Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / General / Alternative / April 2007

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Are antidepressant drugs an accomplice in the Virginia Tech shootings?

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
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?
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.