Flouride and vaccinations - Related to IQ?

[thatwasnifty]

Who the hell says anything is 100% effective and safe? There is no such thing. If doctors are saying it, then the individual doctors are lying. The medical profession and the pharmaceutical industry both openly say that there can be side effects and that you should "consult your doctor" before taking a treatment. Always always always always.

[Halleberry]

"Stop with this BS. Vaccines can't be approved unless they're demonstrated to be safe and effective, and when unforeseen complications do arise, then they're quickly dealt with."

"Our investigations have found that the FDA has allowed contaminated food and unsafe drugs to enter the market, and now serious allegations have been raised about the scientific integrity of the FDA medical device approval process,” Stupak said. “Although the FDA has launched its own investigation into this matter, no corrective action has been taken. The committee intends to learn what action the FDA plans to take to ensure the integrity of the medical device approval process and prevent retaliation against the scientists who blew the whistle on these activities.”

This Committee has been provided with compelling evidence to support the charges that senior managers within CDRH “ordered, intimidated and coerced FDA experts to modify their scientific reviews, conclusions and recommendations in violation of the law.” The CDRH scientists also claim that CDRH managers ordered them “to make safety and effectiveness determinations that are not in accordance with scientific regulatory requirements, to use unsound evaluation methods, and accept clinical and technical data that is not scientifically valid or obtained in accordance with legal requirements, such as obtaining proper informed consent from human subjects.”

That quote is taken from an actual letter written to John Dingell and Bart Stupak, chairmen of the dept. of energy and commerce, and oversight and investigations respectively, from 8 scientsit within the FDA. Read that last sentence again, they are testing things on us without our approval or awarness.
http://energycommerce.house.gov/Pres...scientists.pdf

Dingell and Stupak are leading an investigation into the FDA. This is why I didn't learn all the technicalities, I know the mentality. The same type MFers who sold out your economic health, have long since compromised your actual physical health. They allow your water to be poisoned; there are countless legit studies on the effects of fluoride, yet you harp on me because I dare question the safety of our medicine? This is our food and drug administration agency, they are supposed to be looking after our health, yet this is the kind of shit they pull? And yall defend them like greed and apathy aren't rampant in our government? SMDH

Congress Probes ‘Corrupted’ FDA Device Approvals // Pharmalot

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/18/he...8fda.html?_r=1

[url=http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_110/110nr383.shtml]The House Committee on Energy and Commerce :: News Release :: Dingell, Stupak to Investigate FDA

[thatwasnifty]

This Committee has been provided with compelling evidence to support the charges that senior managers within CDRH “ordered, intimidated and coerced FDA experts to modify their scientific reviews, conclusions and recommendations in violation of the law.” The CDRH scientists also claim that CDRH managers ordered them “to make safety and effectiveness determinations that are not in accordance with scientific regulatory requirements, to use unsound evaluation methods, and accept clinical and technical data that is not scientifically valid or obtained in accordance with legal requirements, such as obtaining proper informed consent from human subjects.”

This is very interesting and raises an important point, but it's political misconduct and not scientific. You're damn right I harp on you for not making that distinction. The science is what is important. You are free to read all of the literature published about medicines so you can make your own informed decisions. In fact, I encourage you to. But when the literature is clear on the safety and efficacy of the medicine (as clear as science can be, mind you), then that's it. Keep monitoring the medicine and keep improving it, but don't throw it all away just on a hunch.

And the letter to the representative isn't particularly helpful because it's blacked out and there is no specific information, so I can't comment on what actual instances of misconduct they're discussing. But notice that the NY Times article doesn't mention vaccines at all, probably because the FDA department in question, the Center for Devices and Radiological Health, only oversees medical devices and not medicines themselves.

[guartz]

I thought people who didn't have a degree in micro-biology should just stfu, what's this about reading literature that's almost always not simple and easy to understand?

[thatwasnifty]

That's not what I said at all. I said educate yourself first and then open your mouth. It doesn't take a degree in science to be scientifically literate. There are plenty of easy to read textbooks and popular science books to help. Here's one:

Amazon.com: Autism's False Prophets: Bad Science, Risky Medicine, and the Search for a Cure: Paul A. Offit: Books

[Halleberry]

The political misconduct disrupts the validity of the scientific data. Scientist were urged to ignore threats and go ahead and approve stuff anyway. At that point, it doesn't matter what the results said becuase they are being ignored to pursue an objective.

