MMR/thimerosal lie

[PF Riley]

Tonight I sent this e-mail to the editor of the Well Being Journal.
Let's see if he replies or takes any action on it...

PF

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

Hello Scott,

I was wondering if you could help us settle a little debate on our
Usenet newsgroup (misc.kids.health).

Some of us feel that people opposed to vaccines deliberately lie in
their propaganda to get people to fear vaccines, while others feel
they are simply victims of misinformation themselves, regurgitating
nonsense they have been fed by others in their ignorance.

A great example is the commonly repeated lie that MMR vaccine contains
thimerosal. The truth is, MMR has never had thimerosal nor any other
mercury-containing preservative. Addition of thimerosal would ruin the
vaccine. The lie came about because people often confuse two of the
dozens of unsupported hypotheses on the cause of autism -- one that
claims autism is a form of mercury poisoning from
thimerosal-containing vaccines, and another that claims MMR vaccine
itself causes autism -- leading them to conclude erroneously that MMR
vaccine contains thimerosal.

A web search of key words "MMR" and "thimerosal" can easily return
several websites that have published pseudo-authoritative articles by
anti-vaccine propagandists that plainly state that MMR contains
thimerosal. An article on your website turned up on one such search,
specifically:

http://www.wellbeingjournal.com/MMR.htm

This article plainly states, "Most vaccines, including the MMR,
contain ethyl mercury or thimerosal, an organic neurotoxic mercury
compound that is used as a preservative."

Now, here's how you can help us. Will you post a correction to this
lie contained in that article, and demonstrate that, even though you
are an anti-vaccine propagandist, you at least try not to post blatant
falsehoods, and are therefore not a liar? Or will you leave the
article posted as is, and prove that you are intentionally spreading
mistruths, and are therefore a liar?

Thanks for your help!

PF Riley

P.S. Interestingly, I note that Dr. Brewitt has actually rewritten
the article as it appears on her own website, so perhaps she isn't a
liar. Will you join her?

[Roger Schlafly]

"PF Riley" > wrote
> The lie came about because people often confuse two of the
> dozens of unsupported hypotheses on the cause of autism -- one that
> claims autism is a form of mercury poisoning from
> thimerosal-containing vaccines, and another that claims MMR vaccine
> itself causes autism -- leading them to conclude erroneously that MMR
> vaccine contains thimerosal.

A "lie" usually means a deliberate falsehood, not just a confusion.

> P.S. Interestingly, I note that Dr. Brewitt has actually rewritten
> the article as it appears on her own website, so perhaps she isn't a
> liar. Will you join her?

Sounds like it was an innocent and insignificant mistake.

[Jeff]

"Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message
t...
> "PF Riley" > wrote
> > The lie came about because people often confuse two of the
> > dozens of unsupported hypotheses on the cause of autism -- one that
> > claims autism is a form of mercury poisoning from
> > thimerosal-containing vaccines, and another that claims MMR vaccine
> > itself causes autism -- leading them to conclude erroneously that MMR
> > vaccine contains thimerosal.
>
> A "lie" usually means a deliberate falsehood, not just a confusion.

When one should know better, failing to get the facts is just as bad as
lying.

> > P.S. Interestingly, I note that Dr. Brewitt has actually rewritten
> > the article as it appears on her own website, so perhaps she isn't a
> > liar. Will you join her?
>
> Sounds like it was an innocent and insignificant mistake.

Really? Saying that the mercury in MMR causes autism when there is no
mercury in MMR is an "insignificant mistake?"

Roger, you can do better than that.

Jeff

[Mark Probert]

"Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message
t...
> "PF Riley" > wrote
> > The lie came about because people often confuse two of the
> > dozens of unsupported hypotheses on the cause of autism -- one that
> > claims autism is a form of mercury poisoning from
> > thimerosal-containing vaccines, and another that claims MMR vaccine
> > itself causes autism -- leading them to conclude erroneously that MMR
> > vaccine contains thimerosal.
>
> A "lie" usually means a deliberate falsehood, not just a confusion.

A good journalist should check ALL of their facts. Imagine if such a
situation occurred in the pro-vac field. I suspect you would be bvleating
and braying all over the place.

> > P.S. Interestingly, I note that Dr. Brewitt has actually rewritten
> > the article as it appears on her own website, so perhaps she isn't a
> > liar. Will you join her?
>
> Sounds like it was an innocent and insignificant mistake.

With the inflammatory nature of such a misstatement of fact, it is neither
innocent or insignificant.

[Roger Schlafly]

"Jeff" > wrote
> > Sounds like it was an innocent and insignificant mistake.
> Really? Saying that the mercury in MMR causes autism when there is no
> mercury in MMR is an "insignificant mistake?"

It is insignificant because the author meant to say that mecury
in the other vaccines may cause autism. The kids getting MMR
are usually getting the other vaccines also.

[Mark Probert]

"Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message
t...
> "Jeff" > wrote
> > > Sounds like it was an innocent and insignificant mistake.
> > Really? Saying that the mercury in MMR causes autism when there is no
> > mercury in MMR is an "insignificant mistake?"
>
> It is insignificant because the author meant to say that mecury
> in the other vaccines may cause autism. The kids getting MMR
> are usually getting the other vaccines also.

