Ok, so you found someone who lies to push his product.
I'm hardly surprised.

When people get desperate, they often make things up
rather than admit a mistake, which (as we are advised
by the wise from Proverbs to Clemens) just makes for
more complications and ultimately clumsier and clumsier
lies.

For instance, there's this one about RhoGAM: "it contains
thimerosol."  Sorry, not.  Easy to check, but as is so often
the case the Higher Truth gets in the way of simple fact (or
even consistency) checking.

Then there's the matter of numbers (not your strong suit,
but that's just how it is).  These frantic attempts to
paint RhoGAM as the big substitute for infant vaccine
thimerosol overlook a few of them, such as the minor one
that RhoGAM isn't given to Rh+ mothers.  Oops.  Since the
Rh- blood types are rare even in European populations and
vanishingly rare in others there's no risk at all from it
for most mothers.

Even for the fewer than one in six mothers who *are* Rh-,
there is the minor matter that RhoGAM is preferentially
given postpartum to prevent sensitization.  Now, I realize
that to those prone to magical thinking the (nonexistent)
mercury in the shot that a mother gets after the child is
born can travel through time and space to do evil mojo to
the child (demons have amazing powers) but anyone who is
conversant with the normal laws of physics will suspect
that this is not likely.

Of course another numerical lie is that somehow the
(nonexistant) mercury in a RhoGAM shot is equivalent
to the same amount of (now removed) mercury in an infant
vaccine.  After all, it's magic so the evil isn't diminished
by time or space -- or dilution in the mother who out masses
the fetus by 20:1 or so.

Not that you'll hear that from the quoted panicked scare
mongers.

Of course they do.  In fact, hair analysis of children born from
mothers *not* injected with RhoGAM also show the presence of
mercury.  It is, after all, a common environmental pollutant.
Add that eating fish during pregnancy is commonly recommended ...

Ah!  Here's the sales pitch.
No mention of the dangers of chelation, especially in newborns.

Good question.  No answer, of course, since an honest answer would
shut down his business of injecting children with a dangerous
chemical.  There's also the dishonesty involved in that 1% number,
since it's the rate for all births and not just those where RhoGAM
is indicated (that runs up the ratio by 6:1 right there.)

However, let's not minimize erythroblastosis fetalis.  It's one of
the most common causes of late-stage miscarriage.  In live births
it results in neurological damage, liver damage, heart damage, etc.
Unlike the (highly) speculative damage the sales speech deals with
it's quite real and directly traceable to mechanism.

Ah, hypocrisy.  No comment on the speaker using you to scare
mothers into injecting chelating agents into babies.

+---------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ----------+

On Mar 16, 6:18 pm, "D. C. Sessions" <d...@lumbercartel.com> wrote:

The dirty lies of the pharma shills surfaces once again.

Consider this article in vaclib.org:

Rhogam and Pregnancy Stealth Mercury Assault
By Stephen C. Marini, D.C., PhC

There have been far too many moms at my seminars the last 3 months
reacting with alarm, surprise and anger to my cautioning them
regarding giving Rhogam during pregnancy. As you can guess, these moms
received the rhogam injections during their pregnancy and are now
caring for neurologically injured children. They were never aware that
these shots could be harmful to their fetus. It is frightening to
contemplate how many mothers are getting these shots while pregnant
without realizing the potential for fetal neurological damage. What's
the deal?

So what is the problem with giving the rhogam during pregnancy? The
standard rhogam preparations contain the mercury compound, thimerosal.
We commonly link this preservative with vaccines. Rhogam is a type of
vaccine but not a vaccine directed against an infectious disease. The
PDR cautions that the use of rhogam during pregnancy can have adverse
effects on the fetus, 2. The high mercury content of the rhogam
preparation can have serious neurological consequences on the
developing fetus. Hair analysis of unvaccinated children born from
mom's injected with rhogam demonstrate the presence of mercury. It is
essential that these babies seek appropriate medical care to chelate
and remove this mercury as soon as possible. How many babies have
suffered permanent damage due to mercury toxicity from this desire to
reduce the risk of HDN by less than 1% by injecting pregnant mothers?

