I suspect vaccinations because... by chrisisall

Beir bua agus beannacht

Mercury is yucky, I wish that they'd put their thinking caps on and figure out how not to have anything with mercury in the name or the product in vaccines. Again yucky, this is the 21st century people. And I do believe that usually vaccines are a good thing, so lets make it better and better.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 5, 2011 3:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by RionaEire:
Mercury is yucky,

Yes, mercury is yucky. :) I couldn't have said it better myself.

http://www.epa.gov/hg/health.htm

"Mercury is a neurotoxicant." Nitrogen is not.

Although most of the studies on neurotoxicity are done with methylmercury, it does NOT mean all other mercurial compounds are safe.

Here is a presentation by the National Toxicology Program. Now this is a a conventional source that even the most die-hard establishment defenders should accept. Note the link is at the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies.

http://www.iom.edu/~/media/Files/Activity%20Files/PublicHealth/Immuniz
ationSafety/Lucier.pdf

It is only 17 pages, worth reading through. Discussion of ethylmercury specifically starts on pg 9. Please note the conclusion on page 17.

Even THEY say both ethylmercury and methylmercury is neurotoxic. It doesn't matter that ethylmercury is in lower concentrations in the brain or has a shorter half-life. It doesn't matter if ethylmercury is "slightly less toxic" than methylmercury. Anything toxic at all shouldn't be anywhere near a brain to begin with, let alone infant and developing brains.

Why anyone would defend any type of mercurial compound as safe for infant development is beyond me.

Mercury. Is. Yucky. (I need that on a t-shirt.)

-----
Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth. -- Lucy Parsons (1853-1942, labor activist and anarcho-communist)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 5, 2011 8:09 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Nitrogen isn't toxic? So cyanide is OK? Just asking.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 5, 2011 8:25 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Ahem. I didn't say that thimerosal, or methyl mercury or ethyl mercury were non-toxic. What I DID claim was that the chemical FORM of mercury affects its toxicity - which BTW is a fact. Also, any link between thimerosal and autism has been fairly conclusively disproved through large meta-analyses both in the US and Europe.

Rather than post extended quotes, here's a WIKI link relating the forms of mercury to its toxicity:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_poisoning

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 6, 2011 2:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Nitrogen isn't toxic?

Nope. Not in gaseous form. Elemental nitrogen is very dangerous.

Kind of like oxygen. We breathe it, we need it. It is not toxic. But in certain forms, it is very dangerous.

Quote:
So cyanide is OK?

Nope.

Quote:
Just asking.

Happy to be consulted.

-----
Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth. -- Lucy Parsons (1853-1942, labor activist and anarcho-communist)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 6, 2011 2:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Ahem. I didn't say that thimerosal, or methyl mercury or ethyl mercury were non-toxic.

Then we agree.

Quote:
What I DID claim was that the chemical FORM of mercury affects its toxicity - which BTW is a fact.

Look, we agree again!

Quote:
Also, any link between thimerosal and autism has been fairly conclusively disproved through large meta-analyses both in the US and Europe.

Meta-analyses that are flawed. For an example, see the link that I posted above. The one M5Nickerson said she didn't read because it read, "thimerosal (mercury)." She said that ethylmercury was not "mercury," as in the toxic kind, methylmercury. I was simply straightening her out.

[ETA: Let me try a different explanation. Mercury, in its inorganic form (be it elemental mercury or ionic mercury), fries brain cells as we see in the U Calgary video. So, mercury = neurotoxic.

Ethylmercury and methylmercury are organic compounds of mercury, with either a ethyl group attached or a methyl group attached. The concern here is that both ethyl and methyl groups are like gnats on an elephant's ass so to speak. The gnats get detached easily, and what are you left with in the body? Inorganic mercury, the elephant.

Ethylmercury is actually more easily converted into inorganic mercury than methylmercury, resulting more of the bad stuff running loose. Where does this bad stuff go? That is still being decided because as far as I can tell, no one has done a good pharmokinetic study on ethylmercury. Big pharma likes to ASSUME the inorganic mercury all gets excreted, but I personally call bullshit on that.

But that ethylmercury and methylmercury gets converted easily into mercury the neurotoxin, no one disputes.]

Redirect.

It doesn't matter if ethylmercury is differently toxic than methylmercury. Both forms are toxic. It shouldn't be injected into babies or anyone.

