From: Mark Probert-Drew on
On Mar 23, 12:48 am, Jan Drew <jdrew63...(a)aol.com> wrote:
> On Mar 22, 11:32 pm, Mark Probert-Drew <mark.prob...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 22, 10:51 pm, Mike <M...(a)localhost.localdomain> wrote:
>
> > > Bob Officer wrote:
> > > > Did you know when asperger's was included in the autism spectrum
> > > > disorder, the number of people with autism doubled in less than a
> > > > year. IT doesn't mean it actually doubled the number of people with
> > > > autism disorder, it just counted them.
>
> > > Evidence please.
>
> > > >> By the way, one researcher very carefully suggests a possible
> > > >> existence of such a mechanism.
> > > >>http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2010/02/autism_and_the_link_to_infe...
>
> > > > What do you know that blog agrees with me. or did you read the 1st
> > > > paragraph? Did you understand it? Do you know the history of the
> > > > Autism since it was 1st described by Kenner? Do you know the year
> > > > Asperger's was added to the condition we know call Autism?
>
> > > > Now did you pay any attention to this paragraph:
>
> > > > <cite>
> > > > "This statement was made months before the Lancet retracted the
> > > > infamous British gastroenterologist Andrew Wakefield's paper, linking
> > > > autism to the MMR vaccine, published in 1998. The paper was retracted
> > > > after scrutiny and subsequent investigations by British regulators
> > > > leading to charges that Dr. Wakefield falsified data and was paid by
> > > > the parents of autistic children. In addition, there have been
> > > > several studies since disproving Wakefield's research, implying that
> > > > MMR vaccines are not the cause of ASDs (4)."
> > > > <cite>
>
> > > > If Dr. Mikovit's conclusion used any of Wakefield's data or
> > > > conclusion it could itself, be invalid suggestion. See the problems
> > > > Andy's lies have created. Years of research become questioned.
>
> > > Dr.Mikovit's study is independent of Wakefield's. If it has similar
> > > results (and I am not stating it has) then it would confirm Wakefield's
> > > results, not other way around.
>
> > Citation? I have never seen this.
>
> Then, you need to pay attention.
>
> http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2010/02/autism_and_the_link_to_infe...
>
> While the paper published only initial findings relating XMRV to ASDs,
> the lead author added to the recent controversy concerning the
> association between the MMR vaccine and autism. In October, Dr. Judy
> A. Mikovits said, "This might even explain why vaccines would lead to
> autism in some children, because these viruses live and divide and
> grow in lymphocytes -- the immune response cells, the B and the T
> cells. So when you give a vaccine, you send your B and T cells in your
> immune system into overdrive. That's its job. Well, if you are
> harboring one virus, and you replicate it a whole bunch, you've now
> broken the balance between the immune response and the virus. So you
> have had the underlying virus, and then amplified it with that
> vaccine, and then set off the disease, such that your immune system
> could no longer control other infections, and created an immune
> deficiency" (6). This statement was made months before the Lancet
> retracted the infamous British gastroenterologist Andrew Wakefield's
> paper, linking autism to the MMR vaccine, published in 1998. The paper
> was retracted after scrutiny and subsequent investigations by British
> regulators leading to charges that Dr. Wakefield falsified data and
> was paid by the parents of autistic children. In addition, there have
> been several studies since disproving Wakefield's research, implying
> that MMR vaccines are not the cause of ASDs (4).-

While sitting in the car earlier today, I checked up on XMRV virus.

It appears to be rather ubiquitous (that means wide spread and all
over the place) and is found in people with CFS (Ilena posted on this
years ago), men with prostate cancer, etc.

The link to CFS has been ruled out:

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_95819.html

As for prostate cancer, the research seems to suggest a link. However,
there is no final answer.

Now, as for any possible link to autism.

There is absolutely no research what-so-ever as to this issue. A valid
biological modality has to be defined and tested.

Until then, this is nothing more than idle speculation.