DrCee
You cannor secure nor restore health with pus or poisons.

http://www.squidoo.com/groups/vaccinationawareness

http://www.squidoo.com/vaccinetoxicingredients

And, of course, despite Jan repeating Gilmore's lie several time. the
court did not concede that vaccines cause autism. How could it, when
the child in question is not autistic?

Perhaps more to the point (since it's conceivable, however
remotely, that OJ is actually innocent): they have also
convicted people and sent them to death row only to later
have incontrovertible evidence of innocence turn up.

+---------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ----------+

Kindergarden?  No, Jan never got that far.

+---------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ----------+

Jeff, it is an attempt to marginialize you, and anyone who can think
for themselves.

The only thing the court did was to ratify the settlement. They did
not rule on the merits.

A fact that will never get through to the Merchants of Disease,
Disability and Death.

No need to repeatedly lie, Jeffrey Peter Joseph Utz.

Real one on HealthFraud list: Jeffrey Peter Joseph Utz, M.D.
jeffutz@juno.com
[2007] "Robert Watson" kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com
Jeff Utz  jtest-utz2@juno.com
Jeff Utz, M.D. jeffutz@juno.com
Jeffrey P. Utz, M.D. jeffutz@softhome.net   Hence "Putz"
http://www.msu.edu/~utz/  utz@pilot.msu.edu
Jeffrey Peter, M.D. kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com
Wyle E. Coyote wyle_e_coyote70@hotmail.com
Jeff Utz  kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com (Jan 2003)
Jeff jeff64@pacbell.net
Jeff jeff@hotmail.com (2007)

My, my you did it again.  *I* made no claim.

Yes, that is a tactic of the *gang*.  Their books are twisted lies.

No, you have demonstated nothing other than your opinion.
As for *your book* see above.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/government-concedes-vacci_b_88323.html

After years of insisting there is no evidence to link vaccines with the
onset of autism spectrum disorder (ASD), the US government has quietly
conceded a vaccine-autism case in the Court of Federal Claims.

The unprecedented concession was filed on November 9, and sealed to protect
the plaintiff's identify. It was obtained through individuals unrelated to
the case.

The claim, one of 4,900 autism cases currently pending in Federal "Vaccine
Court," was conceded by US Assistant Attorney General Peter Keisler and
other Justice Department officials, on behalf of the Department of Health
and Human Services, the "defendant" in all Vaccine Court cases.

The child's claim against the government -- that mercury-containing vaccines
were the cause of her autism -- was supposed to be one of three "test cases"
for the thimerosal-autism theory currently under consideration by a
three-member panel of Special Masters, the presiding justices in Federal
Claims Court.

Keisler wrote that medical personnel at the HHS Division of Vaccine Injury
Compensation (DVIC) had reviewed the case and "concluded that compensation
is appropriate."

The doctors conceded that the child was healthy and developing normally
until her 18-month well-baby visit, when she received vaccinations against
nine different diseases all at once (two contained thimerosal).

Days later, the girl began spiraling downward into a cascade of illnesses
and setbacks that, within months, presented as symptoms of autism,
including: No response to verbal direction; loss of language skills; no eye
contact; loss of "relatedness;" insomnia; incessant screaming; arching; and
"watching the florescent lights repeatedly during examination."

Seven months after vaccination, the patient was diagnosed by Dr. Andrew
Zimmerman, a leading neurologist at the Kennedy Krieger Children's Hospital
Neurology Clinic, with "regressive encephalopathy (brain disease) with
features consistent with autistic spectrum disorder, following normal
development." The girl also met the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for
Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) official criteria for autism.

In its written concession, the government said the child had a pre-existing
mitochondrial disorder that was "aggravated" by her shots, and which
ultimately resulted in an ASD diagnosis.

"The vaccinations received on July 19, 2000, significantly aggravated an
underlying mitochondrial disorder," the concession says, "which predisposed
her to deficits in cellular energy metabolism, and manifested as a
regressive encephalopathy with features of ASD."

