Does using a mobile phone fry your brain?

On Aug 13, 7:33 pm, Iain <[email protected]> wrote:
> Stimpy wrote:
> > So you don't have anything to back up your assertions that "it's a lie".
>
> Yes, I do.

Share it, then.

---

› See More: Does using a mobile phone fry your brain?

Ivor Jones wrote:

> This is all a load of bollocks if you ask me. I hold my phone on whichever
> side of my head is convenient at the time. If I'm writing it'll be the
> right side as I'm left handed, if I'm not then probably the left side for
> the same reason. Does this mean both sides of my head are at risk..? I'd
> better chop it off now.....

If you read the report (as opposed to the scaremongering
misunderstandings quoted here) you'll find that the tumours (which were
not cancerous) are reported to have increased on the side that people
reported using their phone on. And they decreased by the same amount on
the other side.

So either the phone prevents tumours when at a distance or (much more
likely) people said they used the phone on the side that got the
tumours, even though it was not true.

Either way, if you use the phone on both sides, it should have no effect
either way.

David Kennedy wrote:

> There are separate jabs available as an extra cost option.

Not to patients and their families. The NHS refuses to make them
available. You can easily get one jab, can get the second with a little
difficulty, but can't get the third at all.

"Elliott Roper" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:100820082017460263%[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, Steve Terry
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> "Dave Higton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> > In message <[email protected]>
>> > "Steve Terry" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> MMR is very different, many parents would be only to happy to accept
>> >> separate vaccines as used to be offered, but the Gov insists it's
>> >> dogma
>> >> of forcing MMR
>> >
>> > That's because MMR protects better than the separate jabs.
>> > Dave
>> >
>> and separate jabs eliminates any risk of damage using a multiple vaccine.
> Three holes good. One hole bad.
>
>> All the parents want is the choice they had, of course if they got it,
>> MMR wouldn't get used, Gov policy would fail.
>>
>> Uncle Joe Gordo knows best
>
> Uncle Joe Gordo, pathetically despicable as his policies may be, can
> claim no credit, either way. It was in place long before he was. With
> luck MMR will outlive his hold on No. 10
>
> MMR is a logical and sensible immunisation procedure. Well backed up
> with scientific evidence, then semi-sunk by superstitious muppets egged
> on by a self-serving gutter press.

I think that's very unfair.

There's a suggestion, albeit a contentious one, that a particular type of
autism rather than autism in general may be linked with MMR: the suggestion
is that regressive autism (characterised by a baby losing communication and
other cognitive skills already developed and going on to attract a diagnosis
of autism having previously "passed" all developmental tests) is correlated
with a particular bowel disorder which is also correlated with MMR; those
babies who developed autism tended to have the MMR vaccine at a younger
age - this echoes evidence regarding the damage done by the virus itself.
The anecdotal - and some experimental - evidence suggests that the concern
is possibly well founded. The issue has formed a focus for respectable
research and, my understanding is, that the science underpinning the
suggestion is basically sound in terms of hypothesis formation. The concerns
may well be unfounded but there hasn't been, as far as I'm aware, a
comprehensive rebuttal of all the evidence supporting a link. That's one
concern.

The suggestion is that some babies may be susceptible to it - there may be a
link with mitochondrial dna; it tends to affect female babies more than male
babies (whereas, for some reason, autism in general is more common in males)
and the measles virus may be present in the bowel of those babies affected
more so than in unaffected babies (some studies have found this and others
have not).

I think there is enough reason to be cautious although, statistically, the
chances of a problem occurring are small.

At least one significant financial settlement in the US has accepted the
probable link between vaccine and autism linked brain damage in a female
baby. This is significant although it isn't in the interest of relevant
governments (here, in the US or elsewhere in the "developed" world) to
advertise the fact. This is because there is a strong public health agenda
which takes a utilitarian approach to risks and hazards: few are affected by
serious adverse side effects and the benefits to the many (herd immunity and
so on) outweigh the risks. Measles can be a serious disease not just in
terms of individual impact but in terms of its impact upon populations.
Governments don't want to risk that.