From: Mark Probert-Drew on
On Mar 23, 12:48 am, Jan Drew <jdrew63...(a)aol.com> wrote:
> On Mar 22, 11:32 pm, Mark Probert-Drew <mark.prob...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 22, 10:51 pm, Mike <M...(a)localhost.localdomain> wrote:
>
> > > Bob Officer wrote:
> > > > Did you know when asperger's was included in the autism spectrum
> > > > disorder, the number of people with autism doubled in less than a
> > > > year. IT doesn't mean it actually doubled the number of people with
> > > > autism disorder, it just counted them.
>
> > > Evidence please.
>
> > > >> By the way, one researcher very carefully suggests a possible
> > > >> existence of such a mechanism.
> > > >>http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2010/02/autism_and_the_link_to_infe...
>
> > > > What do you know that blog agrees with me. or did you read the 1st
> > > > paragraph? Did you understand it? Do you know the history of the
> > > > Autism since it was 1st described by Kenner? Do you know the year
> > > > Asperger's was added to the condition we know call Autism?
>
> > > > Now did you pay any attention to this paragraph:
>
> > > > <cite>
> > > > "This statement was made months before the Lancet retracted the
> > > > infamous British gastroenterologist Andrew Wakefield's paper, linking
> > > > autism to the MMR vaccine, published in 1998. The paper was retracted
> > > > after scrutiny and subsequent investigations by British regulators
> > > > leading to charges that Dr. Wakefield falsified data and was paid by
> > > > the parents of autistic children. In addition, there have been
> > > > several studies since disproving Wakefield's research, implying that
> > > > MMR vaccines are not the cause of ASDs (4)."
> > > > <cite>
>
> > > > If Dr. Mikovit's conclusion used any of Wakefield's data or
> > > > conclusion it could itself, be invalid suggestion. See the problems
> > > > Andy's lies have created. Years of research become questioned.
>
> > > Dr.Mikovit's study is independent of Wakefield's. If it has similar
> > > results (and I am not stating it has) then it would confirm Wakefield's
> > > results, not other way around.
>
> > Citation? I have never seen this.
>
> Then, you need to pay attention.
>
> http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2010/02/autism_and_the_link_to_infe...
>
> While the paper published only initial findings relating XMRV to ASDs,

I would like to see the link to this paper. You see, the blog does not
provide a link to

Mikovits, Judy and Vincent Lombardi. "Detection of an Infectious
Retrovirus, XMRV, in Blood Cells of Patients with Chronic Fatigue
Syndrome ." Science 326 (2009): 585-589. Science AAAS. Web. 15 Feb.
2010.

and the paper is not indexed on Pub Med, nor anywhere else. It is also
not available on the Science Magazine web site.

Note that Mikovits earlier finding, of a link between XMRV and CFS has
been shown to be in error.

> the lead author added to the recent controversy concerning the
> association between the MMR vaccine and autism. In October, Dr. Judy
> A. Mikovits said, "This might even explain why vaccines would lead to
> autism in some children, because these viruses live and divide and
> grow in lymphocytes -- the immune response cells, the B and the T
> cells. So when you give a vaccine, you send your B and T cells in your
> immune system into overdrive. That's its job. Well, if you are
> harboring one virus, and you replicate it a whole bunch, you've now
> broken the balance between the immune response and the virus. So you
> have had the underlying virus, and then amplified it with that
> vaccine, and then set off the disease, such that your immune system
> could no longer control other infections, and created an immune
> deficiency" (6). This statement was made months before the Lancet
> retracted the infamous British gastroenterologist Andrew Wakefield's
> paper, linking autism to the MMR vaccine, published in 1998. The paper
> was retracted after scrutiny and subsequent investigations by British
> regulators leading to charges that Dr. Wakefield falsified data and
> was paid by the parents of autistic children. In addition, there have
> been several studies since disproving Wakefield's research, implying
> that MMR vaccines are not the cause of ASDs (4).- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