It doesn't matter if ethylmercury caused autism or not. It STILL shouldn't be injected into babies or anyone

Mercury is yucky. Don't put it in vaccines. Not hard to understand.

What makes me curious is, why aren't you calling for corporate accountability and liability for putting a known neurotoxin into children's vaccines just so they could make a profit? Aren't you against that sort of thing?

-----
Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth. -- Lucy Parsons (1853-1942, labor activist and anarcho-communist)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 7, 2011 3:58 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Meta-analyses that are flawed. For an example, see the link that I posted above. The one M5Nickerson said she didn't read because it read, "thimerosal (mercury)." She said that ethylmercury was not "mercury," as in the toxic kind, methylmercury. I was simply straightening her out.

I said they are not the same, not that it is not toxic. Damn near everything is toxic at certain levels. Websites do stuff like that to invoke fear, because after all mercury is yucky.

As for the rest of the website climing that the study is pseudoscience even though it appeared in a reconised peer-reviewed journal, let look at it's claims.

"1. Vague definitions / Lack of transparency and critical details: Pseudoscience does not use precise, objective, and transparent definitions that can be independently evaluated for as valid."

You mean like suggesting that thimerosal is just another name for mercury?

The site takes issue with the criteria used to define autisum in Denmark and how that may have increased the number of cases. The reason for this si explianed in the study, "which eliminates the risk of double-counting of cases."

Also the criteria was used becasue it is very difficult to be certain of autisum in children under 2.

"2. Changing definitions. Pseudoscience lumps inconsistently defined measurements all together. At best, it is sloppy and unreliable. At worst, it constitutes a sleight-of-hand."

"Denmark removed thimerosal in 1992. In 1994, Denmark changed its diagnosis of autism from ICD-8 299 "psychosis proto-infantilis" to ICD-10 F84 "infantile autism." Before 1995, Denmark's autism rates counted only inpatient autism cases, those severe enough to be admitted for hospitalization. After 1995, Denmark started counting both hospitalized cases and outpatient cases. So autism rates skyrocketed after thimerosal was removed. Did they really skyrocket, or did it look like that because the definition of autism changed to count a lot more kids? We will never know. The data don't say.

Yes, before 1995 the data was for inpatient cases, the study tells us that inpatient cases were "refer both to children who stay at the hospital overnight and to children who come to the hospital on a daily basis for evaluation and treatment." It als states that outpatient activities were 4 to 6 times higher. Now that says activities, not diagnosis. So the data they where pulling from is from treatment of children that had been diagnosed with autisum.

"3. No real or actual data provided / Insufficient or adjusted statistics....Any 5th grader who has watched PBS's Cyberchase can tell you that graphs can imply statistical significance, or a sharp rise or fall, where there is actually none."

The graph they are attaching is this one...

http://www.pediatricsdigest.mobi/content/112/3/604/F1.expansion.html

We can see a rise in the number of autium cases after 1992 and on. Including increases after 1992 and before 1994 when Demark started to include ICD-10. The website asks if the graph is just a random flucuation or something else, but then says the data does not say. The data sure seems to indicate a raise in autium rates.

I could go on but people realy should read the study instead of a site picking apart the study...

http://www.pediatricsdigest.mobi/content/112/3/604.full#ack-1

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 7, 2011 4:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:
You mean like suggesting that thimerosal is just another name for mercury?

The author did no such thing.

Thimerosal (mercury) was simply highlighting the neurotoxic element mercury as the most biologically significant substance in thimerosal.

Similarly, "paint chips (lead)" would simply be highlighting the neurotoxic element lead as the most biologically significant substance in paint chips.

In both thimerosal and paint chips, the compounds get converted easily into the toxic elements in the body.

Nitpicking about thimerosal and mercury not being the same substance misses the point.

Quote:
I could go on but people realy should read the study instead of a site picking apart the study...

Yes, indeed, they should read the study. You're just parroting what the study already said instead of offering counterpoints to the critique. You're not adding anything new, just like you didn't add anything new to my critique of the monkey brain study.

-----
Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth. -- Lucy Parsons (1853-1942, labor activist and anarcho-communist)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 7, 2011 6:08 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Thimerosal (mercury) was simply highlighting the neurotoxic element mercury as the most biologically significant substance in thimerosal.

Similarly, "paint chips (lead)" would simply be highlighting the neurotoxic element lead as the most biologically significant substance in paint chips.