The UK is no longer an island nation in terms of social makeup: European
immigration/migration for example means that it isn't possible to assume
that babies won't come in to contact with viruses and bacteria that, 10
years ago, didn't require much attention. The UK is an open country in terms
of resources: education from age 4 is freely available and not means tested
in terms of financial contributions or in terms of old fashioned
"citizenship" (which is meaningless now in terms of an open Europe). In
terms of balancing the risk - to vaccinate or not I haven't got a clue what
the answer is.

In order to inject something at least loosely on topic in to the thread -
has anyone heard of recent concerns about wi-fi upon the brain development?

Gareth.

There's a lot of theories out there but nothing conclusive.

There's a article at my blog about it...

Cell Phone Forums - Uncategorized

David Kennedy wrote:

>>
>> Not to patients and their families. The NHS refuses to make them
>> available. You can easily get one jab, can get the second with a
>> little difficulty, but can't get the third at all.
>
> Why not ? The vaccine is widely available.

You tell me. Tried several times, but no joy. Gave up. The kids managed
without.

Gareth wrote:
>
> "Elliott Roper" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> MMR is a logical and sensible immunisation procedure. Well backed up
>> with scientific evidence, then semi-sunk by superstitious muppets egged
>> on by a self-serving gutter press.
>
> I think that's very unfair.
>
> There's a suggestion, albeit a contentious one, that a particular type of
> autism rather than autism in general may be linked with MMR: the suggestion
> is that regressive autism (characterised by a baby losing communication and
> other cognitive skills already developed and going on to attract a diagnosis
> of autism having previously "passed" all developmental tests) is correlated
> with a particular bowel disorder which is also correlated with MMR; those
> babies who developed autism tended to have the MMR vaccine at a younger
> age - this echoes evidence regarding the damage done by the virus itself.

Regressive autism is not a new phenomenon. It has been observed almost
as long as autism itself. Thus, it cannot be attributed to MMR. See this
study from the British Medical Journal (it's free so you can read it all):
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/324/7334/393

The bowel disorder stuff is exactly what Dr Andrew Wakefield was on
about and the vast majority of studies done since have failed to
reproduce his results. The fact that his research was supported by a
group wanting to find links to autism with MMR for legal cases in US
means that his research was far from impartial and therefore cannot
stand on its own merits. The above reference also deals with the bowel
disorder incidence rates.

> At least one significant financial settlement in the US has accepted the
> probable link between vaccine and autism linked brain damage in a female
> baby.

A settlement means nothing. More often than not it's cheaper/easier to
pay off the plaintiff rather than go through the whole process.
Especially, with a topic as heated as this. Usually a settlement
includes a clause stating that no fault is admitted.

> The UK is no longer an island nation in terms of social makeup: European
> immigration/migration for example means that it isn't possible to assume
> that babies won't come in to contact with viruses and bacteria that, 10
> years ago, didn't require much attention. The UK is an open country in terms
> of resources: education from age 4 is freely available and not means tested
> in terms of financial contributions or in terms of old fashioned
> "citizenship" (which is meaningless now in terms of an open Europe).

I've no idea what you're on about.

"chris" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Gareth wrote:
>>
>> "Elliott Roper" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> MMR is a logical and sensible immunisation procedure. Well backed up
>>> with scientific evidence, then semi-sunk by superstitious muppets egged
>>> on by a self-serving gutter press.
>>
>> I think that's very unfair.
>>
>> There's a suggestion, albeit a contentious one, that a particular type of
>> autism rather than autism in general may be linked with MMR: the
>> suggestion
>> is that regressive autism (characterised by a baby losing communication
>> and
>> other cognitive skills already developed and going on to attract a
>> diagnosis
>> of autism having previously "passed" all developmental tests) is
>> correlated
>> with a particular bowel disorder which is also correlated with MMR; those
>> babies who developed autism tended to have the MMR vaccine at a younger
>> age - this echoes evidence regarding the damage done by the virus itself.
>
> Regressive autism is not a new phenomenon. It has been observed almost
> as long as autism itself. Thus, it cannot be attributed to MMR. See this
> study from the British Medical Journal (it's free so you can read it all):
> http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/324/7334/393

Regressive autism tending to impact females more than males? Linked to age
at vaccination?