From: Mark Probert on
On Mar 23, 2:16 pm, Bob Officer <boboffic...(a)127.0.0.7> wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 06:57:19 -0700 (PDT), in misc.health.alternative,
>
>
>
>
>
> Mark Probert-Drew <mark.prob...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Mar 23, 12:48 am, Jan Drew <jdrew63...(a)aol.com> wrote:
> >> On Mar 22, 11:32 pm, Mark Probert-Drew <mark.prob...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > On Mar 22, 10:51 pm, Mike <M...(a)localhost.localdomain> wrote:
>
> >> > > Bob Officer wrote:
> >> > > > Did you know when asperger's was included in the autism spectrum
> >> > > > disorder, the number of people with autism doubled in less than a
> >> > > > year. IT doesn't mean it actually doubled the number of people with
> >> > > > autism disorder, it just counted them.
>
> >> > > Evidence please.
>
> >> > > >> By the way, one researcher very carefully suggests a possible
> >> > > >> existence of such a mechanism.
> >> > > >>http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2010/02/autism_and_the_link_to_infe...
>
> >> > > > What do you know that blog agrees with me. or did you read the 1st
> >> > > > paragraph? Did you understand it? Do you know the history of the
> >> > > > Autism since it was 1st described by Kenner? Do you know the year
> >> > > > Asperger's was added to the condition we know call Autism?
>
> >> > > > Now did you pay any attention to this paragraph:
>
> >> > > > <cite>
> >> > > > "This statement was made months before the Lancet retracted the
> >> > > > infamous British gastroenterologist Andrew Wakefield's paper, linking
> >> > > > autism to the MMR vaccine, published in 1998. The paper was retracted
> >> > > > after scrutiny and subsequent investigations by British regulators
> >> > > > leading to charges that Dr. Wakefield falsified data and was paid by
> >> > > > the parents of autistic children. In addition, there have been
> >> > > > several studies since disproving Wakefield's research, implying that
> >> > > > MMR vaccines are not the cause of ASDs (4)."
> >> > > > <cite>
>
> >> > > > If Dr. Mikovit's conclusion used any of Wakefield's data or
> >> > > > conclusion it could itself, be invalid suggestion. See the problems
> >> > > > Andy's lies have created. Years of research become questioned.
>
> >> > > Dr.Mikovit's study is independent of Wakefield's. If it has similar
> >> > > results (and I am not stating it has) then it would confirm Wakefield's
> >> > > results, not other way around.
>
> >> > Citation? I have never seen this.
>
> >> Then, you need to pay attention.
>
> >>http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2010/02/autism_and_the_link_to_infe....
>
> >> While the paper published only initial findings relating XMRV to ASDs,
> >> the lead author added to the recent controversy concerning the
> >> association between the MMR vaccine and autism. In October, Dr. Judy
> >> A. Mikovits said, "This might even explain why vaccines would lead to
> >> autism in some children, because these viruses live and divide and
> >> grow in lymphocytes -- the immune response cells, the B and the T
> >> cells. So when you give a vaccine, you send your B and T cells in your
> >> immune system into overdrive. That's its job. Well, if you are
> >> harboring one virus, and you replicate it a whole bunch, you've now
> >> broken the balance between the immune response and the virus. So you
> >> have had the underlying virus, and then amplified it with that
> >> vaccine, and then set off the disease, such that your immune system
> >> could no longer control other infections, and created an immune
> >> deficiency" (6). This statement was made months before the Lancet
> >> retracted the infamous British gastroenterologist Andrew Wakefield's
> >> paper, linking autism to the MMR vaccine, published in 1998. The paper
> >> was retracted after scrutiny and subsequent investigations by British
> >> regulators leading to charges that Dr. Wakefield falsified data and
> >> was paid by the parents of autistic children. In addition, there have
> >> been several studies since disproving Wakefield's research, implying
> >> that MMR vaccines are not the cause of ASDs (4).-
>
> >While sitting in the car earlier today, I checked up on XMRV virus.
>
> >It appears to be rather ubiquitous (that means wide spread and all
> >over the place) and is found in people with CFS (Ilena posted on this
> >years ago), men with prostate cancer, etc.
>
> >The link to CFS has been ruled out:
>
> >http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_95819.html
>
> >As for prostate cancer, the research seems to suggest a link. However,
> >there is no final answer.
>
> >Now, as for any possible link to autism.
>
> >There is absolutely no research what-so-ever as to this issue. A valid
> >biological modality has to be defined and tested.
>
> >Until then, this is nothing more than idle speculation.
>
> I was wondering while you were reading how wide spread is it in
> people without CFS, Autism, men without Prostrate Cancer. I know it
> is ubiquitous, but how pervasive is it in the general not afflicted
> population?

