Slashdot Mirror

The really nasty thing about mercury is that it doesn't leave your system.

That would be worrisome if it were true. Except, of course that it's not. In fact, thimerosal (the form of mercury that has now been eliminated from most vaccines, despite the absence of any evidence that it is harmful) is excreted more rapidly than other forms of organic mercury.

This is a very important point. We overuse the word pedophile -- particularly in the US. It is, according to psychologists, the attraction to prepubescent children.

The average age of puberty is 12.16 years in African-Americans and 12.88 years in whites (source). Of course, what we are really more interested in knowing is when puberty ends. This is somewhat less well defined, but I'd say that 16 is a reasonable estimate.

I don't think it is any coincidence, therefore, that this is around the age at which coming-of-age ceremonies are held in many cultures. In particular, this is when we have the "Sweet Sixteen" birthday party in the United States. This I find particularly amusing, because, although we tend not to think about this explicitly, it is in essence a debutante ball -- a ceremony advertising sexual availability.

So the modern "age of majority" approach -- 18 in the US -- seems out-of-sync with what is actually happening biologically. I think that this is a place where European countries tend to get this right, where the "sexual age of majority" is decoupled from the "age of majority for other legal purposes." In the U.S. this has been somewhat ameliorated by "Romeo-and-Juliet" laws, but these are not entirely adequate, because they only protect very young men -- in their teens, generally -- from prosecution.

The reason I bring this up, is that I suspect that psychologically-healthy people get unfairly hit by laws (e.g., statutory rape) really intended for pedophiles.

All this said, if you're downloading pictures of 8-year-old girls, do not find moral justification in my post. That is undoubtedly pedophilia, and I am not supporting you. Get help.

Yeah, actually, I am presenting that. SPEECH doesn't develop at two months either -- what kind of moron are you? Are you suggesting that symptoms of autism should manifest before the capacity to exhibit those symptoms has?

No, I'm simply pointing out that major symptoms of autism frequently develop a bit after the time that children receive their MMR booster, and this is really the only basis for blaming vaccinations for autism. But in fact, autism tends to develop around that time even in kids who don't get the vaccination.

Needless to say, the fact that autism symptoms generally do not become evident after earlier vaccinations cannot be offered in favor of the autism hypothesis.

On the other hand, the brain's development is certainly ongoing at that time, and if mercury in vaccines is interfering with that development [you do know that mercury prevents neural tubulin from maintaining its structure, right?] such that the connections to allow proper sensory integration just don't happen, then the subsequent ability to demonstrate the abilities required of those connections would never manifest.

Yes, mercury is a neurotoxin. But the symptoms of mercury neurotoxicity do not resemble autism. And the experience of multiple countries showing that elimination of mercury from vaccines does not affect the incidence of autism clearly eliminates mercury as a causative factor.

You didn't even read the Rolling Stone article, did you?

Yes, nor was this the first time I've seen it. I thought that it was pretty stupid and dishonest when it was published, but to bring it up now, when the evidence against the mercury hypothesis is much stronger, is amazingly stupid.

No, your links DO NOT refute the article in Rolling Stone.

The do. They link to the full transcript (large pdf) of the conference, which proves that the Rolling Stone article is not merely wrong, but dishonest.

The simple fact is that the CDC had already DETERMINED that there was a link between mercury in vaccines and the rise (RISE -- how many "genetic disorders" ever have a rise in their rates of appearance?) of autism.

This is a lie, as documented here and in the meeting transcript. The CDC has determined no such thing. And in fact, it is unclear whether there is in fact a rise in the rate of autism, as there is evidence that much, perhaps all, of the increase is due to changes in diagnosis, such that many children who would previously be diagnosed as "retarded" are now being diagnosed as autistic. But even if the rise is real, that is not evidence for mercury, or vaccination, being a cause. Genetic disorders can be triggered by an environmental cause; for example, brain damage resulting from the genetic disorder PKU is triggered by a ubiquitous amino acid present in many foods, as well as artificial sweeteners, which is harmless to children without the defect. So even if there is an environmental trigger for autism, it doesn't have to be a neurotoxin--it could be a normal foodstuff, or a virus that is harmless to people without the defect.

Does Mercury cause autism in children? Hmmm... If you wanted to study whether or not something caused cancer, what would you do? Maybe... subject the cells to the substance in question and see whether or not any of them turn cancerous?

