correlation between vaccines and a number of disabling conditions.

Do you have any comparative statistics showing the percentage of people adversely affected by vaccines to be higher than the percentage of people adversely affected by seatbelts? Or is this yet another instance where you think it would be wise to go with gut feeling and emotion rather than actual evidence?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I was not weaseling. I could not give a yes or no answer because the Danish study that concluded autism rates have gone up since thermiosal was removed has been shown to be flawed.

That's a weasel right there! Since when are you relying on scientific studies, from other countries no less, to form your opinions?

Do you think, from your own reading and research of alternative health and anti-vax literature, that autism rates have increased, decreased, or stayed steady?

You've been arguing that kids are weaker and sicker and have more problems today than ever before...but you've been sort of vague using "chronic issues". Is autism one of them or not, from what you gather from your reading?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can only offer you what I have read and what I believe may have some truth behind it.

I am sure you read both because you've posted from both

I snipped the rest of your post for not being a relevant response to my points.

[Vivisectus]

My using the wrong word (mutation) has nothing to do with anything else. You can easily conclude anything you want if you are bent on finding some detail to try to derail everything and anything I have to say. If that's the case, you can build an enormous case against me and my father or my views on vaccines, but one or two or even three trivial mistakes does not a disaccreditation make.

I think you need to be accredited first in order to be dis-accredited.[/quote]

I am not here to be credited with anything. Only facts can speak for themselves, and if you can't see the facts, or if you are afraid to admit that the facts don't support your cause, that is not my responsibility.[/QUOTE]

Then you are talking nonsense again. Gotcha.

This error on her part did not negate her entire argument. Why can't you admit that? There is enough permeability in the BBB to give her credit that thimerosal could seep into the brain and cause disturbances. Whether it can be excreted by the liver in time without causing permanent damage is questionable and secondary to the primary question of whether thimerosal had anything to do with autistic symptoms in a subset of children.

I am not talking about her, I am talking about you and you lack of very basic bio-medical knowledge. As evidenced by the waffle you just posted. You actually don't know anything at all about a BBB and how it works, or about mercury in it's different forms and it's effects on the human body. Youa re just repeating some stuff you read and never adequately checked up on, and adding some blather of your own.

If you were an anti-vax blogger, someone else who also lacks such knowledge would probably repeat it again, with added bits of "common sense". And so on and so on. We can see this happens: you did it yourself when you repeated that ladies nonsense about infants, BBB's and bile.

The word I used did not negate every single article that has been written about the dangers of thimerosal and whether it has contributed to autism. I am not saying it has or it hasn't, but the studies do not rule it out even though the FDA and CDC are trying to convince the public (who they must think are ignorant sheep) otherwise.

I think you forgot to include a point in that paragraph. You sure did manage to inclide a lot of unsupported claims.

That is true, it is a matter of choosing which risk to run. The only difference is that if I choose not to inject my child with a vaccine because I am more confident in nature and the immune system working on my child's behalf as long as I am able to give him a healthy environment, I would not feel nearly as responsible had I given my child an injection (a direct line to his bloodstream and brain) that caused undue harm to his developing body.

"More confident in nature"

You basically say not vaccinating it would make you feel better, no matter what the actual facts or risks are. What a selfish approach.

By the way, none of this answers my question, which you seem anxious to avoid: given the examples of what happened, do you feel competent to reach these conclusions?

I don't have to have a perfectly made decision to take a wait and see approach. As long as the science cannot prove that every child being given these vaccines is safe, I am justified in my concern and no government body is going to convince me otherwise or mandate me to stick my child with a potential time bomb.

No, you are not "justified" in your concern. You consistently fail to come up with a justification other than an emotional one: it makes you feel nicer to avoid the scary chemicals even though you have no clear rational reason to do so.