Pretty significant percentages. I just finished a case where the
person died of a ubiquitous fungus infection of his lungs. This stuff
is everywhere. We could all be inhaling it right this minute. His
problem was immunosuppressant for a kidney transplant and a past
history of Tuberculosis. I checked, and found that he was the first
person in 22 years to die from a pulmonary infection of the lungs due
to this fungus.

From: pautrey on
On Mar 24, 7:54 pm, pautrey <rpautr...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 22:38:06 -0400, in misc.health.alternative, Mike
>
>
>
>
>
> <M...(a)localhost.localdomain> wrote:
> >Bob Officer wrote:
> >> On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 23:18:51 -0400, in misc.health.alternative, Mike
> >> <M...(a)localhost.localdomain> wrote:
>
> >>> Bob Officer wrote:
> >>>> On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 20:51:07 -0400, in misc.health.alternative, Mike
> >>>> <M...(a)localhost.localdomain> wrote:
>
> >>>>> Mark Probert wrote:
> >>>>>> On Mar 18, 9:51 pm, Mike <M...(a)localhost.localdomain> wrote:
> >>>>>>> Mark Probert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Ms. WRONG has a serious reading comprehension problem. This yarn is
> >>>>>>>>>> taken from a Readers Digest article by Arthur Allen, who is certainly
> >>>>>>>>>> diametrically the opposite of Mr. Allen on the issue of vaccines. Mr.
> >>>>>>>>>> Allen quotes:
> >>>>>>>>>> "We have reached out to media outlets to try to get them to not give
> >>>>>>>>>> the views of these people equal weight in their reporting to what
> >>>>>>>>>> science has shown and continues to show about the safety of vaccines."
> >>>>>>>>>>http://www.rd.com/health-slideshows/h1n1-the-report-card/article17474...
> >>>>>>>>>> These is NO call for censorship or anything else Katie WRONG whines
> >>>>>>>>>> about. Madame Secretary is correctly pointing out that the views of
> >>>>>>>>>> the anti-vaxxers arenot supported by sceince or facts. Thus, they
> >>>>>>>>>> should not be given equal weight.
> >>>>>>>>> No Sir, this IS censorship when it comes from the government.
> >>>>>>>>> Saying "they should not be given equal weight" is one thing,
> >>>>>>>>> saying the same thing from a position of a Cabinet Secretary is quite
> >>>>>>>>> different. Reaching out to the media and asking them for preferential
> >>>>>>>>> treatment for yourself and limiting opposing views IS censorship.
> >>>>>>>>> Even if you believe that you are censoring the bad guys (and even if
> >>>>>>>>> they were bad guys) it is censorship.
> >>>>>>>>>> I see nothing wrong with that. It is akin to having to give equal
> >>>>>>>>>> weight to flat-earthers, moon-landing hoaxers, Holocausr deniers and
> >>>>>>>>>> 9/11 truthers.
> >>>>>>>>> If a NASA official would ask the media not to give equal weight to
> >>>>>>>>> moon-landing hoaxers it would indicate that NASA has a credibility
> >>>>>>>>> problem.
> >>>>>>>> What you are doing is censoring the knowledgeable experts, because you
> >>>>>>>> do not agree with them, simply because they work for the government.
> >>>>>>> No, Sir, I am not calling for censorship. You do. The government will
> >>>>>>> never have any difficulty expressing its points. But when it wants to
> >>>>>>> create such hurdles to those with opposing views - this is called
> >>>>>>> censorship.
>
> >>>>>>> By the way, your last sentence can be turned on you: what you are doing
> >>>>>>> is censoring the knowledgeable experts, because you do not agree with
> >>>>>>> them.-
> >>>>>> Censorship is the control of what people read, write, see, or hear..
> >>>>>> The key word being CONTROL. Regardless of her position in government,
> >>>>>> she has the absolute right to express herself. Period. End of
> >>>>>> discussion. What you seem to be proposing is that because she is in
> >>>>>> government, she cannot fully express herself.
>
> >>>>> Expressing herself is quite different from asking the media not to let
> >>>>> others to express themselves - that is to control what people read, see
> >>>>> and hear. This is censorship. End of discussion.