I've done lots of cell culture, and I can tell you that this is doubtless the single most unreliable method of determining whether

These are researchers looking to make a huge splash, and their premise is faulty. While it is possible that the removal of the thimerosal is making no change, it is impossible at this point to reach that conclusion. We would need to have a stable rate for autism in the general population before this sort of statistical analysis is adequate.

While it may very well claim 1999, that was when it ceased being PRODUCED. They still used the old stock and THAT wasn't cleared until at least 2001. Also the flu shot contains mercury, and is administered to pregnant women now.

Autism symptoms don't develop at 2 months, the time when the first vaccine is mandated.

Or, heck, even at birth, now that Hep-B shots before leaving the hospital are all the rage.

With "factual analysis" by morons like you backing them up, it's little wonder crap statistical analyses like "this doesn't cause Autism" is the major focus, when spending the money on finding out what *does* cause it would be real science, but that ain't happenin'.

If you had half a brain cell to rub together, you might also be interested in this article, which has not been refuted by anyone.

• Children tend to snack on nutritionally-unbalanced food when watching television, eat unconsciously and eat enough to skewtheir daily caloric intake.
• For some reason, children watching television burn fewer calories than they would at just about any other physical activity, including just idly sitting or lying down.
• Children who were forced to watch less television lost weight.

• Children tend to snack on nutritionally-unbalanced food when watching television, eat unconsciously and eat enough to skewtheir daily caloric intake.
• For some reason, children watching television burn fewer calories than they would at just about any other physical activity, including just idly sitting or lying down.
• Children who were forced to watch less television lost weight.

Here are several studies on vaccines and autism

From Pediatrics, indicating that Autism is not caused by Mercury preservatives in vaccines

From the Lancet, indicating that there is no relation between getting the MMR vaccine (the one usually accused of causing Autism)and autism

from BMJ, another study suggesting that there is no link between the MMR vaccine and autism

From JAMA: no link between Autism and the MMR vaccine in California

I could keep going on, but I leave you with this link on Google Scholar.

Knock yourself out.

A few remarks here. First, you talk of "feeling" safer not being safer. Please don't confuse the two again. Second, while it appears the number of accidental deaths is disputed, it's still apparent that most gun deaths in the US (with a notoriously high rate of gun deaths per capita) are due to homicide or suicide not due to accident. Third, with proper licensing, you can make sure guns are in in trained hands. For example, here's the requirements for concealed carry in Ohio. I think it's too light, but this filters out a lot of the stupid people IMHO.

AIDS is a terrible disease but unless it is dealt with as a health crisis and not a badge of honor or rebellion, it isn't going to get much better. And the idea that it is somehow a right to spread the disease uncontrollably is not helping.

If we treated this disease like the measles were treated in the 1800's AIDS would be gone in 10 years, never to be heard from again.

That's the thing about predictions, they happen in the future. Since most of the predictions of the 'environmentalists' were not being made before the 1960's, and since the timeframes are usually 50 - 100 years out, it is not surprising that they have yet to be proven true or false. If you discount falling sperm counts in some men in industrial agriculture areas, rising rates of autism in American children and rising rates of leukemia, by ignoring the possible- but by no means proven- environmental component behind them. To claim any of these is proof of prior claims is inaccurate, to dismiss them as possible proof of prior claims is disingenuous. We are in the middle of things, and can't definitively say what they mean, or if they mean anything at all. As if to dismiss everything, you say there is no 'doomsday prediction' that's come true-but you don't admit any of the evidence unless it is positively uncontrovertable (which is not the way of law or science-which argue the meaning of evidence all the time), so what good is the conversation? Extremist wackos like the ones you quote are not representative of most environmentalists, anymore than a parade of right wing cranks who say equally demented stuff are representative of your views. (Unless I miss my guess and you are a devotee of Pat Robertson). So, you are left with rising rates of species extinction as the only proven, predicted environmental disaster that we know of. Still, it's pretty compelling if you think about it at all. Oh, yeah, and there's that ozone hole thing.

Well of course.... if there is no bruising there is no rape right?

Bowyer and Dalton "Female victims of rape and their genital injuries" BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 104 (5), 617-620. 1997. "Conclusion: The study shows that only a minority of women examined by specifically trained police doctors show evidence of genital injury. The absence of genital injury does not exclude rape."

