Medical Forum / General / Alternative / April 2007
Are antidepressant drugs an accomplice in the Virginia Tech shootings?
|
|
Thread rating:  |
JOHN - 18 Apr 2007 21:18 GMT http://www.newstarget.com/021798.html
The Chicago Tribune reports that Cho Seung Hui, the Virginia Tech shooter who killed 32 fellow students in a shooting rampage, was taking antidepressant drugs. This is not the first time a school shooting rampage has been linked to antidepressants. The infamous Colombine High shootings took place almost exactly eight years ago, and the shooters in that rampage were also -- you guessed it -- taking antidepressant drugs.
What is it about antidepressant drugs that provokes young men to pick up pistols, rifles and shotguns, then violently assault their classmates? Clearly, there's something wrong with the mind of anyone who engages in such violent acts. Could the drugs be "imbalancing" their minds, priming them for violence?
The answer is a very sobering, "Yes, they could be." As we reported in a previous NewsTarget article on Paxil:
Researchers from Cardiff University in Britain and the Cochrane Centre examined data on Paxil -- or its generic form, paroxetine -- from GlaxoSmithKline, legal cases and emails from nearly 1,400 patients who responded to a British TV program on antidepressants. The researchers found that 60 out of 9,219 people taking Paxil -- 0.65 percent -- experienced a "hostility event," compared to 20 out of 6,455 patients taking placebo, or 0.31 percent.
In that same article, published in September, 2006, I stated, "This finding helps explain why school shootings are almost always conducted by children who are taking antidepressants. We also know that SSRIs cause children to disconnect from reality. When you combine that with a propensity for violence, you create a dangerous recipe for school shootings and other adolescent violence."
Sadly, that explanation rings true once again with the Virginia Tech shooting. Wherever we see school violence, antidepressant drugs seem to found at the scene of the crime. The correlation is not coincidence. There is a causal link between the two.
Jeff - 18 Apr 2007 23:23 GMT > http://www.newstarget.com/021798.html > > The Chicago Tribune reports that Cho Seung Hui, the Virginia Tech shooter > who killed 32 fellow students in a shooting rampage, was taking > antidepressant drugs. Here is one of three stories that the Chicago Tribune had about antidepressants in the last 4 days. None of them mentioned Virgina Tech.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/health/chi-0704170506apr18,1,2858186.stor y?ctrack=2&cset=true
> This is not the first time a school shooting rampage has been linked to > antidepressants. It has not been linked to antidepressants.
> The infamous Colombine High shootings took place almost exactly eight > years ago, and the shooters in that rampage were also -- you guessed it -- [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > such violent acts. Could the drugs be "imbalancing" their minds, priming > them for violence? Anything is possible. But the people who did the killing also had problems with depression. It like saying that frequent urination causes diabetes because people with diabetes pee a lot.
<crap deleted>
Tim Campbell - 18 Apr 2007 23:44 GMT > Anything is possible. But the people who did the killing also had problems > with depression. It like saying that frequent urination causes diabetes > because people with diabetes pee a lot. Except that violence to self or others is a far more common occurrence with the use of this type of drug than any other category of drugs.
Jeff - 18 Apr 2007 23:54 GMT >> Anything is possible. But the people who did the killing also had >> problems [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Except that violence to self or others is a far more common occurrence > with the use of this type of drug than any other category of drugs. Prove that it is because of the drug rather than a result of the underlying illness.
Jeff
Mark Probert - 19 Apr 2007 03:44 GMT >>> Anything is possible. But the people who did the killing also had >>> problems [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Prove that it is because of the drug rather than a result of the > underlying illness. Chuckle, he cannot. Any attempt to do so results in a circle.
Peter Bowditch - 19 Apr 2007 13:56 GMT >>>> Anything is possible. But the people who did the killing also had >>>> problems [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Chuckle, he cannot. Any attempt to do so results in a circle. I've taken Paxil, but even with my extensive training in killing people it never sent me off on a rampage.
 Signature Peter Bowditch aa #2243 The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
Mark Probert - 19 Apr 2007 03:42 GMT >> Anything is possible. But the people who did the killing also had problems >> with depression. It like saying that frequent urination causes diabetes
>> because people with diabetes pee a lot. > > Except that violence to self or others is a far more common occurrence > with the use of this type of drug than any other category of drugs. That is because people who have problems with their minds are taking these medications. They have problems, they take medications.
David Wright - 22 Apr 2007 03:41 GMT >> Anything is possible. But the people who did the killing also had problems >> with depression. It like saying that frequent urination causes diabetes >> because people with diabetes pee a lot. > >Except that violence to self or others is a far more common occurrence >with the use of this type of drug than any other category of drugs. You're forgetting alcohol. Now *there* is a drug that precipitates some serious violence, more than enough to put every other drug in the shade.
-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "HPV shots don't cause promiscuity. Tequila shots do." -- Bill Maher
Mark Probert - 23 Apr 2007 04:20 GMT >>> Anything is possible. But the people who did the killing also had problems >>> with depression. It like saying that frequent urination causes diabetes [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > some serious violence, more than enough to put every other drug in the > shade. I have yet to see any evidence that Cho was taking meds. Have you seen any actual PROOF?
JohnDoe - 23 Apr 2007 07:52 GMT >>>Anything is possible. But the people who did the killing also had problems >>>with depression. It like saying that frequent urination causes diabetes [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > some serious violence, more than enough to put every other drug in the > shade. I don't think there is any other substance that has the capacity to bring out the a.shole in people like alcohol does. And lets not forget the stupidity. Think of how many people have gotten themselves or a friend shot because they thought it'd be a great idea to fire a couple of rounds after a few sixpacks.
> -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net > These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. > "HPV shots don't cause promiscuity. Tequila shots do." -- Bill Maher David - 23 Apr 2007 13:25 GMT >>>>Anything is possible. But the people who did the killing also had >>>>problems [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > shot because they thought it'd be a great idea to fire a couple of rounds > after a few sixpacks. Now this is scary, I agree with John about alcohol.
David Wright - 24 Apr 2007 03:02 GMT >>>>>Anything is possible. But the people who did the killing also had >>>>>problems [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >> > Now this is scary, I agree with John about alcohol. That means you agree with me, too. How scary can you get?
