Is it time to consider compulsory vaccinations?

Try not to be rude and stupid simultaneously. I never said I had faith in the research. What I did say is that I have no faith in the dirty stupid lies the anti-vaxxers drool out concerning the research. No ... it ... doesn't. Again, you are conflating how long the patients were studied with how long they lived despite the fact that I've just explained to you how fucking fucking fucking stupid that is, Faith, how droolingly stupid, how pitifully moronic, how grossly retarded. It cost me a lot of money to find out the facts you're ignoring.Look, if you suppose their reports of their results is fraudulent, then maybe they killed a thousand people, two kittens and a puppy, laughing maniacally the while. Who can say? But this would be a fantasy, a fabrication, a daydream unsupported by anything we actually know. And so is the idea that all 22 of the Merthiolate patients died. It's just something anti-vaxxers made up, Faith. It's not supported by any evidence, Faith. So to assert it as fact is gross incompetence or deliberate fraud, Faith.

Here's a reason: the total absence of credible evidence., plus the fact that he publicly stated that his employer has not treated him in such a way that he would deserve such status. But you'll believe they committed fraud anyway, right? No matter what he says. And there's your "whistleblower". Hooray!Perhaps we should look at the actual statistics rather than relying on your doubtful ability to spin events.

quote:

---

WHAT is an "utterly bogus claim?" The man confessed to fraud, what is it you are denying?

---

The assertion that he confessed to fraud is certainly bogus. He did no such thing.

Oh yes it does. Not to mention the fate of the others when specifically saying one lived 62 days is what would be unusual in any report. Oh really, all but the seven who died a day after being given Thimerosal recovered from the meningitis? Well, we know that because they aren't mentioned beyond a certain follow-up date presumably shorter than the 62 days B.H. survived, and they aren't mentioned because they weren't being studied and that's because they must have survived rather than dying? Who are you kidding?Did they really not SAY whether such and such a patient lived or died? Wouldn't that be odd? They did tally the numbers, 92 out of the 144 died, that means 52 survived the disease. Isn't it a bit odd that they didn't mention how many survived the Thimerosal?What are we to conclude? ONLY the seven reported to have died within a day of being given the Thimerosal are the ones who died, while B.H. died 62 days later of unknown causes, and all the rest of the 22, some 14, simply were not followed up after a certain date which implies they all survived? But of course it's ambiguous, they might have survived they might have died, but it's very very odd that it isn't reported which. It would be surpassingly odd if some 2/3 of that group survived and nobody commented on that unusual fact. I mean, of the total 144 who had meningitis we are told that 92, almost 2/3, DIED, so if 2/3 of those 22 who were dosed with Thimerosal survived wouldn't that be a strong indication that the injection might have been effective in their survival and wouldn't that have been major news?Are you thinking, Dr. A?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This isn't a confession of fraud, as reported in Message 831? Looks to me like an admission of fraud.

No. All papers omit some information. Fraud would be fabricating it. Apparently he feels that this information shouldn't have been omitted. This is a point of view.Let's try to be accurate.

No. If I say I followed up a patient for 62 days, it does not imply that all my other patients died in less than 61 days. They did give the lengths of time they followed up all the others. Why did you imagine that they didn't? Yes. I'm thinking that the length of time a doctor follows up a patient does not certainly, or even usually, correspond to how long they live. I'm also thinking how profoundly stupid it is for you to gratuitously invent details of the paper when I've read it and you haven't.

Omitting information is what the Verstraeten group did, through at least four attempts in which they kept eliminating more and more data showing autism in relation to vaccines, in order to arrive at a number they considered low enough to admit publically.Fraud isn't just fabrication but anything that misleads the reader to a false conclusion about the dangers involved, which is after all what the research is supposedly about.This is exactly what Thompson admitted to in his own research, and he expressed deep remorse over it and shame in relation to parents of autistic children, whose condition he RIGHTLY feels this fraudulent research may have contributed to.

it doesn't look like an admission of fraud to me. A disagreement on what should be reported is all he alleges.

The following are the number of days the patients were checked for side-effects after the merthiolate injection: 14 40 40 40 1 62 1 6 1 11 1 1 32 3 28 16 1 34 6 40 1 53.Some of them doubtless died shortly after admission, hence the 1s in the list. But someone who (for example) was admitted with meningitis, was given one shot of Merthiolate, has no reported symptoms of mercury poisoning, and is alive 53 days later, cannot reasonably be assumed to have died on the 54th day of meningitis or of mercury poisoning. That would be a daydream for which there is not a shred of evidence.

What makes you think the research would mislead the reader to a false conclusion, or that Thompson is right?

