Is it normal to be a little ticked off by the medical community

57% Normal
37 Comments

Is it normal to be a little ticked off by the medical community? I mean come on. Autism rates have increased since the FDA ramped up the vaccination schedule. Then all these parents start coming out saying their kids where different before they had their immunization shots. Then boom. Thimerosal (ethyl mercury) levels were dropped to trace amounts. Which you would think they would have done already to save money. Chemicals cost money right. Now, thankfully you can get immunizations without thimerosal. But what about those who were damaged for life by the use of this untested organic preservative. Shouldn't someone be held responsible?

Voting Results
57% Normal
Based on 23 votes (13 yes)
Help us keep this site organized and clean. Thanks!
[ Report Post ]
Comments ( 37 )
  • [Old Memory]
    9 years ago | pl

    There is a lot wrong with the medical company.
    However autism is not caused by shots. I am not agreeing shots are good, but thay don't cause actual autism. The theory is that the mercury causes neurological problems, which is possible, but mercury poisoning is called mad hatters syndrome and is quite different from autism.
    I have autism and know several other people diagnosed with autism as well. It is obviously genetic and you can see the same symptoms in family members.
    That theory makes about as much sense as saying shots made someone gay.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    6
    6
      -
    • howaminotmyself
      9 years ago | pl

      Thank you. I am so tired of the vaccines cause autism debate. If you did some research you would see that the doctor who made that claim no longer has his license and no research could back up his claim.

      And because of his irresponsible behavior diseases are coming back. Now I completely agree that the pharmaceutical companies are corrupt, but they do much more than just make a vaccine.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      6
      6
        -
      • Ellenna
        9 years ago

        Hooray someone else brought this up & saved me the trouble!

        His research was totally flawed; I think from memory he tested a small number of kids who were friends of his own kids or something like that? Maybe at birthday parties, even? Hardly scientific anyway ....

        The Lancet, the British Medical Association journal, was stupid enough to publish his findings without making sure they had been peer reviewed and have apologised - BUT gullible people still keep spreading this bullshit all over the net.

        I'm old enough to remember my sister nearly dying of whooping cough and kids with disabilities from measles and rubella: I don't think the medical and pharmaceutical establishments are above reproach, far from it, but let's keep a sense of proportion here.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        1
        1
          -
        • Pseodonihm
          9 years ago

          I'm just saying that mercury should have no place in an infants body. And without saying a word they started making people inject their children with it. I'm not against vaccinations. If you read my post I never said that. And maybe I'm wrong about cases of autism being related. I'm willing to admit when I am wrong.

          Comment Hidden ( show )
          1
          1
    • disthing
      9 years ago

      Well said :)

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      2
      2
    • Pseodonihm
      9 years ago

      I hate to disagree with you, but no one has done a study on the effects of mercury poisoning on an infant. No one knows the damage done. It doesn't stop at autism, there are a variate of auto-immunity and mental disorders that could have been caused by this horrible "oversight". But no one knows because it is being swept under the carpet.

      I'm not saying you are wrong. There very well might be a genetic component to autism. I'm just saying the recent rise in autism cases might be caused by the damage done to an infant.

      Minutes after you are born you get vaccinated for no good reason. Yes I know what I'm talking about. The Hep B vaccine. Which for the most part there is no reason to give it to a newborn unless there is an actual concern that the infant will be exposed to the disease. These precious bundles of joy were (I have to use pass tense here because people have wizened up.) exposed to mercury levels that were toxic to a full grown man. That's you, and me, and all of your family, and everyone you know.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      -1
      -1
        -
      • [Old Memory]
        9 years ago

        First my statement is not whether vaccines are good. I really don't know.
        I am stating the difference of mercury poisoning and autism.
        It is known what mercury does to an infant because it has happened.
        In fact mercury poisoning is much worse than autism, but they have very little in common.
        A couple things they have in common are sensory problems, lack or coordination, aggression, lack of concentration and learning problems.
        So I can see where someone could confuse someone for the wrong condition.
        However someone with mercury poisoning will have all kinds of health problems such as kidney failure, heart disease, and a number of other ailments.
        These are not symptoms of autism.
        I have also not read anything that suggests mercury poisoning causes similar social and emotional impairments, or obsessive interests, typical of autism.
        They are different and unrelated conditions.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        1
        1
      • Ellenna
        9 years ago

        There's no doubt mercury isn't good for anyone, but sorry, I don't get the link between Hep B or other vaccinations and mercury poisoning? Have I missed something?

        If you'd ever had Hep B you wouldn't wish it on anyone you cared about

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        0
        0
          -
        • Pseodonihm
          9 years ago

          Thimerosal "was" the organic preservative used in almost all vaccines. It keeps the vaccine from becoming useless. When metabolized it becomes ethyl mercury, a toxin.