-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "HPV shots don't cause promiscuity. Tequila shots do." -- Bill Maher
Mark Probert - 24 Apr 2007 00:49 GMT >>>> Anything is possible. But the people who did the killing also had >>>> problems [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > friend shot because they thought it'd be a great idea to fire a couple > of rounds after a few sixpacks. Agreed. We went to the Mets game yesterday and two 20something females had a couple and then treated the crowd toa "Girls GoNe Wild" moment.
Tim Campbell - 18 Apr 2007 23:49 GMT > Anything is possible. But the people who did the killing also had problems > with depression. It like saying that frequent urination causes diabetes > because people with diabetes pee a lot. Except that violence to self or others is a common occurrence with the use of this type of drug even among those who are only mildly depressed.
Jeff - 19 Apr 2007 00:05 GMT >> Anything is possible. But the people who did the killing also had >> problems [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > use of this type of drug even among those who are only mildly > depressed. How common? Evidence, please.
Jeff
bigvince - 19 Apr 2007 01:07 GMT > >> Anything is possible. But the people who did the killing also had > >> problems [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Jeff
>>> There is a lot of evidence that antidepresants can cause an increase in suicide . The FDA has required that warning be put on these drugs Here's some evidence to show they also increase other hostile acts. <a href = " http://www.NewsTarget.com/021798.html">Are antidepressant drugs an accomplice in the Virginia Tech shootings? (opinion)</ a> " Researchers from Cardiff University in Britain and the Cochrane Centre examined data on Paxil -- or its generic form, paroxetine -- from GlaxoSmithKline, legal cases and emails from nearly 1,400 patients who responded to a British TV program on antidepressants. The researchers found that 60 out of 9,219 people taking Paxil -- 0.65 percent -- experienced a "hostility event," compared to 20 out of 6,455 patients taking placebo, or 0.31 percent." from News target. .......................................................................................................................... See Antidepressants and Violence: Problems at the Interface of Medicine and Law, by David Healy, Andrew Herxheimer, David B. Menkes) PLos med article Highlights more hostile events in antidepressant group than placebo group about twice as many. More hostile events in HEALTHY SUBJECTS an antidepressants than on placebo. Any one interested should look at the research for them
bigvince - 19 Apr 2007 01:14 GMT > > "Tim Campbell" <timc...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > look at the research for them-> > - http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371%2Fjo urnal.pmed.0030372uoted text - full article
Jeff - 19 Apr 2007 03:42 GMT >> >> Anything is possible. But the people who did the killing also had >> >> problems [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > SUBJECTS an antidepressants than on placebo. Any one interested should > look at the research for them You mean like the paper that was published that showed that antidepressents are safe in kids and teens that was published in JAMA this week?
Jeff
bigvince - 19 Apr 2007 05:11 GMT > >> "Tim Campbell" <timc...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > - Show quoted text - The paper did not say that these drugs were safe in kids and teens What it did say is that for those under 12 most of these drugs do not work. They admitted the dangers of these drugs THey wrote "some might argue that any risk of suicide ideation or attempt cannot possibly justify treatment with antidepressants for children or adolescents." after putting in about 50 qualifiers they concluded "We believe that the strength of evidence presented here supports the cautious and well-monitored use of antidepressant medications as one of the first-line treatment options. This really is the same data that led the FDA to warn people and require a black box warning. To characterise it asas You mean like the paper that was published that showed that antidepressents
> are safe in kids and teens that was published in JAMA this week . read more http://www.medpagetoday.com/Psychiatry/Depression/tb1/5454 do your own research vince Mark Probert - 19 Apr 2007 03:47 GMT >>>> Anything is possible. But the people who did the killing also had >>>> problems [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > SUBJECTS an antidepressants than on placebo. Any one interested should > look at the research for them Except that there has been further study of this issue. I posted an artile under the subject line: Benefits of Antidepressants Outweigh Risk of Suicidal Behavior in Adolescents which you should read in its entirety. Perhapseven finding the study itself will help you update your knowledge.
bigvince - 19 Apr 2007 04:49 GMT On Apr 18, 10:47 pm, Mark Probert <markprob...@lumbercartel.com> wrote:
> >> "Tim Campbell" <timc...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > - Show quoted text - First lets get some really basic facts straight. There was no new study. What was published in JAMA was a meta-analysis so your first statement that furter study was done is inaccurate. I actualy did read your posting. I also read the meta-analysis The authors had concern about many aspects of the study mixed quality of data in the studies and several other technical problems. They admitted that suicide ideas increased and said "some might argue that any risk of suicide ideation or attempt cannot possibly justify treatment with antidepressants for children or adolescents." They concluded "We believe that the strength of evidence presented here supports the cautious and well- monitored use of antidepressant medications as one of the first-line treatment options'" .The data is really not very convincing. They also called for further study. They looked at the same data that the FDA had looked at when they called for a black box warning, Read more " http://www.medpagetoday.com/Psychiatry/Depression/tb1/5454 Vince
Mark Probert - 19 Apr 2007 13:31 GMT > On Apr 18, 10:47 pm, Mark Probert <markprob...@lumbercartel.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > study. What was published in JAMA was a meta-analysis so your first > statement that furter study was done is inaccurate A meta-analysis is a study that utilizes information from previous studies. It is a "study of studies".
I actualy did read
> your posting. I also read the meta-analysis The authors had concern > about many aspects of the study mixed quality of data in the studies > and several other technical problems. The sign of a good meta-analysis.
They admitted that suicide ideas
> increased and said "some might argue that any risk of suicide ideation > or attempt cannot possibly justify treatment with antidepressants for > children or adolescents." They concluded "We believe that the > strength of evidence presented here supports the cautious and well- > monitored use of antidepressant medications as one of the first-line > treatment options'" .The data is really not very convincing. To you, perhaps. What I found most interesting is that they found no instances of suicide. IOW, none of the violent behavior that the anti-medication crowd bleats and brays about.
They also
> called for further study. They looked at the same data that the FDA > had looked at when they called for a black box warning, Read more > " http://www.medpagetoday.com/Psychiatry/Depression/tb1/5454 I read it. More study is a great idea. However, based on the current state of knowledge, antidepressants appear to prevent violent behavior.
bigvince - 19 Apr 2007 15:13 GMT > > On Apr 18, 10:47 pm, Mark Probert <markprob...@lumbercartel.com> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 74 lines] > state of knowledge, antidepressants appear to prevent violent behavior.- Hide quoted text - >>> If you include suicide as an example of violent the FDA does not share your view. And there are many studies that show an increase in hostile acts when people are treated with these drugs as opposed to placebo bigvince - 19 Apr 2007 15:20 GMT > > > On Apr 18, 10:47 pm, Mark Probert <markprob...@lumbercartel.com> > > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 76 lines] > > - Show quoted text - The authours also said that they wanted the black box warning removed
Mark Probert - 21 Apr 2007 04:34 GMT >>>> On Apr 18, 10:47 pm, Mark Probert <markprob...@lumbercartel.com> >>>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] > > The authours also said that they wanted the black box warning removed I think they said that the black box warnings should be reconsidered. Nothing wrong with constant review.
