Is it time to consider compulsory vaccinations?

No, it suggests that they had meningitis. Of the 144 cases they studied, they had 92 deaths. When people with acute meningitis die, this is not a sign of mercury poisoning. I would ask why anti-vaxxers need to base their arguments on groundless fantasies about statistics with a hge known confounding factor, but that question is gradually answering itself as more and more of their lies are exposed. They didn't "give a blanket assurance with no backup evidence".Once again, you are making up shit about the content of the paper and they retailing this fabricated crap to someone who has actually read it. They did. They said it didn't work.Once again, stop making shit up.

I'm confused. You link to a 2007 paper by Mark and David Geier, who ARE known as "loony anti-vaxxers." They were interviewed in the film and were the ones who told the filmmaker about Dr. Engley which led him to interview him.Dr. Engley was of course talking about the reception of their work back in 1948 when he said it was ignored. I don't know what you mean by its having 28 citations: where is that information? And what are the dates of the citations?Then you say the Morton-Engley paper was misrepresented, I guess referring to the "parts per billion" remark when the toxicity they studied was for larger amounts? But his study sure looks like evidence for enough toxicity in any case: The mice died of streptococcus but the researchers found that the Merthiolate was 35 times more toxic for embryonic tissue cells than for Staphyloccus aureus. It didn't kill the mice but their findings suggest you wouldn't want it in the human body, where it is more toxic than to the disease you want to kill.Also, it is noted that it was in a 1956 paper by Engley that the parts per billion is mentioned: Perhaps he forgot which of his studies showed this.Lengthy text on white background is hard on my eyes but I've saved the paper for future rereading. I would have to read all this much more carefully than I have so far to get a clearer idea of what the studies are about, but a read-through seems to me to show both a lack of antibiotic effectiveness and the sufficient toxicity of Thimerosal (35 times more toxic to embryonic tissue than to staphyloccus) to warn anyone away from it. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Some quotes from the Smithburn paper, which I have read and you haven't. First, the mortality rate was high among all patients, many dying on the day they were admitted: Second, they report that the Merthiolate was ineffective: Third, they do report killing patients. But not with Merthiolate: If there were any complications arising from Merthiolate, why wouldn't they report that?

I even missed the main thing about that report: the fact that they knew how many died in the overall meningitis group means they also knew how many of those died in the Thimerosal subgroup, so that claim that the number of days they lived after the injection is just the date of the last follow-up after which they may have been completely recovered -- because that's a reason for stopping follow-ups -- is bogus. They knew who lived and who died: clearly all 22 who were given Thimerosal died. "No toxic effects" is blanket assurance. And yet allowed for that ridiculous ambiguity about whether any of them actually survived, on the basis of its being merely the last follow-up?I guess you feel if you say enough terrible things about me you've somehow proved you're right?

That's the question in all these studies we've been talking about. Some definitely show toxicity and yet they downplay that fact. Autism is clearly linked to it in some studies and yet they bend over backwards to obscure that fact. Even back in the early days it seems they may have had enough of an investment in their product to fudge data on it. That's a reasonable guess given the history of studies on the subject.

This is so insane that I am completely unable to follow your reasoning. It's dribbling lunacy, Faith. That is not a real quote; and table 7 contains the evidence. If by "ambiguity" you mean "ability of crackpots to indulge in unevidenced fantasies", then I blame the crackpots rather than Smithburn. I think if you realized how ludicrous and disgusting your behavior seems to others, you might try to behave differently.

{Adminnemooseus comment - I had made this much larger than its natural display, but such was causing over-wide page problems, at least for my display set up. So I made it less larger. But magnification might be needed to be able to read the thing. For Firefox (and I believe also other browsers) using control (+) and control (-) zooms in and out.}Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Make graphic bigger, but even then there seems to be legibility problems.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Made less big.

And the answer seems to be that after all the hard work of fantasizing what their Real Secret Results would be if only you were right, you're too fatigued by the effort to also daydream up even a quarter-baked reason why they would bother to publish fake results instead of real ones.

Nobody has a problem with that: fear of lawsuits (except they eliminated that threat with a rider to the Homeland Security bill) and fear of loss of reputation and fear of loss of revenue if the truth got out.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

As I said, it's not even quarter-baked. Do you have a shred of a scrap of a scintilla of a shard of evidence why any of these fantasies should apply to Smithburn? No, of course not. You don't need evidence. What are facts compared to the power of your imagination?

You realise that that means that your "whistleblower" has to be a part of this conspiracy ?As I have already pointed out the conclusions of the study show no link between the MMR vaccine and autism when considering the whole of the dataset.He was one of the authors of the paper.But he has no criticisms of the data or that conclusion.So please tell me why we should regard that conclusion as anything other than legitimate.

Well, it's like creationism, isn't it? If a guy says one thing that can be made to fit in with the fantasy (usually by ignoring context or misinterpreting his meaning), then while he was saying that he was a noble champion of the truth. The other 9999 things he's said on the subject are the blatant falsehoods of a corrupt liar whom no-one should trust.

Of COURSE he was a part of the conspiracy. Sheesh. That's what he confessed to.

And not only WAS he part of the conspiracy, his rather mealymouthed confession suggests that he's still got one foot in the conspiracy as he continues his connection with the CDC and can't quite bring himself to act on his sense of moral culpability beyond bemoaning his part in the fraud.

Yes, you are confused. I was demonstrating that Morton et. al. was not totally ignored. Another part of my demonstration was... A citation is a reference to the paper in some other paper or book. The count is in lots of places. I got it from Google Scholar by entering the first ten words of the title. I didn't check the dates; feel free to do so. (Different sources can give different citation counts but there's rarely a large difference.)28 citations is a pretty low number; earth-shattering papers have tens to hundreds of thousands. But it isn't zero. Yup. Exactly. A critical misrepresentation. WIth the real data, the whole argument collapses. You are totally misunderstanding this. It's in context, but you are way off base.The "comparative in vitro studies" were carried out by Salle and Lazarus in a different study, not Morton et. al. Same mistake again: "more toxic for leukocytes than for bacterial cells" is from yet another paper, Nye and Welch, not Morton et. al. This means that the experimental conditions were not as described for Morton et. al.'s experiments and we don't know what they were and can't make any meaningful assumptions about them. If you want to know I'll get you the info on those papers that will allow you to dig them up and pay for them if required.In Morton et. al, table 3 in the two "Merthiolate..." lines I mentioned (but see below), no mice died. That's evidence (not proof, but strong evidence for) that merthiolate at those concentrations is not toxic. And those concentrations are parts per thousand, not parts per billion. Six orders of magnitude difference. That's humongous. So, either you or the movie was wrong about when parts per billion were mentioned.Nobody's interested without knowing what the conditions were, especially since as I noted above he had produced strong evidence that merthiolate was not toxic in those concentrations eight years earlier. If you want to establish that parts per billion are toxic, you dig up the details and (if needed) pony up the money for the paper. Perhaps, he was pretty old as are we. If so he was wrong and the movie people didn't check and you didn't check. Quite a record. I remembered you are having eye trouble. If you are referring to the Table 3 picture I posted in the message to which you were replying, click it and it embiggenizes quite a bit. Really? You have the paper? Or the table graphic I posted? In many of the cases there was significant antibiotic effectiveness and no toxicity, especially my favorite two lines. The "35 times" error I've explained above; it's taken from a different study using different (and to us unknown) experimental conditions. It could have been gigantically larger doses or something; we just don't know.