> The bowel disorder stuff is exactly what Dr Andrew Wakefield was on
> about and the vast majority of studies done since have failed to
> reproduce his results. The fact that his research was supported by a
> group wanting to find links to autism with MMR for legal cases in US
> means that his research was far from impartial and therefore cannot
> stand on its own merits. The above reference also deals with the bowel
> disorder incidence rates.

The evidence is mixed.

>> At least one significant financial settlement in the US has accepted the
>> probable link between vaccine and autism linked brain damage in a female
>> baby.
>
> A settlement means nothing. More often than not it's cheaper/easier to
> pay off the plaintiff rather than go through the whole process.
> Especially, with a topic as heated as this. Usually a settlement
> includes a clause stating that no fault is admitted.

The settlement was a consequence of evidence suggesting that an underlying
vulnerability was activated by vaccine.

>> The UK is no longer an island nation in terms of social makeup: European
>> immigration/migration for example means that it isn't possible to assume
>> that babies won't come in to contact with viruses and bacteria that, 10
>> years ago, didn't require much attention. The UK is an open country in
>> terms
>> of resources: education from age 4 is freely available and not means
>> tested
>> in terms of financial contributions or in terms of old fashioned
>> "citizenship" (which is meaningless now in terms of an open Europe).
>
> I've no idea what you're on about.

Clearly not. I'm talking about risk. I'm not clear what your frame of
reference is.

Gareth.

Gareth wrote:
>
> "chris" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> Regressive autism tending to impact females more than males? Linked to age
> at vaccination?

What about them?

>> The bowel disorder stuff is exactly what Dr Andrew Wakefield was on
>> about and the vast majority of studies done since have failed to
>> reproduce his results. The fact that his research was supported by a
>> group wanting to find links to autism with MMR for legal cases in US
>> means that his research was far from impartial and therefore cannot
>> stand on its own merits. The above reference also deals with the bowel
>> disorder incidence rates.
>
> The evidence is mixed.

No. It's clear that Wakefield's research was flawed and is not to be
relied upon. Also, there's no evidence of a *causative* link between MMR
and bowel disorder and/or autism.

> The settlement was a consequence of evidence suggesting that an underlying
> vulnerability was activated by vaccine.

Link?

> I'm talking about risk.

Are you? Then you know that everything has risk associated with it. Even
just getting out of bed in the morning. However, the risk associated
with taking a vaccination versus not is readily assessed and has been
found to be strongly in favour of the vaccination.

"chris" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Gareth wrote:
>>
>> "chris" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> Regressive autism tending to impact females more than males? Linked to
>> age
>> at vaccination?
>
> What about them?

This is getting silly - you are clearly not interested in looking at
evidence that doesn't support your conclusion. The point is that there may
be a novel picture associated with female vulnerability and age at
vaccination.

>>> The bowel disorder stuff is exactly what Dr Andrew Wakefield was on
>>> about and the vast majority of studies done since have failed to
>>> reproduce his results. The fact that his research was supported by a
>>> group wanting to find links to autism with MMR for legal cases in US
>>> means that his research was far from impartial and therefore cannot
>>> stand on its own merits. The above reference also deals with the bowel
>>> disorder incidence rates.
>>
>> The evidence is mixed.
>
> No. It's clear that Wakefield's research was flawed and is not to be
> relied upon. Also, there's no evidence of a *causative* link between MMR
> and bowel disorder and/or autism.

Other research has replicated the experimental findings although the
interpretation of correlation has tended to be different - it's notoriously
different to prove a causative link. Reporting the headline results "study
finds no link" often camouflages the complexity of the results.

>> The settlement was a consequence of evidence suggesting that an
>> underlying
>> vulnerability was activated by vaccine.
>
> Link?

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/c...ism/index.html

You weren't aware of that case?

>> I'm talking about risk.
>
> Are you? Then you know that everything has risk associated with it. Even
> just getting out of bed in the morning. However, the risk associated
> with taking a vaccination versus not is readily assessed and has been
> found to be strongly in favour of the vaccination.