Mercury is nearly gone for the usual childhood vaccines. If you add the
total doseage that a kid could get now, it is far less than the the kid was
getting before the rise in autism.

Thus, it would be expected that if there is a link, the rate of autism
diagnosis would go down. Since the Danish study showed that there isn't a
descrease, the link is disproven.

The clear preponderance of the evidence says that autism is not caused by
mercury in vaccines.

Anyone claiming otherwise has the burden of proof.

[Jeff]

"Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message
t...
> "Jeff" > wrote
> > > Sounds like it was an innocent and insignificant mistake.
> > Really? Saying that the mercury in MMR causes autism when there is no
> > mercury in MMR is an "insignificant mistake?"
>
> It is insignificant because the author meant to say that mecury
> in the other vaccines may cause autism.

How do you know what the authors thought? Are you able to read minds?

Regardless of what the authors meath to say, they made a significant mistake
when they said that mercury in MMR vaccine causes anything, because there
was not mercury in the vaccines.

> The kids getting MMR
> are usually getting the other vaccines also.

None the less, it is not what the authors claimed. This is a significant
mistake. If I made a similar mistake (or even mispeledd a wooord), you would
have jumped all over me.

Jeff

[Kimmer]

> > It is insignificant because the author meant to say that mecury
> > in the other vaccines may cause autism. The kids getting MMR
> > are usually getting the other vaccines also.
>
> Mercury is nearly gone for the usual childhood vaccines. If you add
the
> total doseage that a kid could get now, it is far less than the the
kid was
> getting before the rise in autism.

I also believe that the perceived rise in autism could be attributed to
a change in just what is considered to be autism. We saw a huge jump in
the diagnosis of dyslexia and other learning disabilities that seemed to
correspond to a change in the definition of just what dyslexia and
learning disabilities are. Anyone more knowledgeable in the field care
to comment on this?

Kimmer
email: Lady_Kimmer at altcastlenet dot com

[Eric Bohlman]

"Kimmer" > wrote in -
berlin.de:

> I also believe that the perceived rise in autism could be attributed to
> a change in just what is considered to be autism. We saw a huge jump in
> the diagnosis of dyslexia and other learning disabilities that seemed to
> correspond to a change in the definition of just what dyslexia and
> learning disabilities are. Anyone more knowledgeable in the field care
> to comment on this?

My understanding is that the rise in autism incidence hasn't been
accompanied by a corresponding rise in the incidence of developmental
disabilities in general, indicating that at least some of the rise is due
to kids who would have been previously diagnosed with some other
developmental disability being diagnosed with autism instead. A cynical
view is that DD kids are simply being diagnosed with whatever condition is
the best-funded; a more positive view is that kids who were once simply
written off as "mentally retarded" without much thought are now getting a
more nuanced diagnosis that enables them to get appropriate help (if this
is happening, it's probably especially the case for minority kids, who used
to get disproportionally diagnosed with the conditions that had the poorest
prognoses and were the least amenable to treatment).

[Roger Schlafly]

"Kimmer" > wrote
> I also believe that the perceived rise in autism could be attributed to
> a change in just what is considered to be autism.

I believe I saw a study that looked at precisely that question, and
concluded that the rise in autism is real, and not just a change in
definition. I don't have the study, and I don't know whether it is
reliable or not. But people have certainly looked at that issue.

[Mark Probert]

"Kimmer" > wrote in message
...
> > > It is insignificant because the author meant to say that mecury
> > > in the other vaccines may cause autism. The kids getting MMR
> > > are usually getting the other vaccines also.
> >
> > Mercury is nearly gone for the usual childhood vaccines. If you add
> the
> > total doseage that a kid could get now, it is far less than the the
> kid was
> > getting before the rise in autism.
>
> I also believe that the perceived rise in autism could be attributed to
> a change in just what is considered to be autism. We saw a huge jump in
> the diagnosis of dyslexia and other learning disabilities that seemed to
> correspond to a change in the definition of just what dyslexia and
> learning disabilities are. Anyone more knowledgeable in the field care
> to comment on this?

In 1991, under the First Bush administration, the Department of Education
mandated that schools had to take an active approach and find out why kids
were not learning. This is one of the reasons conditions such as ADHD began
to be diagnosed more frequently.

Autism used to be an either/or diagnosis, and, like pregnancy, you could not
be slightly autistic. Over the years it was found that there is a wide
spectrum of the disorder and this has fueled the increase, IMNSHO.

[PF Riley]

On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 17:51:28 GMT, "Roger Schlafly"
> wrote:

>"Kimmer" > wrote
>> I also believe that the perceived rise in autism could be attributed to
>> a change in just what is considered to be autism.
>
>I believe I saw a study that looked at precisely that question, and
>concluded that the rise in autism is real, and not just a change in
>definition. I don't have the study, and I don't know whether it is
>reliable or not. But people have certainly looked at that issue.

The general consensus from those who know better than Roger is that
the recent shift from underdiagnosis to overdiagnosis can account for
some but not all of the concomitant rise in incidence of autism.

I personally have seen three families in the last year where the
parents "fought" with various evaluators (school officials,
psychologists, neurologists, etc.) to get their child labelled with
either autism or Asperger's disorder, which children otherwise would
not likely be given that diagnosis, in order to get better free
tax-supported services through the school.