And look, the American Academy of Pediatrics agrees with me that the hymen is an innapropriate indicator or abuse in girls: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/ full/116/2/506

Merritt "Vulvar and genital trauma in pediatric and adolescent gynecology." Current Opinion in Obstetrics & Gynecology. 16(5):371-381, October 2004. "Many recently published articles have noted that the history as given by the child or adolescent is the most important factor in determining the etiology of genital injuries as abuse or accidental. The history is more important than any documented or lack of documented findings on physical examination. Distinguishing whether the injury was accidental or caused by abuse is of significance to the family and the injured child or adolescent. Genital examinations of victims of documented abuse are often normal." http://www.co-obgyn.com/pt/re/coobgyn/abstract.000 01703-200410000-00004.htm;jsessionid=F9lDHCpbb4hFW X0Kb2Px6RgNZh8zzlNR7gcpGP8QvpgVmz3TQ9vv!1570379021 !-949856144!8091!-1

But then c'mon, what the hell do academic Pediatricians and Gynecologists know of how to determine whether sexual abuse of children happened! We all know that you can tell if a girl is pure based on whether or not her hymen is intact, that all rape victims show physical signs (because if the bitch didn't struggle, it wasn't a rape, eh?), and that if a three year old says Daddy put his penis in my vagina that MUST have been coached by the mother who left the dad.

Mmmm-kay. That all sounds reasonable.

-Nick

Thimerosal has been virtually eliminated in childhood vaccines in the US, yet we see no decline in autism rates. A large scale Danish study http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/ full/112/3/604/ persuasively argued that there was no link between autism rates and Thimerosal. As in the US, they found that the elimination of thimerosal had no effect on the rate of autism. What causes autism? Hell if I know, but it sure doesn't seem that thimerosal does.

I just heard a lecture on this subject today, so I can assure you that there has *NEVER* been any reputable study that showed a link between autism and childhood vaccinations. The entire argument is based on a post-hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy: children get their vaccinations while around 1 years old, and the first signs of autism are noticeable about 6 months later, therefore the vaccinations cause autism.

What have the studies shown?

1) There is no difference in the rates of autism between vaccinated and un-vaccinated children.

2) Rates of autism have increased even though thimerosal was removed from the vaccines.

3) The increased rate of autism diagnosis is due to better identification and broader criteria, not due to a new cause.

Regardless, this has generated so much controversy that thimerosal has been removed from nearly all vaccines.
Don't get me wrong: vaccines do have a risk associated with them. But as far as the best science shows, autism is not one of them.

"And YES, I am a fucking Pharmacist."

Bullshit. You're as much of a Pharmacist as you are an Economist. (Self-medicating, perhaps...)

Key Point: Ritalin is given as treatment 80% of the time because it's MUCH more effective. Doctor's have a profit motive that is distinct from the Pharmacutical companies --They profit when they best resolve patient health-issues. (Ritalin is measurably superior to Dex in almost all aspects of double-blind trials. Especially when it comes to negative side effects.)

From Methylphenidate Versus Dexamphetamine in Children With Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder: A Double-blind, Crossover Trial:
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/ full/100/6/e6

The degree of response as measured by the CTRS-R was greater for MPH than for DEX. Mean improvement on the hyperactivity index was 2.6 T score points greater with MPH than with DEX. Thus, the differences were not only statistically significant but clinically important as well. Categorical analysis of these data demonstrated that almost 8% more subjects were rated as responders to MPH than to DEX by CTRS-R.

By parental rating (CPRS-R), the differences in efficacy between the two stimulants were in the same direction as with teacher report (ie, greater benefit from MPH than from DEX), although not as marked. In addition, almost 10% more parents said they preferred MPH to DEX (46.4% vs 36.8%), all things considered. It is important to note that these findings were seen with a twice-daily dosing regimen. Parents would possibly have reported greater differences had an after-school dose been used. This was not given because it was felt that an afternoon dose of DEX would have caused a great deal of sleep disturbance.

The data concerning the relative side effects of these two drugs from the present study has been reported previously.16 There were two main findings: 1) Many symptoms commonly considered to be side effects of stimulant medication were present at baseline and, in fact, diminished with medication treatment; and 2) DEX was associated with a significantly greater severity of side effects than MPH, particularly negative emotional side effects (eg, irritability, tearfulness, anxiety).