Mark Probert - 21 Apr 2007 04:33 GMT >>> On Apr 18, 10:47 pm, Mark Probert <markprob...@lumbercartel.com> >>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] >> state of knowledge, antidepressants appear to prevent violent behavior.- Hide quoted text - >>>> If you include suicide as an example of violent the FDA does not share your view. And there are many studies that show an increase in hostile acts when people are treated with these drugs as opposed to placebo Your attributions are screwed up. Try again.
jandew6 - 20 Apr 2007 05:46 GMT >> On Apr 18, 10:47 pm, Mark Probert <markprob...@lumbercartel.com> >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 74 lines] > I read it. More study is a great idea. However, based on the current state > of knowledge, antidepressants appear to prevent violent behavior. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/n/a/2006/03/14/state/...
http://cbs3.com/health/health_story_339214355.html
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.diseases.lyme/msg/5065f56b89eb0bc2
<snip>
> Coleah wrote: >> I still say "BULLSHIT".
>>>> The assertion is that taking an Antidepressant 'may' RAISE suicide >> risk; >>>> and that the MOST dangerous time for suicide is when a severely >> depressed >>>> person is starting to show improvement after beginning SSRI treatment. >>> That assertion is TRUE. Let's look at the facts, and not the ASSumptions nor the screamed *bullshit*!
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8HIB6EO0.htm?campaign_i... warns of suicide risks for Paxil. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5989348/FACT:FDA calls for warning on antidepressantshttp://www.mayoclinic.com/health/antidepressants/MH00059FACT: about your child's health.Why do antidepressants need warnings that they are linked to suicidalbehavior in children and adolescents?Federal authorities say that an extensive analysis of clinical trials showsthat antidepressants may increase the risk of suicidal thinking or behaviorin children, particularly in the early months of treatment of depression orother psychiatric illnesses.The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) commissioned researchers to analyze atotal of 24 clinical trials involving more than 4,400 children who weretaking antidepressants for various psychiatric illnesses, includingdepression and anxiety disorders, such as obsessive-compulsive disorder(OCD). According to the FDA, the analysis showed that children takingantidepressants had about a 4 percent chance of developing suicidal thoughtsor behavior, compared to only 2 percent in children taking a placebo. Noneof the children in any of the studies committed suicide.Still, the FDA considers the findings so disturbing that in October 2004 itissued a public health advisory and began requiring manufacturers ofantidepressants to label them with strong warnings about the link to suicidein children.http://vanderbiltowc.wellsource.com/dh/content.asp?ID=1550FACTS:Antid... Drugs Associated with Suicidal ThoughtsBy Larry Axmaker, EdD, PhDThe labels on all antidepressant drugs are now required by the U.S. Food andDrug Administration (FDA) to include a boxed warning and expanded warningstatements that alert people to an increased risk of suicidality (suicidalthinking and behavior) in children and adolescents being treated with theseagents.Physicians, their patients, families, and caregivers of patients need toclosely monitor the use of prescription antidepressants in both adults andchildren with depression, especially at the beginning of treatment, or whenthe doses are changed - either an increase or decrease in the dose.The increased warnings were prompted by the results of antidepressantstudies in children. The risk of suicidality for these drugs was identifiedin a combined analysis of short-term (up to four months) placebo-controlledtrials of nine antidepressant drugs, including the selective serotoninreuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and others, in children and adolescents withmajor depressive disorder (MDD), obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD), orother psychiatric disorders.A total of 24 trials involving more than 4,400 patients were included. Theanalysis showed a greater risk of suicidality during the first few months oftreatment in those receiving antidepressants. The average risk of suchevents on drug was four percent - twice the placebo risk of two percent. Nosuicides occurred in these trials.WarningBased on these data, FDA has determined that the following points areappropriate for inclusion in the boxed warning: a.. Antidepressants increase the risk of suicidal thinking and behavior(suicidality) in children and adolescents with MDD and other psychiatricdisorders. b.. Anyone considering the use of an antidepressant in a child oradolescent for any clinical use must balance the risk of increasedsuicidality with the clinical need. c.. Patients who are started on therapy should be observed closely forclinical worsening, suicidality, or unusual changes in behavior. d.. Families and caregivers should be advised to closely observe thepatient and to communicate with the prescribing physician. e.. A statement regarding whether the particular drug is approved for anypediatric indication(s) and, if so, which one(s).The only one of these drugs that has currently received approval for use inchildren with MDD is fluoxetine (Prozac). Prozac, Zoloft, Luvox, andAnafranil are approved for OCD in pediatric patients. None of the drugs isapproved for other psychiatric indications in children.The drugs receiving a boxed warning, other product labling changes, and aMedication Guide pertaining to pediatric suicidality: Anafranil (clomipramine HCl) Marplan (isocarboxazid) Sinequan (doxepin HCl) Aventyl (nortriptyline HCl) Nardil (phenelzine sulfate) Surmontil (trimipramine) Celexa (citalopram HBr) Norpramin (desipramine HCl) Symbyax (olanzapine/ fluoxetine) Cymbalta (duloxetine HCl) Pamelor (nortriptyline HCl) Tofranil (imipramine HCl) Desyrel (trazodone HCl) Parnate (tranylcypromine sulfate) Tofranil-PM (impiramine pamoate) Effexor (venlafaxine HCl) Paxil (paroxetine HCl) Triavil (Perphenaine/ Amitriptyline) Elavil (amitriptyline HCl) Pexeva (paroxetine mesylate) Vivactil (protriptyline HCl) Lexapro (escitalopram oxalate) Prozac (fluoxetine HCl) Wellbutrin (bupropion HCl) Limbitrol (chlordiazepoxide/ amitriptyline) Remeron (mirtazapine) Zoloft (sertraline HCl) Ludiomil (Maprotiline HCl) Sarafem (fluoxetine HCl) Zyban (bupropion HCl) Luvox (fluvoxamine maleate) Serzone (nefazodone HCl)What