For most people. But the point of the risk debate is that the public health
agenda is able to ignore individual tragedies as statistically
insignificant. The risk of contracting the diseases, whilst small, is
probably greater now than it has been in the last 15 years or so (migrant
populations, a socially inclusive education system and concern about
vaccination contributing to that). A sensible approach would be to take
seriously the need to exclude at risk people from the program or/and to
offer alternatives - yet the approach is to ignore concerns despite the
evidence that at least some of them may have a basis.

The wi-fi and mobile phone mast debate mirrors this in some ways: there's
even less, although maybe some, evidence to suggest that wi-fi and mobile
phone mast signals can have physical/neurological impact but Local
Authorities routinely refuse planning permission for companies to build
extra capacity on the basis of largely unevidenced concerns about biological
damage.

Gareth wrote:
>
> "chris" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Gareth wrote:
>>> "chris" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>
>>> Regressive autism tending to impact females more than males? Linked to
>>> age
>>> at vaccination?
>> What about them?
>
> This is getting silly - you are clearly not interested in looking at
> evidence that doesn't support your conclusion.

What evidence? You've not shown any evidence. The female vulnerability
is one I've not heard of before, but sounds like some people desperately
trying to find any link to an ever reducing part of the population.
First all kids who've had the MMR, then those with bowel disease and
MMR, now females under a certain age. What's next? Left-handers born on
a Tuesday?

I've seen studies look at the age of vaccination issue and found no link
there either.

>> No. It's clear that Wakefield's research was flawed and is not to be
>> relied upon. Also, there's no evidence of a *causative* link between MMR
>> and bowel disorder and/or autism.
>
> Other research has replicated the experimental findings although the
> interpretation of correlation has tended to be different - it's notoriously
> different to prove a causative link. Reporting the headline results "study
> finds no link" often camouflages the complexity of the results.

It's funny, when there's no link the results are 'complex', but when
there is a link the results are quite clear. Double standards methinks.

>>> The settlement was a consequence of evidence suggesting that an
>>> underlying
>>> vulnerability was activated by vaccine.
>> Link?
>
> http://edition.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/c...ism/index.html
>
> You weren't aware of that case?

You make it sound like I should have been...

Like I said before and is stated in the link the Federal "government has
made absolutely no statement indicating that vaccines are a cause of
autism." So, despite what the parents and those with a vested interest
have to say this settlement proves nothing. The details of the case are
undisclosed and are specific to the case so no generalisation is possible.

Plus, several times in the article it states that no evidence supporting
a link between vaccination and autism.

> For most people. But the point of the risk debate is that the public health
> agenda is able to ignore individual tragedies as statistically
> insignificant.

The fact is they *are* statistically insignificant, by definition.

Obviously on a personal level these incidences are tragic and I can see
(having children myself) that parents want to find reason. However,
sometimes these things can't be pinned down to anything specific. People
and the government are sympathetic to these claims. Many governments
have spent years and lots of money trying to support these claim, but
none has been found.

> The risk of contracting the diseases, whilst small, is
> probably greater now than it has been in the last 15 years or so

You don't contract autism, you develop autism.

> A sensible approach would be to take
> seriously the need to exclude at risk people from the program or/and to
> offer alternatives - yet the approach is to ignore concerns despite the
> evidence that at least some of them may have a basis.

Yes that is a sensible approach and is what has been done, but despite
this some people refuse to believe the facts and evidence.

> The wi-fi and mobile phone mast debate mirrors this in some ways: there's
> even less, although maybe some, evidence to suggest that wi-fi and mobile
> phone mast signals can have physical/neurological impact but Local
> Authorities routinely refuse planning permission for companies to build
> extra capacity on the basis of largely unevidenced concerns about biological
> damage.
>

Oh god, here we go again! There was a very clear study done that proved
that people who claimed they were sensitive to these things were no more
able than random to tell whether the radiation was on or off:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...h.mobilephones

And the local authority thing has got NIMBY written all over it. They
are elected officials so for the sakes of their futures it's better just
to cave in to popular opinion if it's loud enough. Like windmills,
everyone knows they are better for us, but so often they are rejected
for no justifiable reason other than the locals don't like them.