And that is your choice as a parent to make. As far as comparing this discussion with his claim regarding efferent vision (which I know everyone is trying to do so they can indict me with the inability to know what is true and what isn't), your believing in the validity of afferent vision is fine with me. I hope you at the very least take a wait and see approach until further proof comes in one way or the other. That's all I can do because nothing I say in defense of his claim will convince any of you that science may have been mistaken, and the same could be true for vaccines, although the damage already done by the vaccine industry could be incalculable.

You seem unable or unwilling to face the actual point once again. The "wait and see" approach is just an excuse to ignore evidence. But I am glad you agree that when you user your standard for determining what is true would also result in the flat earth being possibly true.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Infant Development Of The Blood-brain Barrier | LIVESTRONG.COM

Please dispute all of these findings, and show me where these researchers have it all wrong.

The findings summarized here call attention to plausible mechanisms by which some children regress into autism or other autism-spectrum disorders subsequent to vaccinations, especially after vaccination incidents wherein multiple vaccines were injected at virtually the same time.

Here are some quotes, citations, and abstracts in support of these concerns.

---------------

"The protective effect of the BBB is... lost during bacterial and viral infections." (1)

"TNF-alpha, IL-1beta, interferon gamma (IFN-gamma), or lipopolysaccharide (LPS)"... increased "the permeability of the tight junctions" of BBB endothelial cells (2)

Regarding MMR, "Interferon-gamma was the principal cytokine produced after primary measles immunization" (3), thus the MMR's pulse of interferon gamma (IFNg) is likely to increase BBB permeability.

"45% of a subgroup of children with autism suffers from low NK cell activity" (4),

Regarding MMR, "NK cells increased after immunization" (3), but NK activity reduced by the MMR has been described (5), and a large subgroup of autistic children has low NK cytotoxicity (5). These several findings suggest that autistic children may be more inclined towards reduced NK activity after MMR vaccinations.

Inferences from these 5 studies prompt concerns. For instance,
a) Given that IFNg increases BBB permeability (2) and the MMR induces an extended pulse of IFNg (3), would simultaneous injections of MMR and a thimerosal-containing vaccine increase the amount of mercury that enters the human brain?
b) Given that the MMR contains live viruses, and given that viruses increase BBB permeability (2), would simultaneous injections of MMR and a thimerosal-containing vaccine increase the amount of mercury that enters the human brain?
c) Given that a large subgroup of autistic children has reduced effectiveness of natural killer (NK) cells (4), and given that the MMR in healthy children causes an increase in NK activity (3), would children having impaired NK function (5) have atypical and suboptimal responses to MMR-related injections of live viruses?


References:

1: Blood brain barrier and infection.
Chaudhuri JD.
Med Sci Monit. 2000 Nov-Dec;6(6):1213-22.

The blood brain barrier (BBB) is a highly dynamic structure and consists of endothelial cells, which are characterized by the presence of tight junctions and relative lack of endocytic vesicles. The tight junctions are reinforced by the foot processes of the astrocytes. The BBB functions through these specialised structures, to maintain the environment of the brain in a steady state by regulating the influx and efflux of substances. The protective effect of the BBB is however, lost during bacterial and viral infections. The primary mechanism operative are an increase in the permeability of the BBB and/or direct invasion of the brain by microorganisms. Since the BBB is relatively impermeable to chemotherapeutic agents the treatment of CNS infections is difficult. This paper aims to examine the various mechanisms by which infection spreads to the brain, and suggest measures for successful drug delivery into the brain during infections.


2: Cytokines, nitric oxide, and cGMP modulate the permeability of an in vitro model of the human blood-brain barrier.
Wong D, Dorovini-Zis K, Vincent SR.
Exp Neurol. 2004 Dec;190(2):446-55.