In both thimerosal and paint chips, the compounds get converted easily into the toxic elements in the body.

Nitpicking about thimerosal and mercury not being the same substance misses the point.

As do many of the nitpicks of the stuides. Regardless both Thimerosal (mercury0, and paint chips (lead) are wrong. Paint Chips may contain lead but they are not lead in an of themsleves nor do all paint chips contain lead.

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Yes, indeed, they should read the study. You're just parroting what the study already said instead of offering counterpoints to the critique. You're not adding anything new, just like you didn't add anything new to my critique of the monkey brain study.

Nothing new is needed. The counterpoints and responces to the critiques are already there. Just as the answers to your critique of the monkey brain study were already there.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 7, 2011 6:15 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

For the record, I do not want to consume paint chips or have paint chips injected into my body.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 7, 2011 6:24 PM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Whatever factor is operating now was operating thousands of years ago, just more so.

So... this is not something to beat yourself up over, Chris

Thanks SO much, Signy. SO much.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 8, 2011 2:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:
The counterpoints and responces to the critiques are already there.

Then you don't understand the meaning of "counterpoint."

One last try to explain you are misreading the author of that article. Reject it if you wish.

"Thimerosal (mercury)" or "paint chips (lead)" is NOT EQUAL to Thimerosal and mercury are the same substance, or paint chips and lead are the same substance.

"Thimerosal (mercury)" or "paint chips (lead)" = Mercury is the most biologically significant substance to result from thimerosal for the purposes of this discussion, lead is the most biologically significant substance to result from lead for the purposes of this discussion.

-----
Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth. -- Lucy Parsons (1853-1942, labor activist and anarcho-communist)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 8, 2011 3:38 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Then you don't understand the meaning of "counterpoint."

One last try to explain you are misreading the author of that article. Reject it if you wish.

"Thimerosal (mercury)" or "paint chips (lead)" ? Thimerosal and mercury are the same substance, or paint chips and lead are the same substance.

"Thimerosal (mercury)" or "paint chips (lead)" = Mercury is the most biologically significant substance to result from thimerosal for the purposes of this discussion, lead is the most biologically significant substance to result from lead for the purposes of this discussion.

I understand what a counterpoint is. The thing is you only have to use it when the original point is valid.

Your right about Mercury and Lead being the most significant, and the way you said it was fine. It the truth. Putting those elements in parentheses without any explanation is not the same. It is a pure and simple attempt to invoke a responce because most people know mercury is dangerous.

Everywere else you see parentheses used such as this it is for an abreveation or another name for the subject before them. Such as 2-(2,4,5-trichlorophenoxy)propionic acid, (Silvex) or Dihydrogen monoxide (Water).

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 8, 2011 5:46 AM

Quote:
I understand what a counterpoint is. The thing is you only have to use it when the original point is valid.

Or if you're one half of a musical duet.

But anyway, while tempting in theory, I'm not sure that philosophy holds in reality. Our rapidly degenerating society is pretty much the result of what happens when valid and invalid points become national policy without being SOUND.

The options we have are to speak out against the lunacy, embrace it, or ride that fence like a PONY with our good points while everything else burns to the ground around us. I'm about 80, maybe 95% sure that the complete destruction of their civilization by their own hands is both the most concise argument, and most impressive application of that argument, that could ever be leveraged against the oligarchs.

There is also a question of subjectivity in determining whether an argument is or isn't valid, since a valid point does not necessarily have to be TRUE. It merely has to have its premises prompt the conclusion without contradicting itself and without fallacy.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 9, 2011 2:35 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Glad you found my post, Chris. I feared that it had been lost in the rest.

I look at my co-worker who has had Type I for... decades, now. He works, he's married, he has two children (boy and girl) and he's a great dad, he's a GREAT guy, really wonderful team leader, smart... funny-and-feet-on-the-ground... People know he has Type I, but when people think about him, that is not even the 20th thing on the list. Take heart.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 9, 2011 3:00 PM

CHRISISALL

Thanks again, Signy.
*throws a kiss*

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 10, 2011 8:31 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

CTSky

You would be laughable if the subject wasn't important.

"What I DID claim was that the chemical FORM of mercury affects its toxicity - which BTW is a fact."

"Look, we agree again!"

Is that what you meant by "I don't care if it's ethyl mercury or methyl mercury, mercury is mercury"? (a statement you edited out of your post. DAMN! I should remember that about you - you seriously post-edit, even weeks after the fact.)