It's just like allergies. You ask people whether they have allergies and
1/5 will say they do, but when tested only 1/20 have a real allergy.

It just goes to show that people are not a very good judge of evidence.
People will see what they want to see.

"chris" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Gareth wrote:
>>
>> "chris" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Gareth wrote:
>>>> "chris" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> Regressive autism tending to impact females more than males? Linked to
>>>> age
>>>> at vaccination?
>>> What about them?
>>
>> This is getting silly - you are clearly not interested in looking at
>> evidence that doesn't support your conclusion.
>
> What evidence? You've not shown any evidence. The female vulnerability
> is one I've not heard of before, but sounds like some people desperately
> trying to find any link to an ever reducing part of the population.
> First all kids who've had the MMR, then those with bowel disease and
> MMR, now females under a certain age. What's next? Left-handers born on
> a Tuesday?
>
> I've seen studies look at the age of vaccination issue and found no link
> there either.

You need to look harder (although actually not that hard if you know how to
use Google) but best to do it with an open mind - too narrow search terms
won't throw up much of interest.

>>> No. It's clear that Wakefield's research was flawed and is not to be
>>> relied upon. Also, there's no evidence of a *causative* link between MMR
>>> and bowel disorder and/or autism.
>>
>> Other research has replicated the experimental findings although the
>> interpretation of correlation has tended to be different - it's
>> notoriously
>> different to prove a causative link. Reporting the headline results
>> "study
>> finds no link" often camouflages the complexity of the results.
>
> It's funny, when there's no link the results are 'complex', but when
> there is a link the results are quite clear. Double standards methinks.

Really? The original paper was clear that there was no evidence for a causal
link - rather a need for further investigation.

>>>> The settlement was a consequence of evidence suggesting that an
>>>> underlying
>>>> vulnerability was activated by vaccine.
>>> Link?
>>
>> http://edition.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/c...ism/index.html
>>
>> You weren't aware of that case?
>
> You make it sound like I should have been...

Only if you are interested in the substantive issues.

> Like I said before and is stated in the link the Federal "government has
> made absolutely no statement indicating that vaccines are a cause of
> autism." So, despite what the parents and those with a vested interest
> have to say this settlement proves nothing. The details of the case are
> undisclosed and are specific to the case so no generalisation is possible.
>
> Plus, several times in the article it states that no evidence supporting
> a link between vaccination and autism.

The evidence upon which the case was based was more ambiguous than the
denial would suggest. The information is easily available via Google.

>> For most people. But the point of the risk debate is that the public
>> health
>> agenda is able to ignore individual tragedies as statistically
>> insignificant.
>
> The fact is they *are* statistically insignificant, by definition.

Oh, very nice.

> Obviously on a personal level these incidences are tragic and I can see
> (having children myself) that parents want to find reason. However,
> sometimes these things can't be pinned down to anything specific. People
> and the government are sympathetic to these claims. Many governments
> have spent years and lots of money trying to support these claim, but
> none has been found.

Okay, possible links deserving further investigation have been found (by
respectable researchers). The problem is that the research isn't publicised
and so people dwell upon slogans instead:

http://www.autismfile.co.uk/papers/R...Sulphation.asp

>> The risk of contracting the diseases, whilst small, is
>> probably greater now than it has been in the last 15 years or so
>
> You don't contract autism, you develop autism.

I was talking about the viruses (which should have been obvious from the
context of the statement but, obviously given your need to disqualify what
you assume to be an alternative view, wasn't to you).

>> A sensible approach would be to take
>> seriously the need to exclude at risk people from the program or/and to
>> offer alternatives - yet the approach is to ignore concerns despite the
>> evidence that at least some of them may have a basis.
>
> Yes that is a sensible approach and is what has been done, but despite
> this some people refuse to believe the facts and evidence.

See the above link - a very respectable researcher suggesting that the
issues do need further attention.