The endothelial cells (EC) of the microvasculature in the brain form the anatomical basis of the blood-brain barrier (BBB). In the present study, the effects of agents that modify the permeability of a well-established in vitro model of the human BBB were studied. The monolayers formed by confluent human brain microvessel endothelial cell (HBMEC) cultures are impermeable to the macromolecule tracer horseradish peroxidase (HRP) and have high electrical resistance. Exposure of HBMEC to various cytokines including TNF-alpha, IL-1beta, interferon gamma (IFN-gamma), or lipopolysaccharide (LPS) decreased transendothelial electrical resistance (TEER) mainly by increasing the permeability of the tight junctions. Primary cultures of HBMEC express endothelial nitric oxide synthase (eNOS) and produce low levels of NO. Treatment with the NO donors sodium nitroprusside (SNP) and DETA NONOate or the cGMP agonist 8-Br-cGMP significantly increased monolayer resistance. Conversely, inhibition of soluble guanylyl cyclase with ODQ rapidly decreased the resistance, and pretreatment of HBMEC with Rp-8-CPT-cGMPS, an inhibitor of cGMP-dependent protein kinase, partially prevented the 8-Br-cGMP-induced increase in resistance. Furthermore, NO donors and 8-Br-cGMP could also reverse the increased permeability of the monolayers induced by IL-1beta, IFN-gamma, and LPS. These results indicate that NO can decrease the permeability of the human BBB through a mechanism at least partly dependent on cGMP production and cGMP-dependent protein kinase activation.

3. Kinetics of immunologic responses after primary MMR vaccination.
Pabst HF et al.
Vaccine. 1997 Jan;15(1):10-4.

To study the kinetics of humoral as well as cellular immunity to measles and to test for associated immunosuppression 124 12 month old children were studied twice, before routine MMR and either 14, 22, 30, or 38 days after vaccination. Plaque reduction neutralization (PRN) titres were determined at these time points and lymphocytes were evaluated to identify changes in proportions of phenotype, their capacity to generate cytokines and to respond to blast transformation (BT) to measles hemagglutinin (HA), tetanus toxoid and Candida antigen. The PRN titre and BT to HA plateaued at 30 days and CD8+ and NK cells increased after immunization. Interleukin 2, 4, and 10 showed no significant changes. There was mild suppression of BT at 14 and 22 days post-immunization Interferon-gamma was the principal cytokine produced after primary measles immunization, suggesting primary measles immunization induces predominantly a TH1 type response.


4: Low natural killer cell cytotoxic activity in autism: the role of glutathione, IL-2 and IL-15.
Vojdani A, Mumper E, Granpeesheh D, Mielke L, Traver D, Bock K, Hirani K, Neubrander J, Woeller KN, O'Hara N, Usman A, Schneider C, Hebroni F, Berookhim J, McCandless J.
J Neuroimmunol. 2008 Dec 15;205(1-2):148-54.

Although many articles have reported immune abnormalities in autism, NK cell activity has only been examined in one study of 31 patients, of whom 12 were found to have reduced NK activity. The mechanism behind this low NK cell activity was not explored. For this reason, we explored the measurement of NK cell activity in 1027 blood samples from autistic children obtained from ten clinics and compared the results to 113 healthy controls. This counting of NK cells and the measurement of their lytic activity enabled us to express the NK cell activity/100 cells. At the cutoff of 15-50 LU we found that NK cell activity was low in 41-81% of the patients from the different clinics. This NK cell activity below 15 LU was found in only 8% of healthy subjects (p <0.001). Low NK cell activity in both groups did not correlate with percentage and absolute number of CD16(+)/CD56(+) cells. When the NK cytotoxic activity was expressed based on activity/100 CD16(+)/CD56(+) cells, several patients who had displayed NK cell activity below 15 LU exhibited normal NK cell activity. Overall, after this correction factor, 45% of the children with autism still exhibited low NK cell activity, correlating with the intracellular level of glutathione. Finally, we cultured lymphocytes of patients with low or high NK cell activity/cell with or without glutathione, IL-2 and IL-15. The induction of NK cell activity by IL-2, IL-15 and glutathione was more pronounced in a subgroup with very low NK cell activity. We conclude that that 45% of a subgroup of children with autism suffers from low NK cell activity, and that low intracellular levels of glutathione, IL-2 and IL-15 may be responsible.