to Watch For a.. Pediatric patients being treated with antidepressants for anyindication should be closely observed for clinical worsening, as well asagitation, irritability, suicidality, and unusual changes in behavior,especially during the initial few months of a course of drug therapy, or attimes of dose changes, either increases or decreases. b.. Heathcare providers should carefully evaluate patients in whomdepression persistently worsens, or emergent suicidality is severe, abruptin onset, or was not part of the presenting symptoms, to determine whatintervention, including discontinuing or modifying the current drug therapy,is indicated. This is especially the case at the beginning of therapy ofwhen the dose is changed. c.. Anxiety, agitation, panic attacks, insomnia, irritability, hostility,impulsivity, akathisia (severe restlessness), hypomania, and mania have beenreported in adult and pediatric patients being treated with antidepressantsfor major depressive disorder as well as for other indications. Therapyshould be evaluated, and medications may need to be discontinued, whensymptoms are severe, abrupt in onset, or were not part of the patient'spresenting symptoms. d.. If a decision is made to discontinue treatment, some of thesemedications should be tapered rather than stopped abruptly (see labeling forindividual drug products for details). e.. Because antidepressants are believed to have the potential forinducing manic episodes in patients with bipolar disorder, there is aconcern about using antidepressants alone for these indviduals. Therefore,patients should be adequately screened to determine if they are at risk forbipolar disorder before initiating antidepressant treatment. f.. Healthcare providers should instruct patients, their families, andtheir caregivers to be alert for the emergence of agitation, irritability,and the other symptoms described above, as well as the emergence ofsuicidality and worsening depression, and to report such symptomsimmediately to their healthcare provider.Bottom LineIf you or someone close to you takes prescription antidepressants, it isimperative to be watchful, careful, and report any possible problems orchanges to a doctor.Sources: 1. FDA Public Health Advisory. October 15, 2004. Suicidality in Childrenand Adolescents Being Treated With Antidepressant Medications. Available at:http://www.fda.gov/ cder/drug/ antidepressants/ SSRIPHA200410.htm. AccessedMarch 12, 2006. 2. FDA Talk Paper. March 22, 2004. FDA Issues Public Health Advisory onCautions for Use of Antidepressants in Adults and Children. Available onlineat: http://www.fda.gov/bbs/ topics/ANSWERS/ 2004/ANS01283.html. AccessedMarch 12, 2006.>>>> Let's take a look at this for a minute and see if I have my assumptions>>>> here>>>> correct.>>>>>>>> 1) Untreated, severely depressed people attempt suicide.>>>> 2) Untreated, severely depressed people attempt suicide more oftenthan>>>> people who have fully adjusted to SSRI treatment.>>>> 3) Trained psychiatric nurses know that "often" the MOST dangeroustime>>>> for>>>> a severely depressed person is the point where they start to show>>>> improvement?>>>> A) Most dangerous? Which is MORE dangerous than what other time?>>>> (3.a.1) BEFORE they even start taking medication?>>>> (3.a.2) From the subject title above, it is the>>>> 'Antidepressant'>>>> which is being fingered as the cause of a Raisein>>>> a Suicide RISK.>>>>>>>> I say, BULLSHIT !!>>>> 1. Untreated people who are left to linger in deep depression aloneare>>>> at>>>> the highest risk of suicide.>>>> 2. People who begin taking antidepressant medication also need>> counseling>>>> at the same time.>>>> 3. The 'pill' is not the magic bullet, cure all.>>>> 4. It takes time for medication to even begin to work (2 weeks at>> least).>>>> 5. If the patient is not being counseled or monitored, they are will>> be>>>> expecting 'quicker results'.>>>> 6. SSRI medication is begun at the lowest possible dosage.>>>> 7. SSRI is increased slowly, over time.>>>> 8. It could take months to achieve the level required, especially for>>>> 'severely depressed patients.>>>> 9. Uncounseled patients can easily forget is will take time, become>>>> impatient and discouraged.>>>>>>>> Trying to blame someone's suicide at the very early stages of beginning>> an>>>> SSRI medication is BULLSHIT, just pure and simple
David Wright - 22 Apr 2007 03:41 GMT >> Anything is possible. But the people who did the killing also had problems >> with depression. It like saying that frequent urination causes diabetes [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >use of this type of drug even among those who are only mildly >depressed. "A common occurrence?" Yeah, sure, Tim. Let's see your numbers.
-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "HPV shots don't cause promiscuity. Tequila shots do." -- Bill Maher
Tim Campbell - 19 Apr 2007 06:21 GMT > Anything is possible. But the people who did the killing also had problems > with depression. It like saying that frequent urination causes diabetes > because people with diabetes pee a lot. Just like depressed people who drink and then have accidents it's not the fault of the alcohol...they were just having problems with depression.
Because afterall people who don't drink get into accidents too!
Ha!
Twittering One - 19 Apr 2007 00:12 GMT No specificity of the pharmacologic intervention has been reported; the medication may very well be an antipsychotic -- not an antidepressant.
JOHN - 19 Apr 2007 09:20 GMT Eric Harris was taking Luvox (a Prozac-like drug) at the time of the Littleton murders by Peter R. Breggin, M.D. http://www.breggin.com/luvox.html
JohnDoe - 19 Apr 2007 10:30 GMT > Eric Harris was taking Luvox (a Prozac-like drug) at the time of the > Littleton murders by Peter R. Breggin, M.D. > http://www.breggin.com/luvox.html I'm sure he was drinking dihydrogenmonoxide at the time as well. That stuff should be banned!
David Wright - 22 Apr 2007 17:56 GMT >Eric Harris was taking Luvox (a Prozac-like drug) at the time of the >Littleton murders by Peter R. Breggin, M.D. >http://www.breggin.com/luvox.html And Dylan Klebold wasn't. So I guess *not* taking Luvox must also cause homicidal behavior. Geez, you just can't win.
-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "HPV shots don't cause promiscuity. Tequila shots do." -- Bill Maher
JOHN - 19 Apr 2007 09:22 GMT gun control http://www.whale.to/b/gun_control.html
Peter Bowditch - 19 Apr 2007 13:59 GMT >gun control http://www.whale.to/b/gun_control.html John's a gun nut. I wish I had had a bet on that.