There's one in particular who, after a thorough, detailed assessment
of his difficulties, I came to one conclusion: He's a dummy. I so much
would have loved to say, "He doesn't have autism spectrum disorder. He
doesn't have Asperger's disorder. He doesn't have 'sensory integration
disorder.' He doesn't have 'PDD-NOS.' He's just a dummy, and I can't
fix that. Sorry."

Of course, I was more diplomatic about it instead. Nevertheless, the
family is still going to take him to an autism center in their quest
to get him the coveted PDD-NOS label, and they may very well succeed.
Good luck to them.

PF

[CBI]

--
"We are as dwarfs seated on the shoulders of giants that we might see more
further than they."
- Bernard of Chartres
"Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message
. net...
> "Kimmer" > wrote
> > I also believe that the perceived rise in autism could be attributed to
> > a change in just what is considered to be autism.
>
> I believe I saw a study that looked at precisely that question, and
> concluded that the rise in autism is real, and not just a change in
> definition. I don't have the study, and I don't know whether it is
> reliable or not. But people have certainly looked at that issue.

I've seen studies on both sides of the fence. One in California showed a
clear substitution but there have been others that didn't.

I think what someone else posted in most accurate. It is not so much that
kids that would get one diagnosis are now getting another (although this
happens) as much as kids who were being found to not quite meet the
criterion are now meeting expanded definitions. There are many kids who are
now "autistic spectrum" who previously would have been just plain "not
autistic".

I also believe that social factors are driving parents to seek diagnoses
("He's not weird he's under the PDD umbrella.") while funding issues are
driving both parents and schools to pursue the diagnosis.

--
CBI, MD

[PF Riley]

On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 21:13:14 GMT, "Mark Probert"
> wrote:
>
>Autism used to be an either/or diagnosis, and, like pregnancy, you could not
>be slightly autistic. Over the years it was found that there is a wide
>spectrum of the disorder and this has fueled the increase, IMNSHO.

Indeed, and thus arose garbage-pail diagnoses such as "ASD" and
"PDD-NOS."

PF

[CBI]

"PF Riley" > wrote in message
...
>
>Nevertheless, the
> family is still going to take him to an autism center in their quest
> to get him the coveted PDD-NOS label, and they may very well succeed.
> Good luck to them.


That's the problem - if they go to enough docs someone will give them a
diagnosis. The tally could be 50-1 against but the opinion of the one doc
will be taken over the other 50.

--
CBI, MD

[Tsu Dho Nimh]

"Kimmer" > wrote:


>I also believe that the perceived rise in autism could be attributed to
>a change in just what is considered to be autism. We saw a huge jump in
>the diagnosis of dyslexia and other learning disabilities that seemed to
>correspond to a change in the definition of just what dyslexia and
>learning disabilities are. Anyone more knowledgeable in the field care
>to comment on this?

Check the publication dates of the diagnostic manual that is
standard (DSMR?) that first set out clear, obsservable criteria
and the rise in "autism".

It started the epidemic.

Tsu Dho Nimh

--
When businesses invoke the "protection of consumers," it's a lot like
politicians invoking morality and children - grab your wallet and/or
your kid and run for your life.

[Kimmer]

PF wrote:

> On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 21:13:14 GMT, "Mark Probert"
> > wrote:
> >
> >Autism used to be an either/or diagnosis, and, like pregnancy, you
could not
> >be slightly autistic. Over the years it was found that there is a
wide
> >spectrum of the disorder and this has fueled the increase, IMNSHO.
>
> Indeed, and thus arose garbage-pail diagnoses such as "ASD" and
> "PDD-NOS."

Diagnoses of inclusion instead of exclusion? I get it.

Something else that has concerned me, especially since I know of some
children in the situation I'm going to describe. What about kids who
have been "diagnosed" with many different "learning disabilities" and
are taking a litany of different medications - some of which are to
counter side effects from others - who have seemingly remarkable
turn-arounds when medications are discontinued/greatly reduced? I've
seen this happen in kids I know personally, where the first thing that
was done was to remove all medications and see their baseline behavior
and learning problems, then treat appropriately. Amazing how some of
these "uncontrollable" kids are suddenly quite well behaved and are able
to learn quite well.

Kimmer
email: Lady_Kimmer at altcastlenet dot com

[Mark Probert]

"Kimmer" > wrote in message
...
> PF wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 21:13:14 GMT, "Mark Probert"
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >Autism used to be an either/or diagnosis, and, like pregnancy, you
> could not
> > >be slightly autistic. Over the years it was found that there is a
> wide
> > >spectrum of the disorder and this has fueled the increase, IMNSHO.
> >
> > Indeed, and thus arose garbage-pail diagnoses such as "ASD" and
> > "PDD-NOS."
>
> Diagnoses of inclusion instead of exclusion? I get it.
>
> Something else that has concerned me, especially since I know of some
> children in the situation I'm going to describe. What about kids who
> have been "diagnosed" with many different "learning disabilities" and
> are taking a litany of different medications - some of which are to
> counter side effects from others - who have seemingly remarkable
> turn-arounds when medications are discontinued/greatly reduced? I've
> seen this happen in kids I know personally, where the first thing that
> was done was to remove all medications and see their baseline behavior
> and learning problems, then treat appropriately. Amazing how some of
> these "uncontrollable" kids are suddenly quite well behaved and are able
> to learn quite well.