5. Natural killer cell activity during measles.
Griffin DE et al.
Clin Exp Immunol. 1990 Aug;81(2):218-24.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/pic...7&blobtype=pdf

Natural killer cells are postulated to play an important role in host anti-viral defences. We measured natural killer cell activity in 30 individuals with acute measles (73 +/- 21 lytic units (LU)/10(7) cells) and 16 individuals with other infectious diseases (149 +/- 95 LU) and found it reduced compared with values for adults (375 +/- 70 LU; P less than 0.001) or children (300 +/- 73 LU, P less than 0.01) without infection. Reduced natural killer cell activity was found in measles patients with (84 +/- 30 LU) and without (55 +/- 18 LU) complications and was present for at least 3 weeks after the onset of the rash. Activity was increased by in vitro exposure of cells to interleukin-2. Depressed natural killer cell activity parallels in time the suppression of other parameters of cell-mediated immunity that occurs during measles.
MMR's live viruses, interferon gamma, and blood-brain barrier permeability - Wellsphere

http://www.whale.to/vaccine/mmrs_live_viruses.html

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am sure you read both because you've posted from both

I snipped the rest of your post for not being a relevant response to my points.

What faction are you talking about? The Danish study became a model for vaccine makers because they believed it proved no connection between autism and thimerosal.

The important thing in evaluating this study is that exposure in the Danish population to Thimerosal varied considerably from that in the US. Danish children received 75 micrograms of mercury in their first 9 weeks and then another 50 micrograms at 10 months. By comparison, children in the US received 187.5 micrograms of mercury by the age of 6 months, nearly 2 1/2 times as much mercury as the Danish children.

Besides, Danish autism rates are six in 10,000, where in the US it is one in 167.

A case in point is the large-scale Danish study, published in Journal of the American Medical Society (JAMA) in September 2003, which found no link between thimerosal and autism.

The study is routinely cited as proof that the preservative is safe in vaccines. Soon after its publication, however, it was revealed that JAMA failed to disclose that the study’s authors work for Denmark’s largest maker and distributor of childhood vaccines—another company that could face lawsuits over thimerosal.

Danish study on autism-thimerosal flawed | Madison Record

[LadyShea]

I was addressing the one statement you posted, that the blood brain barrier isn't intact before 6 weeks of life.

You are welcome to refute the recent experimental findings that the BBB is fully intact before birth.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That's a weasel right there! Since when are you relying on scientific studies, from other countries no less, to form your opinions?

Do you think, from your own reading and research of alternative health and anti-vax literature, that autism rates have increased, decreased, or stayed steady?

You've been arguing that kids are weaker and sicker and have more problems today than ever before...but you've been sort of vague using "chronic issues". Is autism one of them or not, from what you gather from your reading?

I do not know if thimerosal alone could be the cause of autism, or whether it could be a combination of thimerosal and other ingredients in the vaccine, along with a predisposition among a certain group of children. This research is far from over LadyShea. I believe it is premature and irresponsible for government to state emphatically that there is no connection to autism and other related brain disorders.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What faction are you talking about?

One faction of anti-vaccinationers believes that the mercury was causal, and that autism is in decline due to its removal from vaccines. (This includes the Geiers and is what they presented at the UN conferences)

The other believes autism is a continuing epidemic, still on the rise, and wants research and support services to continue, so have backed off the mercury thing in favor of "too many, too soon" etc.

Which of these two positions do you hold?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I was addressing the one statement you posted, that the blood brain barrier isn't intact before 6 weeks of life.

You are welcome to refute the recent experimental findings that the BBB is fully intact before birth.

The BBB is a complex regulatory interface that possesses barrier, secretory, enzymatic, and transporter activities. Transmembrane diffusion, harnessing of transporters, adsorptive endocytosis, and extracellular pathways are some of the mechanisms being exploited for drug delivery. Unfortunately, our understanding of the BBB in many areas, especially those of saturable transport systems and vesicular pathways, is limited.