 Signature Peter Bowditch aa #2243 The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
JOHN - 19 Apr 2007 14:57 GMT Certain brain activities trigger people on Prozac to become homicidal or suicidal. Thanks to research by Illuminati controlled companies, the Network knows exactly how to used ELF waves vectored on a particular person by 3 separate towers to stimulate the Prozac controlled brain to murder. This is being used to increase acts of anarchy and violence in order to help insure anti-gun legislation. If a slave doesn't comply or needs to be thrown from the Freedom Train they can become a useable statistic. Simply trigger them to murder and then watch the police gun them down. The NWO gains one more statistic and another case to scare the public into accepting gun control. The Illuminati Formula 6. The Use of Electricity & Electronics
Jeff - 19 Apr 2007 15:05 GMT > Certain brain activities trigger people on Prozac to become homicidal or > suicidal. Thanks to research by Illuminati controlled companies, the > Network knows exactly how to used ELF waves vectored on a particular > person by 3 separate towers to stimulate the Prozac controlled brain to > murder. This is priceless. I have not seen something this funny in a long time. ;-)
> This is being used to increase acts of anarchy and violence in order to > help insure anti-gun legislation. If a slave doesn't comply or needs to be [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > accepting gun control. The Illuminati Formula 6. The Use of Electricity & > Electronics Have you thought of starting your own comedy podcasts?
Maybe you could make a deal to replace Imus in the US.
You could call it the "clueless show."
Jeff
Peter Bowditch - 19 Apr 2007 15:11 GMT >Certain brain activities trigger people on Prozac to become homicidal or >suicidal. Thanks to research by Illuminati controlled companies, the Network [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >statistic and another case to scare the public into accepting gun control. >The Illuminati Formula 6. The Use of Electricity & Electronics sh.t! I must speak to the Illuminati librarian about changing the locks. The secrets are getting out again.
 Signature Peter Bowditch aa #2243 The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
libertysilver - 21 Apr 2007 17:46 GMT > >Certain brain activities trigger people on Prozac to become homicidal or > >suicidal. Thanks to research by Illuminati controlled companies, the Network [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Australian Skepticshttp://www.skeptics.com.au > To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com If you look at the following article, you will find all the evidence you need. This is a clear issue, the only reason it seems confusing, is because it is intentionally being confused by vested intrests. Read this well written and well documented article to gain an understanding of what is happening here: http://nomorefakenews.com/index.php
David Wright - 24 Apr 2007 04:44 GMT >> >Certain brain activities trigger people on Prozac to become homicidal or >> >suicidal. Thanks to research by Illuminati controlled companies, the Network [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >is happening here: >http://nomorefakenews.com/index.php Well written? Well documented? The whole thing is just a stew of speculation. For example:
"Cho, a senior majoring in English, was normally in bed by 9 each night, up again by 7 in the morning. But he began rising earlier, sometimes by 5:30 a.m., to put in his contact lenses, take prescription pills and apply acne medicine."
Prescription pills. Given what we know so far, there is reason to believe these were psychiatric meds, and probably taken for depression. That would almost certainly mean an SSRI antidepressant---a drug that can induce suicide or homicide.
Complete speculation. Not one word of documented fact. The rest of it is no better. If you think it's good, you're as nutty as Cho.
-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "HPV shots don't cause promiscuity. Tequila shots do." -- Bill Maher
David Wright - 28 Apr 2007 03:36 GMT >> >Certain brain activities trigger people on Prozac to become homicidal or >> >suicidal. Thanks to research by Illuminati controlled companies, the Network [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >is happening here: >http://nomorefakenews.com/index.php I just went there. I did gain understanding -- I understand that the web site is a commercial venture that is devoted to selling tapes and the personal services of Jon Rappoport.
That's all I found there, anyway.
-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "HPV shots don't cause promiscuity. Tequila shots do." -- Bill Maher
David Wright - 19 Apr 2007 17:23 GMT >Certain brain activities trigger people on Prozac to become homicidal or >suicidal. Thanks to research by Illuminati controlled companies, the Network [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >statistic and another case to scare the public into accepting gun control. >The Illuminati Formula 6. The Use of Electricity & Electronics I'd like anyone who thinks that either John or whale.to are useful sources of information to keep this posting in mind, 'kay?
-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "HPV shots don't cause promiscuity. Tequila shots do." -- Bill Maher
Jeff - 19 Apr 2007 17:30 GMT >>Certain brain activities trigger people on Prozac to become homicidal or >>suicidal. Thanks to research by Illuminati controlled companies, the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > I'd like anyone who thinks that either John or whale.to are useful > sources of information to keep this posting in mind, 'kay? This thought has crossed my mind, too.
Jeff
> -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net > These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. > "HPV shots don't cause promiscuity. Tequila shots do." -- Bill Maher Mark Probert - 21 Apr 2007 04:37 GMT >>> Certain brain activities trigger people on Prozac to become homicidal or >>> suicidal. Thanks to research by Illuminati controlled companies, the [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > This thought has crossed my mind, too. It could not cross John's mind even with a top of the line GPS unit. It would get lost in the darkness.
bigvince - 19 Apr 2007 18:05 GMT > In article <YaWdnTM0PMmy6LrbnZ2dnUVZ8q6un...@bt.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. > "HPV shots don't cause promiscuity. Tequila shots do." -- Bill Maher David you are far to intelligent to think that is logical. John latest posting seems irrational .To say that that means anything he quoted from the whale cite lacks validity. Whould be like saying anything he quoted from any source even the constitution calls the constitution into question. I still want someone to explain to me why injecting mercury into infants was a good idea. Thanks vince
Jeff - 19 Apr 2007 18:22 GMT <...>
> David you are far to intelligent to think that is logical. John latest > posting seems irrational .To say that that means anything he quoted > from the whale cite lacks validity. Whould be like saying anything he > quoted from any source even the constitution calls the constitution > into question. I still want someone to explain to me why injecting > mercury into infants was a good idea. Thanks vince Thimerasol is a mercury compound that, in small quantities, prevents bacteria from growing in vaccines. It has never been shown to be harmful in the concentrations used.
However, it should be removed from all vaccines.
Jeff
bigvince - 19 Apr 2007 18:54 GMT > <...> > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Jeff Did you ever See a " A Few Good Men" Let me paraphase the question from that movie. If thimersol is not harmfull then why shoud it be removed. The fact is that the amount thimerasol in vaccines as a result of increased mandates for shots at one time exceeded the goverments owe safety limits by more than 30 times. Again explain to me why that was a good idea. The fact that it is being removed says that there is some problem with leaving it in. As a Doctor exactly what amount do you feel is safe. Thanks Vince
Jeff - 19 Apr 2007 20:20 GMT >> <...> >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > from that movie. If thimersol is not harmfull then why shoud it be > removed. Potentially, it could be harmful.