This study provides strong evidence of a group mean superiority of MPH over DEX from the teachers' point of view, and some evidence that parents also prefer MPH over DEX. This is the first research data to indicate that one of these stimulants may have a general advantage over the other. However, it needs to be emphasized that DEX was the preferred drug for more than one third of subjects. Because DEX is substantially less expensive and there appears to be no reliable predictors of which children will do better on which stimulant, it would seem reasonable to prescribe DEX as the first-line agent for children with ADHD in whom a trial of medication is considered clinically appropriate. If the child is not greatly improved or experiences unacceptable adverse effects with DEX, then MPH should be tried.

Anyway, the point is that the original poster is a complete fraud. Just wanted this listed for the record.

What do the words not a cause mean to you?

No American that's been born in this country and lived entirely within it can have a proper appreciation of true starvation.

Maybe he stated that because it's true.

If you can produce a reputable, peer-reviewed study to the contrary, please share. Articles by Dailey and Cameron do not qualify.

Naw...we aren't even a bit more than most into portraing every issue to be "indoctrinated into us as seeing most situations to be about competition, battles, market (and/or military) wars, needing to "kill" the competition.

Pure coincidence....

We are trained to see and resolve issues through battle metaphors coming from some essentialist view that all issues can be seen as a series of unending, power-over dynamics, battle simulations and victories over a crushed opponent).

These are the training tools to bring out our second nature, as our "innate" response in dealing with "differences" that arise. The most ruthless, cunning and brutal, survive, to pass these traits on to next generation.

Guess we need to keep uping the intensity -- face it, GI'Joes and football are a bit passé and, besides, they never seemed to really catch on that well with women. On the other hand, "Pro" TV wrestling seems to stimulate women more toward fighting... Maybe there's hope there...:-/

-lpq

Right you are.

The phenomenon is called diagnostic substitution. Check out "The Contribution of Diagnostic Substitution to the Growing Administrative Prevalence of Autism in US Special Education" http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/ abstract/117/4/1028.

Maybe there has never been an autism epidemic...

So that leaves us with four choices for their school nights. We can drug them into a stupor. We can have them sit quietly in a corner for the entire night. We can nuke them from orbit. Or we can STOP IT WITH THIS OVERPROTECTIVE BULLSHIT AND LET THEM BE KIDS, FOR CHRIST'S SAKE!

-Eric

The conclusion of this study should have been that kids who routinely play computer games perceive they're doing worse in school than those who don't.

The Publication

This study is also subject to several limitations. We used a self-report measure of school performance as our main outcome. Use of self-report for school performance is supported by previous studies showing that, whereas students may inflate their grades,14, 38 self-reports generally correlate with teacher reports. Specifically, Anderson et al14 reported that whereas self-reported grades were inflated from 0.26 to 0.37 points on a 4-point scale, they were highly correlated with transcript grades (r = 0.71-0.82). Hence, we believe that despite the probable grade inflation, the substantial and statistically significant correlative associations between the self-reported grades and all of the covariates are internally valid. The study was conducted in a limited geographic area, so it is possible that the findings may not hold true for children in other areas of the country. A national sample would be needed to determine whether the relationships between media use and school performance apply across populations, especially among minority populations. In addition, it is always possible that there are other unmeasured confounders that would explain the association between television exposure and school performance. Notably, our study did not include any measure of child intelligence quotient. It is possible that children with low intelligence quotient perform more poorly in school and, as a result, have less interest in school and greater interest in television, movie, and video game use. Finally, whereas we have established a relationship between exposure to adult content in television and movies and poorer school performance, because of our cross-sectional design, we cannot infer a before-and-after relationship between content exposure and school performance. Additional work is needed to clarify directionality, along with the intervening processes between adult content exposure and school performance. A longitudinal study, with data on potential mediators, as well as school performance, could be helpful in studying this relationship.

The authors themselves do a better job of critiquing their work than you do. With a correlation coefficient on self-reporting of grades this high, I am confident in kids' abilities to assess their own performance. Of course, I'm happy to be impartial. I'm not sure any piece of information would be sufficient to reverse your clearly strong beliefs (based on anecdotal evidence).

The conclusion they draw is correct, which is that more research should be done which controls for other factors. To be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if the results were even more conclusive if they did this.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/reprint/ 118/4/e1061

Read the thing before you dismiss it, the authors are very well known and respected researchers.

I suspect this is largely nutritional.