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
I believe empirical evidence.

Except when it's a very large meta-analysis, or two?

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Meta-analyses that are flawed.

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
For an example, see the link that I posted above.

You keep harping on that one study AS IF it invalidates the two meta-analyses that were done. That really make me wonder - do you even KNOW what a meta-analysis is? It's a study of studies, using statistics to factor out differences sample size, the presence or absence of control groups, etc.

So, do you even know WHICH studies went into each meta-analysis? Do you know that that ONE study you point to was even included in either?

Your reasoning is so out of touch with the words you use, I wonder how much you're parroting without understanding.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 10, 2011 9:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"What I DID claim was that the chemical FORM of mercury affects its toxicity - which BTW is a fact."

"Look, we agree again!"

Is that what you meant by "I don't care if it's ethyl mercury or methyl mercury, mercury is mercury"?

Yes, that is what I meant.

As I said before, both ethylmercury and methylmercury are converted into neurotoxic, inorganic mercury in the body. Therein lies the danger.

It doesn't matter if their individual toxicity is affected by their chemical form, as you put it. They both result in mercury in the body that wasn't there before. Mercury is mercury, no matter how it gets introduced.

Quote:

Except when it's a very large meta-analysis, or two?

Garbage in, garbage out.

-----
Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth. -- Lucy Parsons (1853-1942, labor activist and anarcho-communist)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 11, 2011 7:10 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Yes, because unless the data manages to pass through CTS' very very fine filter (ie. agrees with her foregone conclusions) then it's all no good.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 12, 2011 10:04 AM

Beir bua agus beannacht

There's got to be something else we can use in vaccines by now other than mercury anything, ethate methate trioxinhydro ya ya ya dadada.

I see no reason to argue here.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 12, 2011 10:50 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

There IS something better than mercury. It's called SINGLE USE DOSES.

My argument with CTS isn't whether mercury is good or bad for people. But at various times (you may not have been there) CTS has argued that vaccines don't do any good at all (Let's all go back to the days of polio and smallpox, shall we?), and that vaccines cause autism (too bad autism starts in utero. Well, there goes THAT argument!

) Just a number of things that CTS has had to ignore in order to maintain some positions.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 12, 2011 10:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
...CTS has argued that vaccines don't do any good at all (Let's all go back to the days of polio and smallpox, shall we?), ...

My position has always been that vaccine effectiveness has been greatly exaggerated. I have never said they don't do any good at all.

Quote:
and that vaccines cause autism

Never said it.

-----
"Christmas is a time when kids tell Santa what they want and adults pay for it. Deficits are when adults tell the government what they want - and their kids pay for it." - Richard Lamm

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 12, 2011 11:02 AM

DREAMTROVE

I have my doubts, and CTS to thank for them. Vaccines intentionally wreak havoc on a meticulously designed natural defense system. Maybe in this sort of assistance to nature, less is more. Lest we go all "white bloodcells' burden"

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 12, 2011 11:25 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

CTS... I'm not going to meticulously dig through all of your past posts. You'd deny anything I posted anyway, saying it was "out of context" and that you were "misunderstood" So.... yeah, yeah... whatever.

DT... do you really think that our poor white blood cells are overworked, in our current sanitized environment? In fact, there is a theory going around that we may be seeing more autoimmune diseases because our immune system doesn't have enough to do! Our kids are no longer crawling around the beach, putting dead birds and dogshit and seaweed in their mouths.

BTW- there is a new therapy called fecal matter transplant... I kid you not. It cures diseases formerly thought of as autoimmune, like Crohn's disease.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 12, 2011 11:37 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

CHRIS... while cleaning out my email this past weekend I found this:

GABA CURES TYPE I DIABETES

Well, like all good headlines this one is overblown, but here are the specifics

GABA exerts protective and regenerative effects on islet beta cells and reverses diabetes

Authors Nepton Soltania, Hongmin Qiua, Mila Aleksicb, Yelena Glinkac, Fang Zhaoa, Rui Liua, Yiming Lid, Nina Zhanga, Rabindranath Chakrabartid, Tiffany Nga, Tianru Jinb, Haibo Zhangb,Wei-Yang Luf, Zhong-Ping Fengb, Gerald J. Prud'hommec, Qinghua Wanga