Are you saying that the medications caused them problems? Give some
examples.

[PF Riley]

On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 02:39:08 GMT, "CBI" > wrote:
>
>I also believe that social factors are driving parents to seek diagnoses
>("He's not weird he's under the PDD umbrella.") while funding issues are
>driving both parents and schools to pursue the diagnosis.

Yes, and certainly for the patient in particular that I cited, a
diagnosis of "autism," which evokes images of a talented, intelligent,
but troubled being trapped in a mysterious world of social and
communication dysfunction, is far preferable to "mental retardation,"
which means he's just plain dumb.

PF

[Roger Schlafly]

"PF Riley" > wrote
> Yes, and certainly for the patient in particular that I cited, a
> diagnosis of "autism," which evokes images of a talented, intelligent,
> but troubled being trapped in a mysterious world of social and
> communication dysfunction, is far preferable to "mental retardation,"
> which means he's just plain dumb.

Yes, I am sure that motivates some of the autism diagnoses.
Likewise for ADD diagnoses.

[Ilena]

"Will Ketcher" >


>
> Are you saying that the medications caused them problems? Give some
> examples.

Spoken like the Ritalin Pusher/Flack he is.

[Mark Probert]

"Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message
...
> "PF Riley" > wrote
> > Yes, and certainly for the patient in particular that I cited, a
> > diagnosis of "autism," which evokes images of a talented, intelligent,
> > but troubled being trapped in a mysterious world of social and
> > communication dysfunction, is far preferable to "mental retardation,"
> > which means he's just plain dumb.
>
> Yes, I am sure that motivates some of the autism diagnoses.
> Likewise for ADD diagnoses.

No one who lives with a real AD/HD child wants the diagnosis, or the
disorder.

[Kimmer]

> > Something else that has concerned me, especially since I know of
some
> > children in the situation I'm going to describe. What about kids
who
> > have been "diagnosed" with many different "learning disabilities"
and
> > are taking a litany of different medications - some of which are to
> > counter side effects from others - who have seemingly remarkable
> > turn-arounds when medications are discontinued/greatly reduced?
I've
> > seen this happen in kids I know personally, where the first thing
that
> > was done was to remove all medications and see their baseline
behavior
> > and learning problems, then treat appropriately. Amazing how some
of
> > these "uncontrollable" kids are suddenly quite well behaved and are
able
> > to learn quite well.
>
> Are you saying that the medications caused them problems? Give some
> examples.

I wish I could, but since I never saw the kid in question at his worst I
can't give you specifics. All I know is that this is a kid who was
diagnosed with ADHD, dyslexia, a few other learning disabilities, and
was okay until more medications started to be added, mostly to
counteract side effects of the first medications. He attacked his
mother with a knife, which is what prompted them to send him away to get
him straightened out. He was on a whole list of different medications,
and the first thing the facility did was get him off of everything to
see what his baseline behaviors and learning problems were. Then they
dealt with those. He's now only on a couple of medications and is
attending regular high school and is active in other activities, and is
functioning normally. A lot of the more serious problems started when
more medications were added, which leads me to believe that drug
interactions were causing more problems.

Kimmer

[Mark Probert]

"Kimmer" > wrote in message
...
> > > Something else that has concerned me, especially since I know of
> some
> > > children in the situation I'm going to describe. What about kids
> who
> > > have been "diagnosed" with many different "learning disabilities"
> and
> > > are taking a litany of different medications - some of which are to
> > > counter side effects from others - who have seemingly remarkable
> > > turn-arounds when medications are discontinued/greatly reduced?
> I've
> > > seen this happen in kids I know personally, where the first thing
> that
> > > was done was to remove all medications and see their baseline
> behavior
> > > and learning problems, then treat appropriately. Amazing how some
> of
> > > these "uncontrollable" kids are suddenly quite well behaved and are
> able
> > > to learn quite well.
> >
> > Are you saying that the medications caused them problems? Give some
> > examples.
>
> I wish I could, but since I never saw the kid in question at his worst I
> can't give you specifics. All I know is that this is a kid who was
> diagnosed with ADHD, dyslexia, a few other learning disabilities, and
> was okay until more medications started to be added, mostly to
> counteract side effects of the first medications. He attacked his
> mother with a knife, which is what prompted them to send him away to get
> him straightened out. He was on a whole list of different medications,
> and the first thing the facility did was get him off of everything to
> see what his baseline behaviors and learning problems were. Then they
> dealt with those. He's now only on a couple of medications and is
> attending regular high school and is active in other activities, and is
> functioning normally. A lot of the more serious problems started when
> more medications were added, which leads me to believe that drug
> interactions were causing more problems.

How about simply listing the original medications and the ones that were
added?

[D. C. Sessions]

In >, Jeff wrote:

> Roger, you can do better than that.

Please post evidence of this claim.

--
| Microsoft: "A reputation for releasing inferior software will make |
| it more difficult for a software vendor to induce customers to pay |
| for new products or new versions of existing products." |
end

[D. C. Sessions]

In >, Roger Schlafly wrote:

> It is insignificant because the author meant to say that mecury
> in the other vaccines may cause autism.