I didn't imagine that. I questioned the idea that they'd leave the question of whether a patient lived or died ambiguous at the cessation of follow-up. That makes no sense, and to do it implies a desire to hide something. I also questioned the idea that they might have survived beyond that follow-up date.Let me be more specific about that: Since seven died immediately after receiving the Thimerosal, that alone suggests its high toxicity. Which makes highly suspicious the statements of a lack of toxic effects in the others, all very sick people. This raises reasonable questions about how many lived and how many died, not to answer which is highly suspicious. IF the percentage of the 22 who survived past the last follow-up date was higher than the percentage of those in the entire study who survived the meningitis, that would suggest a beneficial effect from the Thimerosal which one would expect them to want to report. If the percentage was the same they would have no reason to hide it and it would make sense to state it rather than give a blanket assurance with no backup evidence. So I think we can conclude the survival rate of the 22 was less than that for the whole meningitis group. And if it was less they would certainly have noted that fact and not to report it suggests an interest in not revealing it. They've designed their statement so that we can't find out for sure, but the whole thing reeks of coverup to me. The best guess is that all 22 died, perhaps a few of the meningitis and not the Thimerosal but the majority most likely from the Thimerosal. And yet there was this experiment on 22 of them the results of which you'd think they'd be interested in reporting. But not, of course, if it killed them before their time. Believe I've merely drawn conclusions from the facts given, not invented any.

So as not to mislead people it is a fact that the study shows no link between vaccination and MMR overall. The only possible link is found in a subgroup.And it is a fact that Thompson does not dispute this nor allege that there is anything improper in the data or the analysis supporting that conclusion.So are you willing to accept that this study is evidence against vaccines causing a significant increase in autism in the general population?

What was the mortality of this form of Meningitis in the late 1920's? Were these patients all near death and this was a desperate attempt to save them?Sorry if this was already covered...Steve McQueen had major cancer and went to Mexico to try Leatril. He died anyway. Did Leatril kill him?

The paper was not completely ignored. Such as in A REVIEW OF THIMEROSAL (MERTHIOLATE) AND ITS ETHYLMERCURY BREAKDOWN PRODUCT: SPECIFIC HISTORICAL CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING SAFETY AND EFFECTIVENESS:

quote:

---

Morton et al. (1948), under a grant from the Council on Pharmacy and Chemistry of the American Medical Association, published an article on the bacteriostatic and bactericidal actions of some mercurial compounds on hemolytic streptococci. They reported:

quote:

---

The label on a bottle of ‘Solution Merthiolate, 1:1,000, Stainless’ purchased as recently as June 1947 states that it is ‘a stable, stainless, organic mercury compound of high germicidal value, particular in serum and other protein media.’ It is not highly germicidal and especially does not possess high germicidal value in the presence of serum and other protein mediums. The loss of antibacterial activity of mercurials in the presence of serum proves their incompatibility with serum . . . The comparative in vitro studies on mercurochrome, metaphen and Merthiolate on embryonic tissue cells and bacterial cells by Salle and Lazarus cannot be ignored. These investigators found that metaphen, Merthiolate and mercurochrome were 12, 35 and 262 times respectively more toxic for embryonic tissue cells than for Staphylococcus aureus. Nye and Welch also found the same three mercurial compounds more toxic for leukocytes than for bacterial cells. Not only is there direct toxic action of the mercurial compounds on the cellular and humoral components of the animal body, but there is also the possibility of sensitization. (p. 41)

---

---

And the 1948 Morton et. al. paper has 28 citations; not many, but also not totally ignored.So I sprang for the $30 to buy the paper. Is anyone other than Faith surprised that it's been totally misrepresented?Morton et. al. were testing the effectiveness of bactericides on a particular bacterium (hemolytic streptococcus strain C203M), NOT MERTHIOLATE TOXICITY. They grew the lil' critters in appropriate medium, added merthiolate at various concentrations, waited 24 hours, prepared diluted aliquots, injected the mice intraperitoneally (body cavity, not vein), many of the mice died. From many of the dead mice they took samples of heart blood, cultured them, and found streptococci in all of them. The mice died of acute streptococcal infection, not thimerosal.Table 3 summarizes the results: Note the "Merthiolate 1:1,000 Undiluted" and ""Merthiolate 1:1,000 1:2" lines . Those were both cases in which the streptococci were wiped out and the mice survived. Note also no testing with parts per billion of merthiolate; all testing was with parts per thousand. they do write of other tests with larger dilutions:

quote:

---

Finding that the marketed solutions of mercurochrome, metaphen and merthiolate failed to kill all the vegetative cells in a culture of hemolytic streptococci in vitro is not surprising in view of the results pub. lished by Hoyt, Fisk and Brde24 and Nye.25 It was to be expected that Green and Birkeland 26 would fail to find any therapeutic action when merthiolate (1:10,000 to 1:30.000) and metaphen (1:5,000 to 1:20,000) were applied to the chorioallantoic membranes inoculated with Staphylococcus aureus.

---

No testing of thimerosal toxicity, no testing of parts per billion, but significant evidence that thimerosal in the dilutions tested is not toxic. I have no explanation for what Dr. Engley allegedly said about the study, but he was wrong. FWIW he is widely reputed to be an anti-vax loon; but even without that reputation he was wrong as shown in the paper. Of course the anti-vax crowd has failed to check primary sources yet again.