Quote:
Type 1 diabetes (T1D) is an autoimmune disease characterized by insulitis and islet β-cell loss. Thus, an effective therapy may require β-cell restoration and immune suppression. Currently, there is no treatment that can achieve both goals efficiently. We report here that GABA exerts antidiabetic effects by acting on both the islet β-cells and immune system. Unlike in adult brain or islet α-cells in which GABA exerts hyperpolarizing effects, in islet β-cells, GABA produces membrane depolarization and Ca2+ influx, leading to the activation of PI3-K/Akt–dependent growth and survival pathways. This provides a potential mechanism underlying our in vivo findings that GABA therapy preserves β-cell mass and prevents the development of T1D. Remarkably, in severely diabetic mice, GABA restores β-cell mass and reverses the disease. Furthermore, GABA suppresses insulitis and systemic inflammatory cytokine production. The β-cell regenerative and immunoinhibitory effects of GABA provide insights into the role of GABA in regulating islet cell function and glucose homeostasis, which may find clinical application.

www.pnas.org/content/108/28/11692

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 12, 2011 11:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
CTS... I'm not going to meticulously dig through all of your past posts.

Cause you won't be able to find any.

If you understood that I said those things, then you MISunderstood. I am correcting you now. It is not the first time you have misunderstood my positions. I don't believe it. Never said it.

If you want to accuse me of lying, you'd better prove it.

-----
"Christmas is a time when kids tell Santa what they want and adults pay for it. Deficits are when adults tell the government what they want - and their kids pay for it." - Richard Lamm

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 12, 2011 12:02 PM

DREAMTROVE

I really have to quit, but I can't resist snarking this:

Sig,

I guess I'm not going to vouch for the genetic viability of your kids then.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 12, 2011 2:56 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I guess I'm not going to vouch for the genetic viability of your kids then.

Wow, I talk about our poor white blood cells and you take it to a whole 'nother extremely personal level, don'tcha? Is that what you do when you don't have a good counterpoint? Did words fail you? So I'll see you and raise you:

[snark] Too bad you don't have any. Oh, wait.. maybe that's a GOOD thing! [/snark]

For the record, when I said Our kids are no longer crawling around the beach, putting dead birds and dogshit and seaweed in their mouths. I didn't mean MINE, I meant OURS.... humanity's. Because what the frak did you think toddlers did back when, before we wiped and boiled everything that went into their mouths?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 12, 2011 3:03 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Meanwhile, so this doesn't get lost:

CHRIS... while cleaning out my email this past weekend I found this:

GABA CURES TYPE I DIABETES

Well, like all good headlines this one is overblown, but here are the specifics

GABA exerts protective and regenerative effects on islet beta cells and reverses diabetes

Authors Nepton Soltania, Hongmin Qiua, Mila Aleksicb, Yelena Glinkac, Fang Zhaoa, Rui Liua, Yiming Lid, Nina Zhanga, Rabindranath Chakrabartid, Tiffany Nga, Tianru Jinb, Haibo Zhangb,Wei-Yang Luf, Zhong-Ping Fengb, Gerald J. Prud'hommec, Qinghua Wanga

Quote:
Type 1 diabetes (T1D) is an autoimmune disease characterized by insulitis and islet β-cell loss. Thus, an effective therapy may require β-cell restoration and immune suppression. Currently, there is no treatment that can achieve both goals efficiently. We report here that GABA exerts antidiabetic effects by acting on both the islet β-cells and immune system. Unlike in adult brain or islet α-cells in which GABA exerts hyperpolarizing effects, in islet β-cells, GABA produces membrane depolarization and Ca2+ influx, leading to the activation of PI3-K/Akt–dependent growth and survival pathways. This provides a potential mechanism underlying our in vivo findings that GABA therapy preserves β-cell mass and prevents the development of T1D. Remarkably, in severely diabetic mice, GABA restores β-cell mass and reverses the disease. Furthermore, GABA suppresses insulitis and systemic inflammatory cytokine production. The β-cell regenerative and immunoinhibitory effects of GABA provide insights into the role of GABA in regulating islet cell function and glucose homeostasis, which may find clinical application.

www.pnas.org/content/108/28/11692

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 12, 2011 3:49 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

CTS: from another thread:

Quote:
CTS: yes, now I recall your tendency to demand some narrowly defined study to fit your needs and if it doesn't immediately come up you declare victory or something. Such as the global warming issue, where you demanded some particular temperature readings and ignored all else. (You didn't happen to catch the thread where I posted temperature readings from AK, hmm?)