[Correction]

Hey look, a continued lack of evidence for the 'halt the vaccination of the very young' side of the argument.

[Halleberry]

No one ever said stop administering vaccinations, the most I said was reevaluate, spread em apart, or administer in a different way. You guys are great at argueing around the topic, which is how safe is fluoride water, and do vaccines have anything to contribute to autism, which then morphed to vaccines are 100% safe and your an idiot for disagreeing. My article proves that there is plenty of reason to be skeptical of both.

[Correction]

No one ever said stop administering vaccinations, the most I said was reevaluate, spread em apart, or administer in a different way. You guys are great at argueing around the topic, which is how safe is fluoride water, and do vaccines have anything to contribute to autism, which then morphed to vaccines are 100% safe and your an idiot for disagreeing. My article proves that there is plenty of reason to be skeptical of both.

Your article proves nothing except that you have at best a very loose understanding of the concept of 'proof.'

There is always a reason to be skeptical, quit assuming I swallow every piece of information without questioning it first.

What matters is action and how it affects the people you care about. And when it comes to it, I'm still very much pro-vaccination and not scared of fluoride in the water.

And what makes you think vaccinations today aren't completely different from vaccinations 200 years ago? On what realistic grounds do you believe they should change the administration or scheduling of the drug, besides the discredited views still championed by Jenny Mccarthy and an irrelevant article about the FDA letting bad medical devices slip through the cracks?

[thatwasnifty]

Spread apart the vaccine schedule why? [url=http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=289]Science-Based Medicine

[Penthesilea]

No one ever said stop administering vaccinations, the most I said was reevaluate, spread em apart, or administer in a different way. You guys are great at argueing around the topic, which is how safe is fluoride water, and do vaccines have anything to contribute to autism, which then morphed to vaccines are 100% safe and your an idiot for disagreeing. My article proves that there is plenty of reason to be skeptical of both.

Here's an actual study with data to back it up.

Pervasive Developmental Disorders in Montreal, Quebec, Canada: Prevalence and Links With Immunizations -- Fombonne et al. 118 (1): e139 -- Pediatrics

[guartz]

Right. Almost all people just look to the doctor for that information.

Hey, why do people have to specifically ask doctors to prescribe generics? Wouldn't they automatically do that, considering generics are like 400% cheaper?

[Correction]

Right. Almost all people just look to the doctor for that information.

Hey, why do people have to specifically ask doctors to prescribe generics? Wouldn't they automatically do that, considering generics are like 400% cheaper?

They do? A lot of managed care providers cover prescriptions only for generics, providing ample incentive to only prescribe generics in the first place. I've yet to see a health insurance plan that doesn't provide that at minimum.

[archibaldcrane]

Here's an actual study with data to back it up.

Pervasive Developmental Disorders in Montreal, Quebec, Canada: Prevalence and Links With Immunizations -- Fombonne et al. 118 (1): e139 -- Pediatrics

In case people don't want to look through this - it was a study of over 27,000 children in which 180 had a "pervasive developmental disorder" including autism and asbergers.

The results (thimerosal is the mercury-based preservative that was being accused as the culprit in vaccinations):

The prevalence of pervasive developmental disorder in thimerosal-free birth cohorts was significantly higher than that in thimerosal-exposed cohorts (82.7 of 10000 vs 59.5 of 10000). Using logistic regression models of the prevalence data, we found no significant effect of thimerosal exposure used either as a continuous or a categorical variable. Thus, thimerosal exposure was unrelated to the increasing trend in pervasive developmental disorder prevalence.

and the findings:

CONCLUSIONS. The prevalence of pervasive developmental disorder in Montreal was high, increasing in recent birth cohorts as found in most countries. Factors accounting for the increase include a broadening of diagnostic concepts and criteria, increased awareness and, therefore, better identification of children with pervasive developmental disorders in communities and epidemiologic surveys, and improved access to services. The findings ruled out an association between pervasive developmental disorder and either high levels of ethylmercury exposure comparable with those experienced in the United States in the 1990s or 1- or 2-dose measles-mumps-rubella vaccinations.

[Tristam]

No one ever said stop administering vaccinations, the most I said was reevaluate, spread em apart, or administer in a different way. You guys are great at argueing around the topic, which is how safe is fluoride water, and do vaccines have anything to contribute to autism, which then morphed to vaccines are 100% safe and your an idiot for disagreeing. My article proves that there is plenty of reason to be skeptical of both.