> The fact is that the amount thimerasol in vaccines as a > result of increased mandates for shots at one time exceeded the > goverments owe safety limits by more than 30 times. What safety limits?
> Again explain to > me why that was a good idea. I when did I say it was a good idea?
> The fact that it is being removed says > that there is some problem with leaving it in. As a Doctor exactly > what amount do you feel is safe. Thanks Vince I don't have a specific amount that I would say is "safe" or unsafe. It is shades of gray. The very small risk that goes with Thimerasol is small compared to the risks of the infections that vaccines protect against.
The amount of mercury that kids are exposed to from vaccines is much smaller than the amount they get from the environment. In addition, the form of organic mercury that is in fish (methymercury) is more dangerous than the form in vaccines (ethylmercury). Ethylmercury is removed from the brain, while methylmercury is not.
Jeff
Jeff
bigvince - 20 Apr 2007 05:06 GMT > >> "bigvince" <Vince.Mirag...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > > - Show quoted text - So do you feel that the levels set by the goverment where to low: or that it was a foolish idea to add this to vaccines to begin with. You also compare the risk of thimerasol to the benefits of vaccines, Really thimerasol was not needed in vaccines as it had no preventative effect. Was never used in single does sealed vials and was used only in multi dose vials . ItS benefit was a dollar or two a shot whatever risk it poses should be compare to that. Was it a wise decision to start with. Thanks vince
David Wright - 21 Apr 2007 04:57 GMT >Really thimerasol was not needed in vaccines as it had no preventative >effect. Sure it did -- it prevented the growth of bacteria. Where did you get the idea it wasn't needed?
>Was never used in single does sealed vials and was used only >in multi dose vials True today -- was it true 50 years ago? "Never" covers a lot of ground here.
-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "HPV shots don't cause promiscuity. Tequila shots do." -- Bill Maher
bigvince - 21 Apr 2007 06:55 GMT > In article <1177042016.924620.264...@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. > "HPV shots don't cause promiscuity. Tequila shots do." -- Bill Maher As it was not used in single dose vails it was never "needed" it did allow the makers to use multi dose vials and there by reduce the cost per shot . the trade was exposing infants to mercury. As the amount of vaccines increased that amount of exposure increased untill at its maximun the amount of mercury injected into infants exceeded the amount that the EPA had already set as the maximum safe amount.Thats when it was removed. I suspect you know this do you believe that the removal was "political' because the removal was done after the doseage exceeded EPA standarts . Maybe you believe those standarts were set politically . Thanks have a nice day Vince
David Wright - 24 Apr 2007 03:20 GMT >> In article <1177042016.924620.264...@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >allow the makers to use multi dose vials and there by reduce the cost >per shot . Vince, I have a helpful suggestion for you: don't post falsehoods that are easily demonstrated to be falsehoods.
In particular, kindly drop your nonsensical claim that thimerosal has never been used in single-dose vials. You're flat wrong and it took me about one minute to find proof. See:
www.safeminds.org/mercury/mercury_releases/Thimerosal_content_of_US_vaccines.pdf And look at some of the items in red.
Oh, and have a nice day.
-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "HPV shots don't cause promiscuity. Tequila shots do." -- Bill Maher
Mark Probert - 24 Apr 2007 22:26 GMT > In article <1177134911.710890.127...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Oh, and have a nice day. David, that is not fair, using an anti-vac, anti-thimerosal site to prove Biggie wrong.
That is an evil tactic designed to prevent the Mercury Militia from claiming a conspiracy.
bigvince - 21 Apr 2007 15:46 GMT > >> "bigvince" <Vince.Mirag...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Do you really think comparing twotoxic substance can prove can prove one is safe. THe real risk benefits that should be compared is was the risk of shoting mercury into kids worth the two or three dollars a shot it saved. Sealed vials elimanatedthe need for mecury. As a physician you believe that was a good trade. Thanks Vince
Mark Probert - 21 Apr 2007 04:43 GMT >> <...> >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > from that movie. If thimersol is not harmfull then why shoud it be > removed. The removal is political. Anti-vaccination scaremongers, using such scary things like their "Thimerosal causes Autism" chant, was causing a decreased uptake of vaccines in certain areas of the US. The CDC and FDA wisely decided to remove the scaremongers bullshit by removing the Thimerosal. There was no other reason.
The fact is that the amount thimerasol in vaccines as a
> result of increased mandates for shots at one time exceeded the > goverments owe safety limits by more than 30 times. Assuming, of course, that the child could not clear the Thimerosal between shots. However, it is well documented that the child clears it rapidly through feces.
Again explain to
> me why that was a good idea. The fact that it is being removed says > that there is some problem with leaving it in. With a decreased uptake, the reinforcement of herd immunity would wane. Like I said, it was purely political.
As a Doctor exactly
> what amount do you feel is safe. Thanks Vince JOHN - 21 Apr 2007 09:19 GMT > Thimerasol is a mercury compound that, in small quantities, prevents > bacteria from growing in vaccines. It has never been shown to be harmful > in the concentrations used. However, it should be removed from all > vaccines. putz classic
"Yet human studies show that DPT is safe" then "DPT is not 100% safe. Nothing is."--Putz
"Mercury is taken out of vaccines to help ensure their safety. There is no evidence that the mercury in the vaccines causes any harm. However, the experts want to make sure that everything is done to keep vaccines as safe as possible."--Putz
Jeff - 21 Apr 2007 15:57 GMT >> Thimerasol is a mercury compound that, in small quantities, prevents >> bacteria from growing in vaccines. It has never been shown to be harmful [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > experts want to make sure that everything is done to keep vaccines as safe > as possible."--Putz I don't know who this "Putz" guy is. Putz is a Yiddish word for penis, so it looks like you are going back to kindergarten and using your name-calling skills. About the best skill you have.
I am sorry nothing in medicine is black and white. Everything we do has risks. Playing soccer or football has great benefits, like inproved cardiovascular health, strength and self-esteem, but there is always the risk of injury.
Likewise, every medicine has risks, including vaccines. The benefits of vaccines clearly outweigh the risks for childhood vaccines. Thimerasol is one of the risks. However, the data show that it is not dangerous in the doses given. However, there is still a risk with the thimerasol, so I wish they would get rid of it. But the risk is so small and the benefits of vaccines great, so I am not concerned about thimerasol.