Yet another example of how poor CTS was severely misunderstood. Happens to you a lot, doesn't it?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 12, 2011 5:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
CTS: yes, now I recall your tendency to demand some narrowly defined study....

That was Mal talking, not me, btw. Typo?

Quote:
Yet another example of how poor CTS was severely misunderstood. Happens to you a lot, doesn't it?

Do you see me claiming to be severely misunderstood by Mal?

Re global warming, I did demand a very narrow criterion to be met in order to be convinced, yes. I wanted to see the standard deviation of the average annual global surface temperature, an increase in this average over time, and the increase to be greater than the standard deviation. Mal posted temperature readings from AK, but none of the 3 items in my very narrow criterion. It is extremely difficult to convince me of anything science-wise, yes.

If I am misunderstood, I will clarify what I meant. No big deal. Misunderstandings are bound to happen on forums like this.

-----
"Christmas is a time when kids tell Santa what they want and adults pay for it. Deficits are when adults tell the government what they want - and their kids pay for it." - Richard Lamm

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 12, 2011 5:32 PM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Meanwhile, so this doesn't get lost:

CHRIS... while cleaning out my email this past weekend I found this:

GABA CURES TYPE I DIABETES

Must look into this, thanks.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 12, 2011 6:02 PM

DREAMTROVE

I'm really gone, but I have to say this:

Chris,

There are a number of ways to raise GABA levels, and they should all be looked at in depth, because this will have a lot of other effects, most notably mental ones. (different mental ones)

But the first thing I can tell you is that if you take a GABA supplement, by itself, it will have no effect, because it cannot cross the blood-brain barrier.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 12, 2011 7:03 PM

Sig: VERY interesting. This must be one of those unusual protein that have a different effect in the body than in the brain. Though, GABA can also cause memory loss. But maybe a balanced intake can be achieved. Or, maybe GABA doesn't pass the blood brain barrier easily, I wouldn't know enough about it.

EDIT: Ah, I see DT got in ahead of me.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 12, 2011 7:34 PM

Beir bua agus beannacht

Signe, I totally agree that babies should eat dirt, they'll have wayyyyyyy better immune systems later. Obviously we shouldn't let them play in the dog poo patch, but some dirt and sucking on rocks is good for them. We've got this picture of me at about 18 months old sucking unashamedly on a rock in the front yard. I've got an immune system like a steel trap, I don't get sick very often. Part of that is because of dirtsucking but part of that is also because I used to get sick lots and lots when I was little, but once I hit about 8-10 things evened out and I'd caught everything so my body had built up antibodies to it.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 13, 2011 5:30 AM

I never really mucked around with muck, but, em, my brother did. I don't think I should tell those stories here, they're pretty gross. Suffice to say, children and infants will eat anything, and you better hope what's smeared all over their face is chocolate.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 13, 2011 5:57 AM

Byte, my brother did that too. I remember whining to my parents, "How come HE got chocolate, and I didn't?"

"Oohh!! That's not chocolate, dear."

-----
"Christmas is a time when kids tell Santa what they want and adults pay for it. Deficits are when adults tell the government what they want - and their kids pay for it." - Richard Lamm

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 14, 2011 9:19 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Oh, I'm SO glad this thread didn't die while I was away.

You know CTSky, you keep pointing to ONE study and then say THOSE STUDIES.

Now, what exactly do you mean by THOSE STUDIES when you keep pointing to that ONE study? It makes me think that for one thing, you don't know how to count.

So, let's focus on the meta-analyses for a bit. That ONE study you point to - was it included in either meta-analysis? (It couldn't have been included in both you see, as one focused on studies done in the US, the other focused on studies done in Europe.) Do you happen to know which studies WERE included in either or both meta-analyses? Have you looked at ANY of the studies included? Do you know IF any of the studies included were faulty? When you claim THOSE studies are garbage, which MULTIPLE ones do you mean, exactly?

Your pointing to one (irrelevant) study to disparage a whole raft of (unrelated) studies and continuing to stand on your ignorant proclamation, makes you look really, really like poor white trash. I read your posts and all I see is "I don't know nuthin' about nuthin', and no one can tell me different."

Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank.
Give a man a bank and he can rob the world.
and get a bonus

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 15, 2011 5:09 AM

Hey. That's an ad hominem. There's a difference between an insult that's also relevant to your point, and something thrown in there because you don't like a person.

We get it. You don't like CTS. Stick to the meta-analysis part and cherry-picking accusation, since those are on topic, but next time, maybe skip the thing where you imply anyone who isn't white is trash, or that poor people are inherently trash.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 15, 2011 9:11 AM

Beir bua agus beannacht

Not condoning Kiki calling CTS white trash, but pointing out that in my use of the word, and my family's use of the word it can apply to anyone of any race who happens to be ... whitetrashy, I'm an equal oppertunity insulter.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 15, 2011 12:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Stick to the meta-analysis part and cherry-picking accusation, since those are on topic, but next time, maybe skip the thing where you imply anyone who isn't white is trash, or that poor people are inherently trash.

Thank you, Byte, for redirecting the argument.

Here's my answer, which I have said before, but I will say again.

I went through a period of a year or two when I did almost nothing but read vaccination papers. I have read dozens and dozens. I paid special attention to papers on autism and vaccination. To date, I have not seen a study that was convincing to me that autism is NOT linked to vaccination. Madsen's study was only one example I offered as representative of the type of pseudoscience I found in the dozens of papers I have read.

Now I could list every single paper I read, and detail why they prove nothing conclusive. I could look through the meta-analyses and list all the papers included, and why each one was flawed. I could. But it would take a lot of time.

If she really wanted to know the answer, she would read those same papers herself. And if she knew how to critique scientific papers, she would see the obvious. If she didn't, then none of the criticisms I detail would mean anything, because like M5Nickerson, she would just reiterate the original paper's positions rather than come up with counterpoints. And tell me how stupid and white trashy I and my criticisms are.

I figure, why bother? It is not like it would convince Kiki if I did that, or make her less insulting to me.

Here is my official, on the record, answer: I say those papers are inconclusive and are garbage. Don't take my word for it. I don't expect you to. Read those papers for yourself. Make your own decisions. I hope no one would simply believe me just cause I said so.

If afterwards, you wish to discuss the particular flaws of a particular paper, and somehow were actually interested in my opinion, start a thread, and I will be happy to delve into it with you. If you wish. Offer is open to anyone.

(Incidentally, I am not white, nor poor. I am actually of a minority race, highly educated, and middle class. But I understand the insult doesn't truly require either "white" or "trashy.")

-----
"Christmas is a time when kids tell Santa what they want and adults pay for it. Deficits are when adults tell the government what they want - and their kids pay for it." - Richard Lamm

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 15, 2011 12:50 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
To date, I have not seen a study that was convincing to me that autism is NOT linked to vaccination.

In other words, your mind is made up and you will not be confused with facts.

If you read those studies like you read global warming studies (and you do) you will demand unobtainable certainty from an opposing viewpoint. The frustrating thing is, you will not demand the same level of proof of your own (dare I say) cockeyed views. You will choose your own prejudice, opinion, and belief over anyone else's substance.

So, as far as autism and vaccination are concerned, I will see you one and raise you a whole bunch:

Autism is present AT BIRTH. Just to make this pellucidly clear, autism is present BEFORE vaccination.

Got an explanation for that?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 15, 2011 1:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
If you read those studies like you read global warming studies (and you do) you will demand unobtainable certainty from an opposing viewpoint. The frustrating thing is, you will not demand the same level of proof of your own (dare I say) cockeyed views.

You really do not know what my own cockeyed views are. Unlike others on this forum, you don't like to ask what my views are as much as you like to assume.

For the record: to date, I have not seen a study that was convincing to me that autism is linked to vaccination.

Quote:
Autism is present AT BIRTH. Just to make this pellucidly clear, autism is present BEFORE vaccination.

Got an explanation for that?

Possible explanation, if indeed there are both genetic and environmental factors in the etiology of autism. Genetics loads the gun. Environment pulls the trigger.

-----
"Christmas is a time when kids tell Santa what they want and adults pay for it. Deficits are when adults tell the government what they want - and their kids pay for it." - Richard Lamm

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 15, 2011 1:48 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Nope. AUTISM is present at birth. Try again.

