http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Autism-Mercury/message/67888
Can someone explain
a) how the NIH and the University of Rochester were allegedly able to do a study on the effects of thimerosal in vaccines given to infants if "thimerosal is no longer used in vaccines in the United States given to children younger than six months"?
b) how they could assess the results that the mercury excreted was from "undetectable to up to 10 times below the lower limit acceptable by federal standards" and think that was good? Isn't it the lack of natural mercury excretion and the effects caused by mercury in the body that we're all struggling against?
c) how an "unexposed" child had detectable limits of mercury, and why the writers would use the term "only" as though one child having detectable mercury is acceptable?
d) why anyone should listen to Loraine Stern, an Associate Clinical Professor in the Department of Pediatrics at the UCLA School of Medicine, quoting Mark Twain with respect to thimerosal-induced autism? Considering that we have not been free of thimerosal-containing vaccines for three years, as Dr. Stern implies, and autism is often not "diagnosed" until children are three years old, why would anyone assume that there would have been a decline in autism diagnoses by this time?
If anyone has more details (ages of and number of children, number and which vaccines were given over what period of time, etc.) on the study published in the Lancet cited below, please post them or reply
with the number of a previous post if that info is already on the board.
Thanks.