This is one of the things that you have to think about. So, John, your demonstrated lack of understanding is excused.
Jeff
JOHN - 22 Apr 2007 11:47 GMT > I don't know who this "Putz" guy is. Putz is a Yiddish word for penis, so > it looks like you are going back to kindergarten and using your > name-calling skills. About the best skill you have. "Too bad you can't see what a jerk you are."---Jeff P. Utz (aka Putz)
> Likewise, every medicine has risks, including vaccines. The benefits of > vaccines clearly outweigh the risks for childhood vaccines. Lie http://www.whale.to/vaccines/benefits_risks.html
>Thimerasol is one of the risks. However, the data show that it is not >dangerous in the doses given. However, there is still a risk with the >thimerasol, so I wish they would get rid of it. But the risk is so small >and the benefits of vaccines great, so I am not concerned about thimerasol. Good to see you have mastered talking out of your arse.
David Wright - 24 Apr 2007 03:22 GMT >> I don't know who this "Putz" guy is. Putz is a Yiddish word for penis, so >> it looks like you are going back to kindergarten and using your >> name-calling skills. About the best skill you have. > >"Too bad you can't see what a jerk you are."---Jeff P. Utz (aka Putz) That's not an insult, it's a statement of fact, John. It *is* too bad you can't see what a jerk you are.
-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "HPV shots don't cause promiscuity. Tequila shots do." -- Bill Maher
David Wright - 22 Apr 2007 18:13 GMT >> Thimerasol is a mercury compound that, in small quantities, prevents >> bacteria from growing in vaccines. It has never been shown to be harmful [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >"Yet human studies show that DPT is safe" then "DPT is not 100% safe. >Nothing is."--Putz Which is quite correct. OK, John-boy, tell us about some things that are 100% safe in any quantity.
>"Mercury is taken out of vaccines to help ensure their safety. There is no >evidence that the mercury in the vaccines causes any harm. However, the >experts want to make sure that everything is done to keep vaccines as safe >as possible."--Putz It's a just-in-case. It was mostly, as Jeff has said, a political move to shut up the "mercury causes autism" screamers. Note that autism rates have not plummeted, as they should have if thimerosal was really the culprit.
-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "HPV shots don't cause promiscuity. Tequila shots do." -- Bill Maher
bigvince - 25 Apr 2007 15:18 GMT > <...> > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Jeff Here is jeffs original message
Mark Probert - 21 Apr 2007 04:38 GMT >> In article <YaWdnTM0PMmy6LrbnZ2dnUVZ8q6un...@bt.com>, >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > posting seems irrational .To say that that means anything he quoted > from the whale cite lacks validity. He notonly quotes it, he writes and compiles it.
Whould be like saying anything he
> quoted from any source even the constitution calls the constitution > into question. I still want someone to explain to me why injecting > mercury into infants was a good idea. Thanks vince David Wright - 21 Apr 2007 04:52 GMT >>> In article <YaWdnTM0PMmy6LrbnZ2dnUVZ8q6un...@bt.com>, >>> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >He notonly quotes it, he writes and compiles it. I don't believe John writes most of the stuff on whale.to, he just does the compilation. The writing, though nutty, is far too sophisticated to be the product of John's feeble abilities.
-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "HPV shots don't cause promiscuity. Tequila shots do." -- Bill Maher
David Wright - 21 Apr 2007 04:55 GMT >> In article <YaWdnTM0PMmy6LrbnZ2dnUVZ8q6un...@bt.com>, >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >David you are far to intelligent to think that is logical. John latest >posting seems irrational. It doesn't seem irrational, it is irrational.
>To say that that means anything he quoted >from the whale cite lacks validity. Whould be like saying anything he >quoted from any source even the constitution calls the constitution >into question. In principle, it seems as though you should have a point. In fact, you don't, because John's quoted nuttiness above is simply a typical example of the folderol that makes up 98% [I'm being generous here] of whale.to.
>I still want someone to explain to me why injecting >mercury into infants was a good idea. Thanks vince Thimerosal was used as a preservative, to keep harmful bacteria from growing in the vaccines. The thimerosal itself isn't harmful.
That's why it's a good idea.
-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "HPV shots don't cause promiscuity. Tequila shots do." -- Bill Maher
bigvince - 21 Apr 2007 07:01 GMT > In article <1177002343.818152.55...@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > > - Show quoted text - If thimerosal is not harmful why does the EPA set a max. safe amount for it .It is in fact a toxic substance mercury and is regulated as such.
Mark Probert - 21 Apr 2007 12:06 GMT >> In article <1177002343.818152.55...@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, >> [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > If thimerosal is not harmful why does the EPA set a max. safe amount > for it A basic concept of toxicology is that dose makes the poison.
.It is in fact a toxic substance mercury and is regulated as
> such. Dihydrogen monoxide in sufficient quanties can kill you.
bigvince - 21 Apr 2007 15:38 GMT > >> In article <1177002343.818152.55...@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > > - Show quoted text - It is true that dose makes the poison. Then why do you say that thimerosal a toxic substance regulated by the EPA at a maximun safe dose of .1mcg/k is the most frequently applied standert. Why do you think it safe to administer more than that in one days dose of vaccine 30x more. You are right most drugs can be poison -we consider them toxic when the amount needed to cause damage is very small. Mercury is a very effective poison it takes a very small to do damange. The amount injected into infants before it was removed exceeded the level considered to be safe by a substantial amount. It was removed for that reason . To compare it to water is a little silly. Thanks vince
Mark Probert - 24 Apr 2007 00:45 GMT >>>> In article <1177002343.818152.55...@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, >>>>>> In article <YaWdnTM0PMmy6LrbnZ2dnUVZ8q6un...@bt.com>, [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > thimerosal a toxic substance regulated by the EPA at a maximun safe > dose of .1mcg/k is the most frequently applied standert. Methinks that you are confused. That standard applies to MeHg, NOT Ethyl Mercury. Am I correct that you are aware of the significance of this and know the difference between the two?