BMC Neurology | Full text | Characteristics of compounds that cross the blood-brain barrier

Neurotoxic adverse effects after systemic corticosteroid administration are elevated in preterm infants. To test whether this might be related to an immature blood-brain barrier (BBB) that permits corticosteroids to enter the brain and induce neurotoxic effects, this study assessed the differences in brain permeability of triamcinolone acetonide after intratracheal administration to neonatal (10- to 11-day-old) and adult rats. Triamcinolone acetonide (or the phosphate prodrug in the case of neonatal rats) was administered intratracheally to neonatal rats at doses of 2.5, 25, or 50 μg/kg and to adult rats at 100 μg/kg. An ex vivo receptor binding assay was used to monitor the cumulative brain and liver glucocorticoid receptor occupancies over 6 h. Brain and liver receptor occupancies in neonates were similar for the 25 and 50 μg/kg triamcinolone acetonide phosphate (brain/liver receptor occupancy ratio, 1.10 ± 0.14 and 0.87 ± 0.13, respectively), whereas some reduction in the brain permeability was seen at the lower dose. After intratracheal administration of 100 μg/kg triamcinolone acetonide to adult rats, receptor occupancies in the brain were significantly lower (brain/liver ratio, 0.21 ± 0.14; p < 0.001). The study demonstrated that glucocorticoids enter the brain of neonatal rats because of an immature BBB. The results of this study support the hypothesis that neurotoxic adverse effects in preterm infants after systemic corticosteroid administration might be related to an immature BBB.

CONTRARY TO ADULT, NEONATAL RATS SHOW PRONOUNCED BRAIN UPTAKE OF CORTICOSTEROIDS

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I do not know if thimerosal alone could be the cause of autism, or whether it could be a combination of thimerosal and other ingredients in the vaccine, along with a predisposition among a certain group of children. This research is far from over LadyShea.

So you haven't formed an opinion at all as to whether autism rates are declining, rising, or staying steady despite all this "research" you've been doing?

Does that indicate a complete lack of consensus and valid statistics amongst the anti-vax activists? Seriously, this is just a simple comparison of number of diagnoses, nobody you have read has these numbers?

Seems like just more weaseling on your part.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

One faction of anti-vaccinationers believes that the mercury was causal, and that autism is in decline due to its removal from vaccines. (This includes the Geiers and is what they presented at the UN conferences)

The other believes autism is a continuing epidemic, still on the rise, and wants research and support services to continue, so have backed off the mercury thing in favor of "too many, too soon" etc.

Which of these two positions do you hold?

I don't have a position yet. I am taking a cautionary approach until further evidence either supports or denies the correlation between thimerosal and brain insult in a subset of children.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Do you have any comparative statistics showing the percentage of people adversely affected by vaccines to be higher than the percentage of people adversely affected by seatbelts? Or is this yet another instance where you think it would be wise to go with gut feeling and emotion rather than actual evidence?

I did not research this; it's just an educated guess that the use of seatbelts has saved lives in most vehicle collisions than not, whereas you cannot say the same thing for vaccines if you include fatalities as well as "documented" injuries given by parents in those statistics. If you want to research seatbelt safety, be my guest. Let me know what you find.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I did not research this; it's just an educated guess that the use of seatbelts has saved lives in most vehicle collisions than not, whereas you cannot say the same thing for vaccines if you include fatalities as well as "documented" injuries given by parents in those statistics. If you want to research seatbelt safety, be my guest. Let me know what you find.

In what sense was it an educated guess???

You can indeed say exactly the same thing for vaccines as for seatbelts. They have both saved far more lives than they have taken. The percentage of people killed or injured by each is certainly very small in both cases.

[LadyShea]

preterm infants

Might this be a key term in reading that abstract?