What? again noone has said vaccines are 100% safe, this is a strawman that you and guartz continue to put up. The fact of the matter is that the vaccine schedule is currently the best method of prevention for a variety of diseases and it has been set up as well as possible given the data. There is no reason to delay vaccines due to this autism paranoia.

If you want to reevaluate the vaccine schedule, fine, but first you have to provide evidence that doing so would be beneficial to human health. Noone is going to change how medicine is given to humans unless there is a clear and logical reason for doing so. Anything other that would be unethical. Your article has nothing to do with either vaccines or fluoride. You just think everyone in big-whatever is out to get you.

[guartz]

They do? A lot of managed care providers cover prescriptions only for generics, providing ample incentive to only prescribe generics in the first place. I've yet to see a health insurance plan that doesn't provide that at minimum.

Most major medical ppos are shifting that way to. It's an effort to lower insurance costs, with brand name rx being an additional option, or not an option at all.

not to mention, as an insurance agent I hear a lot of stories. Stories like some doctors prescribe parkinsons related drugs to treat less serious illnesses, and those drugs pretty much invalidate you from getting major medical or anything else that has strict underwriting. But who cares right? it's effective and those patients are usually on medicare anyway. Right? Never mind it's 25x more expensive.

there are only few drugs that are not available in generic or generic alternatives, like insolin or some allergy medications.

What I was saying, was that most people need to ask their doctors for generics. It's not assumed that people want cheaper drugs. Why?

Drug Company Gifts to Doctors


"The study focused on physicians� perceptions, so the researchers conducted a telephone survey of internists in the Washington area. All the doctors in the study probably thought, I get my information from Science; I don�t listen to those drug representatives. But it turned out that 71 percent of those interviewed believed that inferior cerebral blood flow was a major cause of dementia, and almost a third of them found vasodilators useful in managing geriatric patients. For Darvon, almost half of them believed that it was more potent than aspirin. The physicians could not possibly have gotten this misinformation from the scientific literature. "


and


"Another study tracked the prescribing patterns of two groups of 10 physicians who had been taken by pharmaceutical companies on all-expenses-paid trips to luxury resorts. Each day, the doctors participated in seminars for several hours. The rest of the time, they enjoyed the amenities of the locale.

All 10 doctors on each trip were interviewed, and the majority of them insisted that they were in no way influenced in their prescribing habits. Several said, "Maybe I was indirectly influenced by important scientific information that I might not otherwise have heard, but nothing else would influence me."

The study then compared the physicians� prescription patterns for almost two years prior to the trip with their prescriptions for almost a year and a half after the trip. The first group had been hosted by the makers of an intravenous (IV) antibiotic�Drug A. The second heard about an IV cardiovascular medication�Drug B."

[archibaldcrane]

Guartz...why aren't you talking about vaccinations?

[guartz]

Guartz...why aren't you talking about vaccinations?

somewhere along the lines I wanted to mention how doctors are biased.

sorry for the derail

[Halleberry]

My article proves something that has been long suspected of the FDA: some of the managers do not have the publics best interest at heart. Ok, maybe it doesn't prove it hands down, but anyone with common sense can detect that there is corruption in the FDA. Regardless if there is a conviction or not, 8 scientist testimony, coupled with dozens of recalls, malpractice suits, and settlements establish a strong basis for possible corruption within the organization. What are you argueing for? You claim that you don't swallow every piece of "official" information you hear, and thats good, you seem smarter than that, but what is your gripe with my statements?? I really don't know what your trying to prove. I came in this thread to speak my mind on how I feel about vaccines and fluoride. I said fluoride is a poison, and I backed it up with test. I said that vaccines sound like they have severe flaws in them, and I backed that up with a case of our organization responsible for testing and informing us of these flaws being suspected of corruption, and doubt cast by independent testing. If our system can bypass standards by tampering with equipment and not testing properly, there are tons more things they can do to get the results they want and the products they want out in the market. I said that it doesn't feel right to inject 3 virus' into a young child, I never said I had a solution. Thats not my job, I'm not a virologist. My job as a citzen is to stay informed, and inform others of potential dangers, and I believe our FDA lying to us is quite dangerous.

[Correction]

I said that it doesn't feel right to inject 3 virus' into a young child, I never said I had a solution.

Someone pointed out to you quite clearly that this is a gross misrepresentation of what actually happens during a vaccination. As this was a major pillar of your 'vaccinations are potentially unsafe' stance, I'm wondering what you have left, because it doesn't look like a whole lot more than fear.