Amazing mental powers again.

--
| Microsoft: "A reputation for releasing inferior software will make |
| it more difficult for a software vendor to induce customers to pay |
| for new products or new versions of existing products." |
end

[CBI]

"Kimmer" > wrote in message
...
>
> Something else that has concerned me, especially since I know of some
> children in the situation I'm going to describe. What about kids who
> have been "diagnosed" with many different "learning disabilities" and
> are taking a litany of different medications - some of which are to
> counter side effects from others - who have seemingly remarkable
> turn-arounds when medications are discontinued/greatly reduced?

As we have been discussing in aniother thread: They may be taking meds for
different medical, psychiatric, or behavioral problems but there are no
meds for any learning diability.

--
CBI, MD

[CBI]

"Kimmer" > wrote in message
...
>
> I wish I could, but since I never saw the kid in question at his worst I
> can't give you specifics.

Didn't think so.


> All I know is that this is a kid who was
> diagnosed with ADHD, dyslexia, a few other learning disabilities, and
> was okay until more medications started to be added, mostly to
> counteract side effects of the first medications. He attacked his
> mother with a knife, which is what prompted them to send him away to get
> him straightened out. He was on a whole list of different medications,
> and the first thing the facility did was get him off of everything to
> see what his baseline behaviors and learning problems were. Then they
> dealt with those. He's now only on a couple of medications and is
> attending regular high school and is active in other activities, and is
> functioning normally. A lot of the more serious problems started when
> more medications were added, which leads me to believe that drug
> interactions were causing more problems.

This anecdote doesn't support your claim. All you know is that he was
getting meds, got out of hand, was sent to a specialty center, was given
fewer and presumably different meds, and now is better. For all we know he
just needed his regimen changed and the meds that he was originally taking,
other then not being effective, had nothing to do with it.

--
CBI, MD

[CBI]

"Tsu Dho Nimh" > wrote in message
...
> "Kimmer" > wrote:
>
>
> >I also believe that the perceived rise in autism could be attributed to
> >a change in just what is considered to be autism. We saw a huge jump in
> >the diagnosis of dyslexia and other learning disabilities that seemed to
> >correspond to a change in the definition of just what dyslexia and
> >learning disabilities are. Anyone more knowledgeable in the field care
> >to comment on this?
>
> Check the publication dates of the diagnostic manual that is
> standard (DSMR?) that first set out clear, obsservable criteria
> and the rise in "autism".
>
> It started the epidemic.

Gee - you mean making the diagnosis easier resulted in it happening more
often?

It is the Diagnostics and Statistics Manual of Psychiatric Diseases. You are
probably think of the revised third edition - DSM III-R. They are up to a
DSM IV now.

--
CBI, MD

[PF Riley]

On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 18:01:54 GMT, "Mark Probert"
> wrote:
>
>"Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message
...
>> "PF Riley" > wrote
>> > Yes, and certainly for the patient in particular that I cited, a
>> > diagnosis of "autism," which evokes images of a talented, intelligent,
>> > but troubled being trapped in a mysterious world of social and
>> > communication dysfunction, is far preferable to "mental retardation,"
>> > which means he's just plain dumb.
>>
>> Yes, I am sure that motivates some of the autism diagnoses.
>> Likewise for ADD diagnoses.
>
>No one who lives with a real AD/HD child wants the diagnosis, or the
>disorder.

Yes, as usual, like his mother, Roger spouts nonsense based on nothing
more than his stupidity and lack of experience in the realm on which
he is commenting.

In contrast to the examples I gave of families TRYING to get their
child diagnosed with autism, I have never encountered a parent who
begs me to diagnose her child with ADHD. In fact, quite the opposite
-- many oppose the label.

PF

[Kimmer]

CBI wrote:
>
> "Kimmer" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > I wish I could, but since I never saw the kid in question at his
worst I
> > can't give you specifics.
>
> Didn't think so.

This isn't my child I'm talking about, and unlike some people I don't
pry into just what happens in people's lives. I'm not the kid's doctor
or his parent, so it's none of my damn business.

> > All I know is that this is a kid who was
> > diagnosed with ADHD, dyslexia, a few other learning disabilities,
and
> > was okay until more medications started to be added, mostly to
> > counteract side effects of the first medications. He attacked his
> > mother with a knife, which is what prompted them to send him away to
get
> > him straightened out. He was on a whole list of different
medications,
> > and the first thing the facility did was get him off of everything
to
> > see what his baseline behaviors and learning problems were. Then
they
> > dealt with those. He's now only on a couple of medications and is
> > attending regular high school and is active in other activities, and
is
> > functioning normally. A lot of the more serious problems started
when
> > more medications were added, which leads me to believe that drug
> > interactions were causing more problems.
>
> This anecdote doesn't support your claim.

What part doesn't support my claim? According to the boy's mother, the
most serious behavior problems started after more medications were piled
on top of what he was already taking. To me, that says interactions
between the new meds and his old ones were causing the problems.

>All you know is that he was
> getting meds, got out of hand, was sent to a specialty center, was
given
> fewer and presumably different meds, and now is better. For all we
know he
> just needed his regimen changed and the meds that he was originally
taking,
> other then not being effective, had nothing to do with it.