>> The wi-fi and mobile phone mast debate mirrors this in some ways: there's
>> even less, although maybe some, evidence to suggest that wi-fi and mobile
>> phone mast signals can have physical/neurological impact but Local
>> Authorities routinely refuse planning permission for companies to build
>> extra capacity on the basis of largely unevidenced concerns about
>> biological
>> damage.
>>
>
> Oh god, here we go again! There was a very clear study done that proved
> that people who claimed they were sensitive to these things were no more
> able than random to tell whether the radiation was on or off:
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...h.mobilephones

The question is about the long term effects of the masts. Despite a relative
lack of evidence to show that there is a significant impact the companies
find it difficult to win planning permission. Still, why not assume the
worst? Why should the rebuttal presumption be that there is no harm when a
more cautious approach - assuming harm until none is proven would be safer?

Elliott Roper <[email protected]> wrote:

> Pd for Prime Minister!

Elliott, I thought we were friends? How could you wish that on anyone
but the sad gits that actually want it?

--
Pd

Elliott Roper <[email protected]> wrote:

> Andrew Wakefield [1]
> 1 The last part of his fitness to practice hearing is currently in
> progress. (Alleged he took £400,000 +£40,000 to cook the results, and
> that some of his 12 subjects were also litigating against vaccine
> makers and that he had patented a rival vaccine all without disclosing
> those facts to his co-authors or to the Lancet, where his work was
> originally published.

And? I see no confilict of interests there, any more than Halliburton
being awarded all the extremely lucrative contracts in Iraq by its
former Chairman and CEO. That's the way the world works, apparently.

Mr Wakefield should run for PM.

--
Pd

Gareth wrote:
>
> "chris" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> I've seen studies look at the age of vaccination issue and found no link
>> there either.
>
> You need to look harder (although actually not that hard if you know how to
> use Google) but best to do it with an open mind - too narrow search terms
> won't throw up much of interest.

No I don't. Google is terrible for this sort of thing: it's heavily
weighted towards populist opinion. I prefer using scientific literature
searches (as it is my training) to find bona fide research.

> Really? The original paper was clear that there was no evidence for a causal
> link - rather a need for further investigation.

How many ways does this need slicing and dicing? A quick search reveals
that in the last 5 years there have been over 1000 publications with MMR
as a keyword. The consensus over all those studies is that there are no
safety concerns now or ever. There is not any need for further
investigation. MMR is the most studied vaccine in history and yet that
is still not enough for some people.

>> Like I said before and is stated in the link the Federal "government has
>> made absolutely no statement indicating that vaccines are a cause of
>> autism." So, despite what the parents and those with a vested interest
>> have to say this settlement proves nothing. The details of the case are
>> undisclosed and are specific to the case so no generalisation is possible.
>>
>> Plus, several times in the article it states that no evidence supporting
>> a link between vaccination and autism.
>
> The evidence upon which the case was based was more ambiguous than the
> denial would suggest. The information is easily available via Google.

And this information is authoritative is it? Considering the case
details were not to be disclosed, is this legal? Again, google is not
the best option here.

> Okay, possible links deserving further investigation have been found (by
> respectable researchers). The problem is that the research isn't publicised
> and so people dwell upon slogans instead:
>
> http://www.autismfile.co.uk/papers/R...Sulphation.asp

What do you mean by publicised? In the media or published in
peer-reviewed journals? The above link is neither...?

Media publicity is rarely a good thing as they often distort or
exaggerate research findings.

Looking at the Rosemary Waring's publication record:
http://tinyurl.com/55xd6p

It's clear she has expertise in the biochemistry of sulphotransferase
enzymes, but I don't see any history of autism expertise. So, again,
your link is just an opinion piece which has not been verified by peer
review.

>>> The risk of contracting the diseases, whilst small, is
>>> probably greater now than it has been in the last 15 years or so
>> You don't contract autism, you develop autism.
>
> I was talking about the viruses (which should have been obvious from the
> context of the statement but, obviously given your need to disqualify what
> you assume to be an alternative view, wasn't to you).

This is your assumption. I was just correcting you based on the current
knowledge of how autism develops. And just because autism incidence
rates are higher now than 15 years ago means very little. It's quite
obvious by speaking to clinicians that 15-20 years ago autistic spectrum
children would have been labelled differently: spastic, mentally
retarded, etc.

Reporting is much better these days. That's all.