          Comment Hidden ( show )
          1
          1
  • Darkoil
    9 years ago

    If you only knew how corrupt the pharmaceutical/medicine industry really is you would probably cry yourself to sleep.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    5
    5
      -
    • Pseodonihm
      9 years ago

      That's what I'm getting at. The people who run these corporations are monsters. Shouldn't these guys go to jail for this stuff.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      1
      1
        -
      • thegypsysailor
        9 years ago

        Who's gonna put them in jail? All the major shareholders are the lawmakers. What country do you live in, LaLa land?

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        2
        2
          -
        • kupokupo
          9 years ago

          You guys might find this interesting:

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contaminated_haemophilia_blood_products

          Note how once they found out the medicines were contaminated they pulled them from the US market and sold them to Asia and Latin America to ensure they still made a profit.

          Comment Hidden ( show )
          3
          3
            -
          • Pseodonihm
            9 years ago

            Another example of corporate greed given to you by the Bayer company. Yes, I knew of this though many don't.

            Comment Hidden ( show )
            0
            0
        • Pseodonihm
          9 years ago

          I know. But I'm trying to raise public awareness on this social injustice.

          Comment Hidden ( show )
          0
          0
            -
          • thegypsysailor
            9 years ago

            Great idea, wrong platform. It seems over half the IIN members don't vote, if a pole from a few weeks back is any indication.

            Comment Hidden ( show )
            0
            0
  • GiveMeAFuckingNameAlready!
    9 years ago

    You know what I hate. There is no justification for how much things in the medical community cost. They simply cost that much because they cost that much. When it cost $300 dollars for a paramedic to check you out and give you a fucking band aid without health insurance shit needs to change.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    2
    2
      -
    • Ellenna
      9 years ago

      Well maybe the US could get itself some egalitarian "socialised medicine" and stop getting hysterical about it being a commie plot.

      Would you vote for it?

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      0
      0
        -
      • Pseodonihm
        9 years ago

        Socialized medicine for children. Yes, in a heart beat. Not to sure about adults getting it. Don't get me wrong, I see a lot of positives in it. But I'm still not sure. I'll have to think on that.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        0
        0
          -
        • Ellenna
          9 years ago

          Why not adults? We sort of have it in Australia, but with a lot of flaws and always under attack by conservative governments.

          It runs in parallel with a private health system which of course provides much better service: for example, to see my pulmonary specialist for nothing as a public patient I'll have to wait until April, whereas if I had either private health cover or money I could get an appointment next week.

          Still, it's a LOT better than nothing; I'm old enough to remember when people really couldn't afford to go to the doctor when they were ill.

          Comment Hidden ( show )
          0
          0
    • Pseodonihm
      9 years ago

      We should all defect to Cuba, now there is a medical system I can get behind.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      0
      0
        -
      • GiveMeAFuckingNameAlready!
        9 years ago

        Cubas current state is a product of the Americas. Its infrastructure was destroyed when it couldn't be controlled. It was suppose to be the "New Vegas" with bustling metropolises on ocean front property, sad really.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        0
        0
  • kupokupo
    9 years ago

    I'm not too knowledgeable on this whole thing but there're a couple of mistakes in your post that need correcting as per my duty as a chemist.

    Firstly, thimerosal is not the same as ethylmercury. Ethylmercury is the cation formed when the molecule is broken down by metabolisation of the body. Hence, it's ethylmercury that is the subject of debate and is potentially toxic - not thimerosal.

    And secondly, "Which you would think they would have done already to save money. Chemicals cost money right" is wrong :p thimerosal was a well-known preservative that DIDN'T lower the effectiveness of the vaccine, which was pretty rare so that was favoured over other preservatives. Further, replacing thimerosal with another preservative could well have cost more.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    1
    1
      -
    • Pseodonihm
      9 years ago

      I thank you for your input. I appreciate an experts view on this subject. As a chemist would you have gone ahead and approved this chemical for human use with no study being done to prove it safe?

      And as an addendum, my point was the levels used were dropped, to trace amounts. If trace amounts were sufficient to keep the vaccine viable. Why wouldn't they have done that to begin with? As adding more of a chemical would be less cost efficient.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      0
      0
        -
      • kupokupo
        9 years ago

        God, by no stretch of the imagination would I call myself an expert - maybe an apprentice at most! :p

        Uh, I'd wager that testing was done on the preservative alone and the tests seemed to have no consequences. This is how it would have been passed by the FDA. The problem with mercury-containing compounds is that if you manage to successfully reduce the toxicity to an acceptable level, you still can't make any guesses as to the effects on the brain. It's known that mercury fucks up the brain, but perhaps at the concentration of the preservative it was thought to not have any lasting effects unless taken more than once or after a prolonged period or so. To further complicate things, perhaps the mental effects of the drug were not prevalent initially after the drug were administered. Perhaps they only showed signs weeks or months afterwards?