Excuse me, but he was merely "out of hand" before the extra meds were
added, and things got worse by orders of magnitude - to most people,
trying to kill his mother was pretty extreme, especially in a child who
had never exhibited that kind of behavior before - when the new ones
were added without any change in his other ones.

I got my information from the kid's mother, who stated in no uncertain
terms that the more serious behavior problems, including coming after
her with a knife, started after new medications were added to his
already lengthy list of meds. If that isn't good enough for you, I'm
sorry. I tend to take the word of the boy's mother, who was closer to
the problem than I could ever be, that whatever treatment he was getting
obviously wasn't working. If he only "needed his regimen changed,", why
didn't the doc change it instead of merely piling on more meds, as
happened in this case???

Overmedication is a huge problem in this country, and maybe some people
should get out of the medical profession if they're just gonna take the
"easy way out" and treat side effects with more drugs that cause more
side effects instead of doing the hard work and trying to figure out
what would work.

Kimmer

[PF Riley]

On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 11:31:53 -0700, "Kimmer" > wrote:

>CBI wrote:
>>
>> "Kimmer" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > I wish I could, but since I never saw the kid in question at his
>> >worst I can't give you specifics.
>>
>> Didn't think so.
>
>This isn't my child I'm talking about, and unlike some people I don't
>pry into just what happens in people's lives. I'm not the kid's doctor
>or his parent, so it's none of my damn business.

Of course not, but it didn't stop you from posting a vague,
unsupported speculative anecdote about him anyway. It's no wonder
where nonsense such as the anti-vaccine "anecdotal bull crap" that
KyroDoc posted recently comes from.

PF

[CBI]

"Kimmer" > wrote in message
...
> CBI wrote:
> >
> > "Kimmer" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > I wish I could, but since I never saw the kid in question at his
> worst I
> > > can't give you specifics.
> >
> > Didn't think so.
>
> This isn't my child I'm talking about, and unlike some people I don't
> pry into just what happens in people's lives. I'm not the kid's doctor
> or his parent, so it's none of my damn business.

That's fine - and I don't disagree with any of it. My problem is you making
claims and then when questioned suddenly claiming you don't really know.
Then when you are called on that you get sanctimonious about other people's
privacy. You can't have it both ways - either you knew what you were talking
about or you didn't. If you didn't you should have kept it to yourself.


> >
> > This anecdote doesn't support your claim.
>
> What part doesn't support my claim?

I already answered that. All you know (and according to your later
statements you don't even know that much ) is that he had worsening behavior
at about the same time he was given more meds. There is no way to tell if
one caused the other, vice versa, or there was no relation at all.

Like I said above - if you can't even claim to know what happened I don't
see why you continue to push the issue.

I would also point out that you claimed to know of several kids that had
this happen. Now we find that you can't be expected to know the details of
just this one case.

--
CBI, MD

[Mark Probert]

"PF Riley" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 18:01:54 GMT, "Mark Probert"
> > wrote:
> >
> >"Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> "PF Riley" > wrote
> >> > Yes, and certainly for the patient in particular that I cited, a
> >> > diagnosis of "autism," which evokes images of a talented,
intelligent,
> >> > but troubled being trapped in a mysterious world of social and
> >> > communication dysfunction, is far preferable to "mental retardation,"
> >> > which means he's just plain dumb.
> >>
> >> Yes, I am sure that motivates some of the autism diagnoses.
> >> Likewise for ADD diagnoses.
> >
> >No one who lives with a real AD/HD child wants the diagnosis, or the
> >disorder.
>
> Yes, as usual, like his mother, Roger spouts nonsense based on nothing
> more than his stupidity and lack of experience in the realm on which
> he is commenting.
>
> In contrast to the examples I gave of families TRYING to get their
> child diagnosed with autism, I have never encountered a parent who
> begs me to diagnose her child with ADHD. In fact, quite the opposite
> -- many oppose the label.

They know that dealing with the Schlafley's and Jans of this world is
utterly distasteful.

BTW, I sent you email and it bounced. Email me and I promise a great laugh.

[Mark Probert]

"Kimmer" > wrote in message
...
> CBI wrote:
> >
> > "Kimmer" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > I wish I could, but since I never saw the kid in question at his
> worst I
> > > can't give you specifics.
> >
> > Didn't think so.
>
> This isn't my child I'm talking about, and unlike some people I don't
> pry into just what happens in people's lives. I'm not the kid's doctor
> or his parent, so it's none of my damn business.

But that did not stop you posting what you did with less than all the facts.
I wonder why that was?

> > > All I know is that this is a kid who was
> > > diagnosed with ADHD, dyslexia, a few other learning disabilities,
> and
> > > was okay until more medications started to be added, mostly to
> > > counteract side effects of the first medications. He attacked his
> > > mother with a knife, which is what prompted them to send him away to
> get
> > > him straightened out. He was on a whole list of different
> medications,
> > > and the first thing the facility did was get him off of everything
> to
> > > see what his baseline behaviors and learning problems were. Then
> they
> > > dealt with those. He's now only on a couple of medications and is
> > > attending regular high school and is active in other activities, and
> is
> > > functioning normally. A lot of the more serious problems started
> when
> > > more medications were added, which leads me to believe that drug
> > > interactions were causing more problems.
> >
> > This anecdote doesn't support your claim.
>
> What part doesn't support my claim? According to the boy's mother, the
> most serious behavior problems started after more medications were piled
> on top of what he was already taking. To me, that says interactions
> between the new meds and his old ones were causing the problems.