Fear of cholesterol has reduced the intake of phosphatides,
and increased the intake of fatty acids that the body is
not meant to consume in large amounts (vegetable oils) or
at all (hydrogenated oils).

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/ full/111/1/e39

and

Arch Latinoam Nutr. 1998 Dec;48(4):287-92.

The studies do *not* show, naturally enough, that video violence causes *violent* behavior, because such studies would be prohibited. Nevertheless, there are studies that show strong correlations between video violence and violent behavior.[1]

Links here and here.

The evidence is compelling enough that the American Academy of Pediatrics has made a policy statement.

[1]"aggressive" behavior is pulling hair, biting, hitting; "violent" behavior is causing real damage to someone.

What does long-term exposure to such loud sound do to a child's - or an adult's - endocrine system, and what are the social consequnces of that?

It damages the kids. The younger they are the worse it is.

Noise: A Hazard for the Fetus and Newborn

Gradually, men begin to disappear as old ones die and no new ones are born to replace them, until finally Earth is entirely populated by women.

Actually this could help save humans because as it is now the humans male is headed for extinction anyway... Generally what makes a human a male is the X chromosome. Most, not all (more explained later), humans have two sex chromosomes, either an X and a Y chromosome or two X chromosomes with females having two Xs. The SRY gene on the Y chromosome acts like a switch that controls male sexual differentiation. However the gene is decaying and will disappear.

The exceptions mentioned above are intersexuals commonly called Hermaphrodites. There are different types of intersexuals with different karyotypes. Some have the "normal" XX or XY but other may have XXY, XXXY, or XXXXY. Most intersexuals born with ambiguous genitalia go through Genital Plastic Surgery. However, no matter how they're medically treated and reared as children many don't fit into "normal" society and some may be considered "homosexual", gay or lesbian because they had their gender surgically altered, said ambiguous genitalia may include a larger than average clitoris or a smaller than average penis.

True, the key being 'as a part of a balanced diet. The american association of pediatrics has stated that fruit juice (even pure fruit juice) has no nutritional benefits over whole fruit.

http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/f ull/pediatrics;107/5/1210

The AAP state that toddlers and preschool aged children should be limited to just 4-6 ounces of one hundred percent fruit juice. That is a limit though and not a minimum.

Q: How many servings of beverages should a child over the age of two consume?

Children over 2 are supposed to drink 12 ounces or less (and avoid the sugarwater concotions entirely), and usually drink twice that.

http://pediatrics.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm ?site=http://www.appleproducts.org/qanda.html

Not the end of the world, of course. But when I was growing up, I think my parents and I overestimated how healthy juice was. It would have been better if I ate whole fruit and drank water.

It's not like the article has a very good grasp on the problem today:

Today a good college runner can run the mile faster than the 1920 world-record-holder. It would seem logical to assume that a good college hitter (a good college power hitter, anyway), if magically transported back to 1920, could hit more home runs than Babe Ruth.

466 male and 499 female students between 9 and 13 years of age (mean ± SD, 11.4 ± 0.9 years) in 5th, 6th, and 7th grades from four public middle schools in Massachusetts.
...
Results indicated that 2.7% of all middle school students reported using steroids; 2.6% were males and 2.8% were female.

Here are the American Academy of Pediatrics' recommendations.

From the article:

"Temporal order is an important element of how a work unfolds dynamically over time, an important factor underlying the aesthetic effect."

I like what is currently the last post on that page, by one Paul K Brandon, Professor at the Psychololgy Dept, Minnesota State University, Mankato :

There are many possible contaminating variables here besides the ones that Gallagher mentions. The data are based on retrospective self reports by the parents of the children whose behavior is in question. I see no indication of any systematic validation of the accuracy of these reports. It is quite possible that parents who are more sensitive to or concerned about their children's behavior are more likely to both report behavioral abnormalities and give higher estimates ot the time those children spend watching TV. To conclude, the only way to imply causation to any observed relationship between the reported time spent watching television and reported frequency of problem behaviors would be to randomly assign subjects to TV and NO TV groups, have them log defined behaviors and TV time in real time, and have external observers occasionally make reliability checks on their recording.

Failing that, all we have is a vague suggestion that some sort of undefined relationship exists.

This ain't science, folks. Use common sense, don't let your kid sit in front of Nickelodean all day when you can go out and play, but it makes more sense to be worried about flame-retardant clothing and you own interaction with the kid, rather than being worried about Blue's Clues...