This statement is good news for the girl and her family, who will now be
compensated for the lifetime of care she will require. But its implications
for the larger vaccine-autism debate, and for public health policy in
general, are not as certain.

In fact, the government's concession seems to raise more questions than it
answers.

1) Is there a connection between vaccines, mitochondrial disorders and a
diagnosis of autism, at least in some cases?

Mitochondria, you may recall from biology class, are the little powerhouses
within cells that convert food into electrical energy, partly through a
complex process called "oxidative phosphorylation." If this process is
impaired, mitochondrial disorder will ensue.

The child in this case had several markers for Mt disease, which was
confirmed by muscle biopsy. Mt disease is often marked by lethargy, poor
muscle tone, poor food digestion and bowel problems, something found in many
children diagnosed with autism.

But mitochondrial disorders are rare in the general population, affecting
some 2-per-10,000 people (or just 0.2%). So with 4,900 cases filed in
Vaccine Court, this case should be the one and only, extremely rare instance
of Mt disease in all the autism proceedings.

But it is not.

Mitochondrial disorders are now thought to be the most common disease
associated with ASD. Some journal articles and other analyses have estimated
that 10% to 20% of all autism cases may involve mitochondrial disorders,
which would make them one thousand times more common among people with ASD
than the general population.

Another article, published in the Journal of Child Neurology and co-authored
by Dr. Zimmerman, showed that 38% of Kennedy Krieger Institute autism
patients studied had one marker for impaired oxidative phosphorylation, and
47% had a second marker.

The authors -- who reported on a case-study of the same autism claim
conceded in Vaccine Court -- noted that "children who have
(mitochondrial-related) dysfunctional cellular energy metabolism might be
more prone to undergo autistic regression between 18 and 30 months of age if
they also have infections or immunizations at the same time."

An interesting aspect of Mt disease in autism is that, with ASD, the
mitochondrial disease seems to be milder than in "classic" cases of Mt
disorder. In fact, classic Mt disease is almost always inherited, either
passed down by the mother through mitochondrial DNA, or by both parents
through nuclear DNA.

In autism-related Mt disease, however, the disorder is not typically found
in other family members, and instead appears to be largely of the sporadic
variety, which may now account for 75% of all mitochondrial disorders.

Meanwhile, an informal survey of seven families of children with cases
currently pending in Vaccine Court revealed that all seven showed markers
for mitochondrial dysfunction, dating back to their earliest medical tests.
The facts in all seven claims mirror the case just conceded by the
government: Normal development followed by vaccination, immediate illness,
and rapid decline culminating in an autism diagnosis.

2) With 4,900 cases pending, and more coming, will the government concede
those with underlying Mt disease -- and if it not, will the Court award
compensation?

The Court will soon begin processing the 4900 cases pending before it. What
if 10% to 20% of them can demonstrate the same Mt disease and same set of
facts as those in the conceded case? Would the government be obliged to
concede 500, or even 1,000 cases? What impact would that have on public
opinion? And is there enough money currently in the vaccine injury fund to
cover so many settlements?

When asked for a comment last week about the court settlement, a spokesman
for HHS furnished the following written statement:

"DVIC has reviewed the scientific information concerning the allegation that
vaccines cause autism and has found no credible evidence to support the
claim. Accordingly, in every case under the Vaccine Act, DVIC has maintained
the position that vaccines do not cause autism, and has never concluded in
any case that autism was caused by vaccination."

3) If the government is claiming that vaccines did not "cause" autism, but
instead aggravated a condition to "manifest" as autism, isn't that a very
fine distinction?

For most affected families, such linguistic gymnastics is not so important.
And even if a vaccine injury "manifested" as autism in only one case, isn't
that still a significant development worthy of informing the public?

On the other hand, perhaps what the government is claiming is that
vaccination resulted in the symptoms of autism, but not in an actual,
factually correct diagnosis of autism itself.

4) If the government is claiming that this child does NOT have autism, then
how many other children might also have something else that merely "mimics"
autism?

Is it possible that 10%-20% of the cases that we now la