And BTW, most everybody here is aware of your views. Those views would not survive an instant if you demanded the same rigorous certainty as you do of everyone else. When it comes to weighing evidence, your thumb is heavily on the scale. There is nothing rational or objective about it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 15, 2011 2:08 PM

Beir bua agus beannacht

Sometimes kids with autism start out ordinary, meet their milestones and start talking etc. but then they stop doing those things on time. Maybe that is a subtype of autism, since we chunk a lot of different things and symptoms into the label of "autism". But yeah often it is visably present from the start and something is clearly different from the beginning.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 15, 2011 2:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by RionaEire:
Sometimes kids with autism start out ordinary, meet their milestones and start talking etc. but then they stop doing those things on time. Maybe that is a subtype of autism, since we chunk a lot of different things and symptoms into the label of "autism". But yeah often it is visably present from the start and something is clearly different from the beginning.

That is a very good point. There are different types or presentations of autism, and each type may have a different "cause."

Another way to look at it is, environment may make a big difference in how the disorder is expressed or presented. Meaning, autism may be congenital, but it may be unnoticeable until different environmental triggers excerbate it, resulting in different symptoms.

-----
"Christmas is a time when kids tell Santa what they want and adults pay for it. Deficits are when adults tell the government what they want - and their kids pay for it." - Richard Lamm

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 15, 2011 3:08 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Since this seems to be more of a personal burn-the-heretic bent goin on here than actual reasonable discussion - might I remind people that the notions of Gardasil being dangerous, and Vaccine-caused outbreaks were shouted down in much the same fashion long past the point where the evidence was undeniable.

A *LOT* of modern "medicine" is as much faith, confirmation bias and plain old snakeoil, as is much else - the problem rises when that faith gets in the WAY of science.

Fact: WE DO NOT KNOW, exactly what makes people susceptible to bad vaccine reactions, there's evidence and suspicions, but not a whole bloody lot to go on, yet Thimerosal and Adjuvants are obvious toxins - BUT, no research gets done because of peoples FAITH standing in the way, telling us it's "safe" - well "they" told us Thaliomide(sp?) and Vioxx were safe, that transfats were healthier than butter, that aspartame was healthier than sugar.... on and on and on and on, the lies, which often as not the folks profiting KNEW were lies, and foisted down to people stupid enough to gobble it right the hell up and not only regurgitate it every time it was challenged, but verbally and otherwise attack those who do challenge it, over, and over, and over, and it comes back around and around.

WHY so much FAITH in known liars, who have fed you lie after lie, bogus studies and snakeoil, time and time again - what CREDIBILITY does the medical establishment really have at this point ?

Beyond that, faith IS NOT SCIENCE, you QUESTION, you STUDY - you don't claim this or that and then blockade any further attempts to study something, acting as if all was known, cause the truth is that we really KNOW very little, a lot of medical science is just fucking guesswork based on average results - case in point treating whatever the hell it is (acute febrile neutrophilic dermatosis) with steroids, which is done not because of any science, but that they randomly tried shit they THOUGHT might work, till something did - but they don't KNOW a goddamn thing, do they ?
Not what causes it, not how to get rid of it, not a bloody freakin thing.

So pardon me if your FAITH in the petty tin liar-gods of the medical establishment which has done little but fuck me over all my life kind of annoys the piss outta me.

That said, yes, single-dose, non-preservative vaccines are much, MUCH safer, but almost never used because of the true god of the modern medical establishment - PROFIT.

My issue with is, is what it always has been, rather than debate effectiveness, simply the notion that "acceptable losses" AREN'T - that isn't good enough, to simply write off human beings because to do otherwise would possibly challenge ones faith in an establishment which does not deserve it, to reject the notion of scientific investigation based on, what ?
Mere FAITH.

Folks, that ain't SCIENCE, that's Religion.
And it ain't mine.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 15, 2011 4:39 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Yes, by all means question and study. Evidence and data is often biased. Like the media, it is easy to lie by omission. EXAMPLE: A study by maker of Synthroid... showed that the brand name was more effective than the generic. Good as far as it goes, but what they DIDN'T tell you about was the nine other studies which showed no such thing. All of the studies funded by Knoll brand, maker of Synthroid.

Synthroid Manufacturer Settles with 37 States
http://thyroid.about.com/cs/synthroid1/a/mfrsettlement.htm

So parse the data carefully. But ALSO be prepared to get answers you don't expect, or don't like. And be prepared to accept them IF the evidence points in a direction you don't "like". Otherwise you fall into the same behavior as any other hack.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 15, 2011 4:45 PM