        As to your addendum: I'm making a HUGE assumption here that they lowered the concentration of the thimerosal to trace amounts and used it in conjunction with another preservative, which may not be more cost efficient. Honestly, I don't know about that, but that would be my guess.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        0
        0
  • Caryopteris
    9 years ago

    I am glad somebody is talking about this. I have been reading up on genetically engineered foods and chemtrails and it led me to read about the elite of this country having debates on how to control world population, and Bill Gates is on video saying his favorite way is through immunizations. Chemtrails are supposed to slow global warming, but the chemicals include aluminum, and it is poisonous to life. I never wanted to believe conspiracy theories, but I can't find a logical explanation for all these toxic chemicals. Soil is alive and it can't stay alive with all this junk. We actually can have a higher crop yield with organics, but that is not the goal, no matter how they say they want to feed the world.

    I love plants and animals and there is no reason to live in a dead world. And these same elite people telling the world how to kill the middle class off may have 5 kids!

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
      -
    • Pseodonihm
      9 years ago

      I'm right there with you. Creating genetically modified food just so you can use more lethal pesticide all in order to save a buck. Who cares what happens to the ecology when we introduce GMOs into nature. Who care about the people who are eating this cheap nutrient deficient laced with chemicals that are toxic to humans food. As long as the ones on the top can buy organics, and they still get millions of dollars, who cares.

      The WHO (World Health Organization) has brought back five of the most lethal POP (Persistent Organic Pesticides) originally banned through out the world.

      According to the FDA everything you eat MUST be irradiated unless it is grow locally.

      I could go on. But, I won't. Do some research, watch a few movies, like Food Inc. or Fast Food Nation. Or try these web sites

      http://www.therealfoodchannel.com/videos/movies-about-food-and-health/war-on-health-fdas-cult-of-tyranny-full-film.html

      http://www.meat.org/

      I do caution you some of the stuff you will see is not for the feint of heart

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      0
      0
        -
      • seekelp
        9 years ago

        "I'm right there with you. Creating genetically modified food just so you can use more lethal pesticide all in order to save a buck."

        Glyphosate has not been proven to be at all dangerous for humans.

        "people who are eating this cheap nutrient deficient"

        That's as a result of the food refining processes. If people ate whole wheat rather than white flour, they would be much healthier. This has nothing to do with GMOs.

        "chemicals that are toxic to humans food."

        For example?

        "Do some research, watch a few movies, like Food Inc. or Fast Food Nation."

        Watching documentaries does not really count as research. That being said, the two movies bring up important points, but they're more related to corporate practice and consumer demand rather than agricultural science. Do people eat too much meat? Sure. Does Monsanto's legal team engage in shady dealings? Definitely? If we immediately halted all pesticide usage and other modern agricultural practices would human beings the world over experience nutrient deficiencies and starvation? Definitely.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        0
        0
          -
        • Pseodonihm
          9 years ago

          Good Job! Way to go! Do you work for a politician? Because you are highly skilled at copy and paste. Removing my words from the context to prove your point of view is just childish. When I said "do some research", I put a coma at the end. Stating that the research and the subsequent films, they were films not documentaries, were two separate things. Do you understand? And to make my point, Glyphosate is a herbicide. Not a pesticide, to which I was referring to. Maybe you should do "your" research before flying off and making assumptions.

          Comment Hidden ( show )
          0
          0
            -
          • seekelp
            9 years ago

            Not to get bogged down in semantics, but the the term "pesticide," refers to something that gives any and all pests a harder time, meaning that it includes fungicides, insecticides and HERBICIDES.

            I assumed you were referring to Roundup ready crops because that's the most well known example of a GMO. What crops specifically were you referring to when you brought up pesticides then? If you're talking about the Bt crops, they're engineered to produce a protein that makes it more difficult for certain insects to eat them- they actually reduce the amount of pesticide sprayed on fields.

            I'm actually studying agricultural science, and I agree that there are problems with our current system. What we should be doing is coming up with more ecologically-friendly methods of farming without affecting overall yield. Declaring something unequivocally evil without fully understanding why something is the way it is won't help the process- scientific literacy is what's needed here.

            Comment Hidden ( show )
            0
            0
              -
            • Pseodonihm
              9 years ago

              To begin, Peace. I bare thee no ill will. what has happened here is two minds in different states. The original reply was just a casual, late at night, reply on a web site that amuses me. I did not realize I would be held up to scientific scrutiny. I was just typing away and being free.

              The pesticides that I was referring to, incorrectly I admit, were the POP's. Persistent Organic Pollutants. Such as Hexachlorobenzene, Aldrin, and Dieldrin. They were banned by the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. But the WHO and the FAO have brought them back and they are in use today. Not in America. But anywhere else is fine. Where do you think you're getting all this fresh fruit in the winter? Anywhere else, that's right. As long as the big corporations get the green they want, they don't give a dam what is spread on the green we want.

              To end this. We are probably on the same page with a lot things. we just started of on the wrong foot.

              Comment Hidden ( show )
              0
              0
  • [Old Memory]
    9 years ago

    yes

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
  • Avant-Garde
    9 years ago

    They should be held responsible but, they probably never will. Even now, people are reporting debilitating side-effects from vaccines. It's like the government is using the population like lab rats.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    -1
    -1