You lay it on interactions, and I can provide at least one additional reason
why it could have happened. I bet you could not.

> >All you know is that he was
> > getting meds, got out of hand, was sent to a specialty center, was
> given
> > fewer and presumably different meds, and now is better. For all we
> know he
> > just needed his regimen changed and the meds that he was originally
> taking,
> > other then not being effective, had nothing to do with it.
>
> Excuse me, but he was merely "out of hand" before the extra meds were
> added, and things got worse by orders of magnitude - to most people,
> trying to kill his mother was pretty extreme, especially in a child who
> had never exhibited that kind of behavior before - when the new ones
> were added without any change in his other ones.

However, you do not mention what his meds were, or were changed to, but, you
know he tried to kill her.

> I got my information from the kid's mother, who stated in no uncertain
> terms that the more serious behavior problems, including coming after
> her with a knife, started after new medications were added to his
> already lengthy list of meds. If that isn't good enough for you, I'm
> sorry. I tend to take the word of the boy's mother,

It is not the boys mother whose word in in question.

who was closer to
> the problem than I could ever be, that whatever treatment he was getting
> obviously wasn't working. If he only "needed his regimen changed,", why
> didn't the doc change it instead of merely piling on more meds, as
> happened in this case???
>
> Overmedication is a huge problem in this country, and maybe some people
> should get out of the medical profession if they're just gonna take the
> "easy way out" and treat side effects with more drugs that cause more
> side effects instead of doing the hard work and trying to figure out
> what would work.

Can you prove that over medication, specifically in treating psychiatric
cases is a problem?

Try to stick with verifiable sources.

[Roger Schlafly]

"Kimmer" > wrote
> most serious behavior problems started after more medications were piled
> on top of what he was already taking. To me, that says interactions
> between the new meds and his old ones were causing the problems.

Or maybe all of the medications are harmful, and getting more meds
was causing more harm.

[Roger Schlafly]

"PF Riley" > wrote
> In contrast to the examples I gave of families TRYING to get their
> child diagnosed with autism, I have never encountered a parent who
> begs me to diagnose her child with ADHD. In fact, quite the opposite
> -- many oppose the label.

That is because you overdiagnose ADHD. Some parents do goto
a physician looking for an ADHD diagnosis and a ritalin prescription,
even tho their kid is fairly normal.

[David Wright]

In article >,
Roger Schlafly > wrote:
>"Kimmer" > wrote
>> most serious behavior problems started after more medications were piled
>> on top of what he was already taking. To me, that says interactions
>> between the new meds and his old ones were causing the problems.
>
>Or maybe all of the medications are harmful, and getting more meds
>was causing more harm.

Or maybe it's caused by mind rays from invisible UFOs orbiting
directly above the child's house.

Jeff said "Roger, you can do better than that." I disagree. I think
that uninformed, baseless speculation is the best Roger can do.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)

[David Wright]

In article >,
Roger Schlafly > wrote:
>"PF Riley" > wrote
>> In contrast to the examples I gave of families TRYING to get their
>> child diagnosed with autism, I have never encountered a parent who
>> begs me to diagnose her child with ADHD. In fact, quite the opposite
>> -- many oppose the label.
>
>That is because you overdiagnose ADHD. Some parents do goto
>a physician looking for an ADHD diagnosis and a ritalin prescription,
>even tho their kid is fairly normal.

Ah, I see that Roger is using his infallible psychic abilities to
learn that PF Riley overdiagnoses ADHD.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)

[CBI]

"David Wright" > wrote in message
m...
>
> Ah, I see that Roger is using his infallible psychic abilities to
> learn that PF Riley overdiagnoses ADHD.
>

You misspelled "psychotic".

[PF Riley]

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 02:34:58 GMT, (David
Wright) wrote:

>In article >,
>Roger Schlafly > wrote:
>>"PF Riley" > wrote
>>> In contrast to the examples I gave of families TRYING to get their
>>> child diagnosed with autism, I have never encountered a parent who
>>> begs me to diagnose her child with ADHD. In fact, quite the opposite
>>> -- many oppose the label.
>>
>>That is because you overdiagnose ADHD. Some parents do goto
>>a physician looking for an ADHD diagnosis and a ritalin prescription,
>>even tho their kid is fairly normal.
>
>Ah, I see that Roger is using his infallible psychic abilities to
>learn that PF Riley overdiagnoses ADHD.

It matches perfectly with my already well-established opinion that he
is a complete moron.

PF

[Mark Probert]

"Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message
t...
> "PF Riley" > wrote
> > In contrast to the examples I gave of families TRYING to get their
> > child diagnosed with autism, I have never encountered a parent who
> > begs me to diagnose her child with ADHD. In fact, quite the opposite
> > -- many oppose the label.
>
> That is because you overdiagnose ADHD. Some parents do goto
> a physician looking for an ADHD diagnosis and a ritalin prescription,
> even tho their kid is fairly normal.

