Mercury Exposure in Vaccines/Amalgam Fillings Linked To Epidemic Autism and Neurological Disease 
Author Message
 Mercury Exposure in Vaccines/Amalgam Fillings Linked To Epidemic Autism and Neurological Disease


Quote:
> For Immediate Release
> Please freely disseminate with copyright intact
> UnInformed Consent
> Monday -  March 15, 2004 12:00AM
> Copyright ? 2003 QCI. All rights reserved. Republication and
> redissemination of these contents are expressly prohibited without QCI
> prior written consent.

Published in 2004 and copyrighted in 2003...hmmm....


Sun, 03 Sep 2006 06:33:29 GMT
 Mercury Exposure in Vaccines/Amalgam Fillings Linked To Epidemic Autism and Neurological Disease

Quote:


> > For Immediate Release
> > Please freely disseminate with copyright intact
> > UnInformed Consent
> > Monday -  March 15, 2004 12:00AM
> > For Online access to this press release go to:
> > http://www.universityofhealth.net/PR/3304PRUSNOMHearing.htm

> I went and actually read some of this.

> I noted an interesting conclusion by the reporters.  They suggested
> that the panelists who had no conflict of interest agreed that there
> was an autism/vaccine/mercury link and those with a conflict of
> interest did not.

> Mark Geier (the elder of the twosome) is listed as not having a
> conflict of interest.

> Well, his role as a paid advisor and consultant to the anti-vac
> organizations and his paid testimony in suits looking for compensation
> from vaccine manufacturers, and his sons Medcon business all are
> directly linked to the need for this link to exist.

> Is this an example of a Wakefieldesque version of "conflict"?  As long
> as it is on the side of "right" and not "commercial", it isn't a
> potential for bias?

> What kind of double standard is this?

SNIP of relevant details

Quote:
> So, it is only a conflict of interest if the conflict is predicated on
> funding from a commercial source.  If you make your money from
> consulting to "advocacy" organizations or from lawyers intersted in
> the "truth", it's not a potential source of conflict?

> Another boatload of crap.

You're right, and the pervasiveness of potential conflicts of interest
by all the experts in the field is a real problem in my opinion.  What
I don't understand is why it is that you object to this potential
source of conflict when you have so staunchly defended the other as
being unimportant and of no consequence to those who might want to
rely on their opinions?


Thu, 14 Sep 2006 05:28:03 GMT
 Mercury Exposure in Vaccines/Amalgam Fillings Linked To Epidemic Autism and Neurological Disease

Quote:



> > > For Immediate Release
> > > Please freely disseminate with copyright intact
> > > UnInformed Consent
> > > Monday -  March 15, 2004 12:00AM
> > > For Online access to this press release go to:
> > > http://www.universityofhealth.net/PR/3304PRUSNOMHearing.htm

> > I went and actually read some of this.

> > I noted an interesting conclusion by the reporters.  They suggested
> > that the panelists who had no conflict of interest agreed that there
> > was an autism/vaccine/mercury link and those with a conflict of
> > interest did not.

> > Mark Geier (the elder of the twosome) is listed as not having a
> > conflict of interest.

> > Well, his role as a paid advisor and consultant to the anti-vac
> > organizations and his paid testimony in suits looking for compensation
> > from vaccine manufacturers, and his sons Medcon business all are
> > directly linked to the need for this link to exist.

> > Is this an example of a Wakefieldesque version of "conflict"?  As long
> > as it is on the side of "right" and not "commercial", it isn't a
> > potential for bias?

> > What kind of double standard is this?

> SNIP of relevant details

> > So, it is only a conflict of interest if the conflict is predicated on
> > funding from a commercial source.  If you make your money from
> > consulting to "advocacy" organizations or from lawyers intersted in
> > the "truth", it's not a potential source of conflict?

> > Another boatload of crap.

> You're right, and the pervasiveness of potential conflicts of interest
> by all the experts in the field is a real problem in my opinion.  What
> I don't understand is why it is that you object to this potential
> source of conflict when you have so staunchly defended the other as
> being unimportant and of no consequence to those who might want to
> rely on their opinions?

It was UNDISCLOSED!  Worse, it is hidden.  He was ASKED directly if he
had any potential confklicts of interest and he said NO.

Are you that slow on the uptake?  I have no problem with people having
financial relationships. When it is disclosed, the potential conflict
can e assessed by those using the information.  Not a big deal.

The problem is when people have potential financial conflicts and they
hide them.  Like what happened with Wakefield and what is happening
right here and now with the Geiers.  They had the NERVE to say they
have NO potential conflict yet their entire livelihood is dependent on
the link vaccines/mercury/autism.  They live off of their consulting
fees to anti-vac lawyers.  They lied when they said they have no
potential conflicts of interest.

When Offit openly lists Merck as a source of income for his
consultancy, I can deal with it.  When Geier says he has no potential
conflicts yet hires himself out for expert testimony he's flat out
lying.

Got it?

good.

js



Sat, 16 Sep 2006 02:08:42 GMT
 
 [ 6 post ] 

 Relevant Pages 

1. Mercury in Vaccines and the Autism Epidemic: A Medical Controversy

2. Fw: Mercury in child vaccines causing autism epidemic - Bush Administration does nothing

3. Autism 'linked to mercury vaccine'

4. Link between Mercury-based Vaccines and Autism

5. Assessment of Mercury Exposure And Risks From Dental Amalgam

6. Amalgams And High Mercury Exposure

7. A Case Of High Mercury Exposure From Dental Amalgam

8. Mercury poisoning from amalgam fillings

9. Scientific Facts on Mercury Amalgam Fillings

10. DON'T EAT FISH - AUTISM LINKED TO EVEN LOW MERCURY LEVELS


 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software