> >>>> She isn't suggesting they not be allowed to express themselves.
> >>>> But that the reporting be kept to a minimum with disclaimers that the
> >>>> antivaxers have no evidence or facts to back their beliefs.
> >>> So, she orders the media to take her side. It is not enough to her
>
> >> She asked the media to become more responsible. She has no power to
> >> "order" or silence. However she can weight in come time for tv/radio
> >> license renewal time and point out the medical and social
> >> irresponsibility of the media outlets.
>
> >You openly defend censorship but do not admit it.
>
> What you are calling censorship isn't. It is reminding the press to
> be responsible.
>
> >Imagine someone like Russian PM Putin refusing to renew a license for
> >an "irresponsible" media outlet.
>
> >> You're trying to take a ant mound and turn it isn't mountain. it will
> >> not wash Mike.
>
> >I am only calling a spade a spade.
>
> No you are fear mongering. there is a difference. No attempt to
> silence anyone took place. The person in question was for honesty and
> reminded the press that fear mongering is an act of irresponsibility.
>
> >>> to say it herself: hey, do not listen to these loons. No, she does not
> >>> want to rely on her free speech and on persuasive powers of Dr.Offit.
>
> >> Offit already won his case. the special masters cases are decided.
> >> the word on the street is you antivax horse is dead.
>
> >Off topic. It's not about vaccine court cases (and of course the courts
> >are not a scientific authority).
>
> How they use Scientific evidence and had to weight the evidence. This
> is the point the press  can not give every crackpot equal time if
> they don't have fact or evidence. Wakefield was caught manufacturing
> evidence.
>
> A Responsible Press doesn't give liars and fear mongers equal time.
>
> >>> She wants support from supposedly objective moderators - why is that?
> >>> And who would resist such a request from a powerful government official?
>
> >>> That's censorship.
>
> >> No Bush refusing to let media photograph the coffins returning or
> >> report about the war without "embedding" the press, was censorship.
>
> >What she was doing is akin Bush asking the media not to give equal
>
> No it isn't. Bush actually sought to silence critics and had press
> that disagreed with his policies removed and banned from the theater.
> Bush absolutely banned photographs of coffins returning to the US.
>
> >weight to those skeptical about Iraqi WMD. Or maybe he indeed asked for
>
> Bush didn't, what he did was release information which outed CIA a
> Operative. The press covered the information well.
>
> >that? The media complied anyway.
>
> Some didn't and a few reporters were fired, that didn't play bush's
> song loud enough.
>
> >> You are at the wrong tree, Mike, Stop barking.
>
> >>>> Actual
> >>>> studies show there is no coupled cause and effect.
>
> >>>> I would suggest any reporting of their free expression should start
> >>>> with a disclaimer the antivaxers are batshit crazy and have no leg to
> >>>> which stand.
>
> >>> Disclaimer from who? Who is disclaiming what? Vax pushers are free to
> >>> say that, who else do you want to ditto it?
>
> >> When you make claims which continue to run counter to all existing
> >> evidence, then you are batshit crazy.
>
> And the beat goes on... Guano
>
> --
> Bob Officer
> Posting the truthhttp://www.skeptics.com.au- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

This is not my post.

From: D. C. Sessions on
In message <obmeq5lq6fi4ufvn1vdi7vistl8fsgs0ip(a)4ax.com>, Bob Officer wrote:

> If Dr. Mikovit's conclusion used any of Wakefield's data or
> conclusion it could itself, be invalid suggestion. See the problems
> Andy's lies have created. Years of research become questioned.

I wouldn't worry about Mikovits. Seriously -- for comments by a
virologist see http://scienceblogs.com/erv/xmrv/


--
| The brighter the stupid burns, the more |
| chance that someone will see the light. |
+- D. C. Sessions <dcs(a)lumbercartel.com> -+