Sadly, it is fairly well establishedf that ADHD is underdiagnosed, and then
those who are diagnosed with it do not get adequate or proper treatment.

[john]

(PF Riley) wrote in message >...
> Tonight I sent this e-mail to the editor of the Well Being Journal.
> Let's see if he replies or takes any action on it...
>
>

Yawn. Thousands of kids get autism shafted by MMR every year and you
quibble about some idiot who thinks mercury is in mmr. LOL

Anyway, most kids get shot up with mercury DPT and MMR at the same
time on their third mmr shot
http://www.immunisation.org.uk/whento.html

so what is the difference?

[Jeff]

"john" > wrote in message
om...
> (PF Riley) wrote in message
>...
> > Tonight I sent this e-mail to the editor of the Well Being Journal.
> > Let's see if he replies or takes any action on it...
> >
> >
>
> Yawn. Thousands of kids get autism shafted by MMR every year and you
> quibble about some idiot who thinks mercury is in mmr. LOL

How does MMR "shaft" autism. In the US, shaft means to rip off or cheat. I
guess you might be right about this. After all, recent studies have shown
kids who are vaccinated are less likely to get autism.

> Anyway, most kids get shot up with mercury DPT and MMR at the same
> time on their third mmr shot
> http://www.immunisation.org.uk/whento.html
>
> so what is the difference?

None, really. After all, the mercury in vaccines is excreted, unlike the
mercury that accumulates in fish. The mercury in the fish is more likely to
get in the brain.

Jeff

[CBI]

"john" > wrote in message
om...
>
> Yawn. Thousands of kids get autism shafted by MMR every year and you
> quibble about some idiot who thinks mercury is in mmr. LOL
>
> Anyway, most kids get shot up with mercury DPT and MMR at the same
> time on their third mmr shot
> http://www.immunisation.org.uk/whento.html
>
> so what is the difference?

I think you need to check your vaccination schedules again. There is no
third MMR.

Also, the site you reference is so out of date it is still listing the OPV
for polio.

Inaccurate and out of date information all rolled into one reference. At
least you are consistent.

--
CBI, MD

[Robert McCarty]

see below

Jeff wrote:

> "john" > wrote in message
> om...
> > (PF Riley) wrote in message
> >...
> > > Tonight I sent this e-mail to the editor of the Well Being Journal.
> > > Let's see if he replies or takes any action on it...
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Yawn. Thousands of kids get autism shafted by MMR every year and you
> > quibble about some idiot who thinks mercury is in mmr. LOL
>
> How does MMR "shaft" autism. In the US, shaft means to rip off or cheat. I
> guess you might be right about this. After all, recent studies have shown
> kids who are vaccinated are less likely to get autism.
>
> > Anyway, most kids get shot up with mercury DPT and MMR at the same
> > time on their third mmr shot
> > http://www.immunisation.org.uk/whento.html
> >
> > so what is the difference?
>
> None, really. After all, the mercury in vaccines is excreted, unlike the
> mercury that accumulates in fish. The mercury in the fish is more likely to
> get in the brain.
>
> Jeff

Jeff..I do NOT suppose you've NOTED that SARDINES have virtually
dis-appeared from Grocery shelves in the past 5 or more years?? That
Particualr family of FISH absorbs MERCURY faster than any other.
Mackeral is also becoming rare. The Huge BLUE TUNA is almost extinct!
Does this tickle that ROCK_HARD Brain of yours or are you really that
HOPELESS. B-0b1

[Jeff]

"Robert McCarty" > wrote in message
...
> see below
>
> Jeff wrote:
>
> > "john" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > (PF Riley) wrote in message
> > >...
> > > > Tonight I sent this e-mail to the editor of the Well Being Journal.
> > > > Let's see if he replies or takes any action on it...
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Yawn. Thousands of kids get autism shafted by MMR every year and you
> > > quibble about some idiot who thinks mercury is in mmr. LOL
> >
> > How does MMR "shaft" autism. In the US, shaft means to rip off or cheat.
I
> > guess you might be right about this. After all, recent studies have
shown
> > kids who are vaccinated are less likely to get autism.
> >
> > > Anyway, most kids get shot up with mercury DPT and MMR at the same
> > > time on their third mmr shot
> > > http://www.immunisation.org.uk/whento.html
> > >
> > > so what is the difference?
> >
> > None, really. After all, the mercury in vaccines is excreted, unlike the
> > mercury that accumulates in fish. The mercury in the fish is more likely
to
> > get in the brain.
> >
> > Jeff
>
> Jeff..I do NOT suppose you've NOTED that SARDINES have virtually
> dis-appeared from Grocery shelves in the past 5 or more years?? That
> Particualr family of FISH absorbs MERCURY faster than any other.
> Mackeral is also becoming rare. The Huge BLUE TUNA is almost extinct!
> Does this tickle that ROCK_HARD Brain of yours or are you really that
> HOPELESS. B-0b1

No, I don't have a hard-rock brain. Nor am I hopeless.

I do know, however, that mercury is found in virtually all fish:
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/fish/forum/sectioned_pdfs/sections6-10.pdf
and that a lot of people have too much methylmercury in their bodies.

Jeff