So? What is the significance of the standard? Are you claiming that vaccines USED TO exceed that amount? If so, it is a surprise to the EPA:
"At concentrations found in vaccines, thimerosal meets the requirements for a preservative as set forth by the United States Pharmacopeia; that is, it kills the specified challenge organisms and is able to prevent the growth of the challenge fungi (U.S. Pharmacopeia 2004). Thimerosal in concentrations of 0.001% (1 part in 100,000) to 0.01% (1 part in 10,000) has been shown to be effective in clearing a broad spectrum of pathogens. A vaccine containing 0.01% thimerosal as a preservative contains 50 micrograms of thimerosal per 0.5 mL dose or approximately 25 micrograms of mercury per 0.5 mL dose. "
http://www.fda.gov/cber/vaccine/thimerosal.htm
From that page:
"One final piece of data regarding thimerosal is worth noting. At the initial National Vaccine Advisory Committee-sponsored meeting on thimerosal in 1999, concerns were expressed that infants may lack the ability to eliminate mercury. More recent NIAID-supported studies at the University of Rochester and National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, MD examined levels of mercury in blood and other samples from infants who had received routine immunizations with thimerosal-containing vaccines. [Pichichero ME, et al. Lancet 360:1737-1741 (2002)] Blood levels of mercury did not exceed safety guidelines for methyl mercury for all infants in these studies. Further, mercury was cleared from the blood in infants exposed to thimerosal faster than would be predicted for methyl mercury; infants excreted significant amounts of mercury in stool after thimerosal exposure, thus removing mercury from their bodies. These results suggest that there are differences in the way that thimerosal and methyl mercury are distributed, metabolized, and excreted. Thimerosal appears to be removed from the blood and body more rapidly than methyl mercury. NIAID is sponsoring a follow-up study with larger numbers of infants in Buenos Aires where thimerosal-containing vaccines are still administered to children. See the NIH/NIAID vaccines/thimerosal web site http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/thimerosalqa.htm."
Why do you
> think it safe to administer more than that in one days dose of > vaccine 30x more. Your math, etc is off.
You are right most drugs can be poison -we consider
> them toxic when the amount needed to cause damage is very small. > Mercury is a very effective poison it takes a very small to do > damange. The amount injected into infants before it was removed > exceeded the level considered to be safe by a substantial amount. It > was removed for that reason . To compare it to water is a little > silly. Thanks vince If you read the EPA page, and do remember, YOU cited them as authoritative, you would learn that you are wrong.
bigvince - 28 Apr 2007 05:51 GMT > >>>> In article <1177002343.818152.55...@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, > >>>>>> In article <YaWdnTM0PMmy6LrbnZ2dnUVZ8q6un...@bt.com>, [quoted text clipped - 111 lines] > > - Show quoted text - No Mark methinks you are confused. The .1mcg/k standart applies to both forms of mercury The various mercury guidelines are based on epidemiological and laboratory studies of methyl mercury, whereas thimerosal is a derivative of ethyl mercury. Because they are different chemical entities - ethyl- versus methylmercury - different toxicological profiles are expected. There is, therefore, an uncertainty that arises in applying the methylmercury-based guidelines to thimerosal. Lacking definitive data on the comparative toxicities of ethyl- versus methylmercury, FDA considered ethyl- and methyl-mercury as equivalent in its risk evaluation. There are some data and studies bearing directly on thimerosal toxicity and these are summarized in this Section. source http://www.fda.gov/cber/vaccine/thimerosal.htm#tox Notice the word equivalent this is your document just alittle further down the page odd you missed it. Then again same document Various agencies have developed guidelines for safe exposure to methylmercury, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Mahaffey et al. 1997), U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR 1999), the FDA (Federal Register 1979)1, and the World Health Organization (WHO 1996). These exposure levels range from 0.1 µg/kg body weight/day (EPA) to 0.47 µg/kg body weight/day (WHO)2. The range of recommendations is due to varying safety margins, differing emphasis placed on various sources of data, the different missions of the agencies and the population that the guideline is intended to protect. All guidelines, however, fall within the same order of magnitude. While these guidelines
So by the document you quoted ethyl and methyl-mercury are equivalent in risk a evaluation and the joint standart is >1mgc/k. It is a 2 step process . Thanks Vince
Jan Drew - 22 Apr 2007 04:41 GMT "Mark Probert" <markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote :
Dihydrogen monoxide ---
Is not the subject......
David Wright - 24 Apr 2007 03:21 GMT >If thimerosal is not harmful why does the EPA set a max. safe amount >for it .It is in fact a toxic substance mercury and is regulated as >such. If water is safe, how come you can drown in it? How come drinking too much of it too fast will kill you?
-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "HPV shots don't cause promiscuity. Tequila shots do." -- Bill Maher
bigvince - 25 Apr 2007 15:11 GMT > In article <1177135276.966319.115...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. > "HPV shots don't cause promiscuity. Tequila shots do." -- Bill Maher Dave that comment makes no sense. Why would you compare drowning in water to mecury induced damage. I'm afraid you have finally lost me. Vince Of course as youcontinuraly deny the health hazards of mercury perhaps you feel they are compatible please make sense out of your statement " If water is safe ,how come you can drown in it" Thanks Vince
David Wright - 28 Apr 2007 03:38 GMT >> In article <1177135276.966319.115...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Dave that comment makes no sense. Why would you compare drowning in >water to mecury induced damage. I'm afraid you have finally lost me. That's a shame. I was pointing out that anything can be dangerous in sufficient quantity, even though it is not dangerous is lesser amounts.
>Vince Of course as youcontinuraly deny the health hazards of mercury >perhaps you feel they are compatible please make sense out of your >statement " If water is safe ,how come you can drown in it" Thanks >Vince I don't deny that there *are* health hazards of mercury. I *do* deny that vaccines are one such hazard.
-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "HPV shots don't cause promiscuity. Tequila shots do." -- Bill Maher
David Wright - 22 Apr 2007 17:54 GMT >http://www.newstarget.com/021798.html > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >took place almost exactly eight years ago, and the shooters in that rampage >were also -- you guessed it -- taking antidepressant drugs. So far, there have been at least 47 claimed causes for Cho to go off.
By sometime next week, John will be contradicting himself, and will announce that the real cause was that Cho was autistic, and that this was due to thimerosal in vaccines. Others are already making that claim, in fact.
But let's not forget violent video games. And dozens of other claimed causes.
-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "HPV shots don't cause promiscuity. Tequila shots do." -- Bill Maher
Mark Probert - 23 Apr 2007 03:52 GMT >> http://www.newstarget.com/021798.html >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > But let's not forget violent video games. And dozens of other claimed > causes. Did you catch the 60 Minutes article on how the findings of the Secret Service studies virtually predicted this?
|
|
|