Exactly! Also, the truth is that there are many kids today who would NEVER have been diagnosed as autistic years ago but are now. There have been huge studies involving millions of children that have proven these things safe.
Once neurons are dead can they be brought back to life by the removal of mercury from the body? 9th baby in California dies from whooping cough
True - Autism was first diagnosed 50 years ago. That is relatively short in the life of a disorder. It's not surprising numbers of diagnosis continue to rise. An increase in diagnosis does not necessarily equate to an increase in the number of those affected by the disorder.
Actually, yes it is far-fetched. If you have ever read studies about eye-witness testimony, you would realize that it is about the most unreliable evidence. I would even suggest that if asked the proper questions in the proper order, a parent could be led down a path of descriptions to support just about anything. Actually, I never had much formal education or "indoctrination" on vaccines. I went to public school in the US, science is about the last thing they teach. I have read the studies about vaccines, where medical doctors (you know the type, the ones with MD after their name because they studied a really long time and cut dead people apart) and PhD biologists and virologists have used grant moneys from a variety of sources to study the effects of infectious diseases. Sure the pharma companies do studies, but there are many corresponding studies from Universities that are not funded with corporate dollars. Can't find them on the web? Why? Probably because the peer-reviewed journals are not public documents and so therefore not available for free using "the Google". Go to a major university and sneak into their medical library and peruse the back issues of the scientific journals, you'll find a ton of studies both small and large regarding vaccines and their benefits. And as for the "big conspiracy" about the language of the CDC, it comes from the simple premise of the "Scientific Method". It is impossible to prove something in the absolute. The scientific method always leaves the door open for a better explanation and is purely based on the current understanding from the data collected. Unfortunately, the uneducated latch onto this "loophole" because unlike people that subscribe to the scientific method, they are comfortable making outrageous statements of causality with no empirical evidence.
http://www.aaidd.org/ehi/index.cfm Click on "Teleconfernces". Have fun. It's possible vaccines are the least of our worries. I highly recommend the Hertz-Picciotto conference.
Link between vaccines and autism discredited September 15, 2010|By Cory Franklin The power of the Internet has never been more evident than in the controversy over autism and childhood vaccines. For years, a theory gaining traction with parents and advocacy groups has been that childhood vaccines preserved with thiomersal, a mercury-based derivative, were the major cause of autism. Web sites, blogs, chat rooms and high-profile public advocates, including Robert Kennedy Jr., cited the dangers of thiomersal. Inevitably, newspapers and magazines picked up the story. Reports of parents refusing vaccines for their children followed summarily. A study just released in the journal Pediatrics analyzes insurance claims data and other records for children with autism and autism spectrum disorders (conditions resembling autism). It shows exposure to thiomersal, prenatally or after delivery, did not increase the risk of autism. This study found higher-than-average exposures to thiomersal were actually less common in children with autism than in those without the condition. Ads by Google Online Autism Research Linking the Autism Community And Researchers. Join Our Research. IANProject.org Advertisement A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention researcher confirmed that the data yielded no evidence that increasing thiomersal exposure was associated with increased risk of autism or related spectrum disorders. The methodology was probably the most detailed to date. Researchers had extensive childhood immunization records and direct access for interviews of children and their mothers. Thiomersal exposure was calculated from computerized immunization records (for both children and pregnant mothers), and the mercury content of each vaccine dose was obtained from lot-specific manufacturers' records and published data. This is the latest research, including a 2004 review by the Institute of Medicine, failing to establish a link between autism and vaccines. Earlier this year, the British medical journal Lancet, considered by many as the world's most prestigious medical journal, retracted a controversial 1998 paper linking childhood vaccines to autism. The study was discredited, and its lead author, Dr. Andrew Wakefield, was cited for unethical action. The General Medical Council, which oversees doctors in Britain, called his conduct "dishonest and irresponsible."
It's like this kind of stuff... http://www.scrippsnews.com/911poll More than a third of the American public suspects that federal officials assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East, according to a new Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll. I particularly like the bit that says... The poll also found that 16 percent of Americans speculate that secretly planted explosives, not burning passenger jets, were the real reason the massive twin towers of the World Trade Center collapsed. Presumably it was a coincidence that some Arabs just happened to fly a couple of planes into them at exactly the same time The internet's a wonderful thing but, unfortunately, it allows all sorts of conspiracy theory nuts to crawl out of the woodwork and wind each other up about stuff. In the past these morons would be humoured by people in pubs and bars across the world or, better yet, put somewhere by fellas in white coats where they can't do any harm or frighten the horses.
The problem is that these fellas pick up bits and pieces of techno-babble from carefully selected sources, (excluding anything that MIGHT disagree with the conclusion they've already decided upon), combine them with a few other plausible sounding scientific phrases and then woffle themselves into a frenzy on conspiracy forums. The fellas who actually get PAID to study the subject in depth are ignored The thing I don't get, though, is the reason that's usually given for this in the case of MMR is normally money, i.e. that someone is making money from the MMR but the thing is giving one MMR jab is CHEAPER, (in terms of the cost of the shot and doctors time), than giving giving 3 separate jabs so how is that making more money for them?!?!?!
The theory was thimerosal was used as a preservative in order to extend the vaccine's shelf life and reduce wastage (vaccines without thimerosal have a shorter window where they can be used).Less waste means more efficient production and higher profits for Big Pharma. Of course,the fact that more kids could then receive the vaccine had nothing to do with it.It was all about profits. Are there some kids that mercury exposure could have triggered an underlying condition in? Yes. But there's no way it accounts for the current "epidemic".
Yeah... if we're going to interpret EVERY aspect of the economics of the issue in that sort of way, (second guessing that's it's only about money I mean), then that would lead us to insist that all vaccines are created by hand by 16 year-old virgins in the foothills of the Andes. That would make them all cost about 20,000 dollars and nobody could afford to be be treated. I mean, I'm MORE than happy to believe that big pharma's only in it for the money but we've got to be sensible about this stuff. If research has shown it makes no difference then it doesn't matter. If research shows it makes a slight difference in how dangerous it is to a few people then we have to make a choice about the dangers to a few and balance that against the advantages to the many that can then afford to get the vaccine. Point being it's a matter of research by disinterested scientists... not a knee-jerk reaction by a few know-nothing nutters on teh intertubes.
FDA Goes After Popular Alternative Treatments for Autism and Alzheimer's For many desperate patients, over-the-counter chelation treatments used for conditions including autism, heart disease and Alzheimer's disease, among others, offered hope for a cure. Now the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is cracking down on the makers of such products, saying they are dangerous and illegal. The FDA sent warning letters to eight makers of chelators — drugs that remove heavy metals from the body — to stop marketing the drug for medical uses for which it has not been approved, a violation of federal law. The products, which are widely marketed and available on the Internet, may cause serious and potentially deadly health complications, including dehydration and kidney failure. Many companies that sell chelators also sell metal toxicity tests, which encourage people to test their levels and, in turn, may boost chelator sales. Some parents of autistic kids, for instance, claim that heavy-metal poisoning is a cause of autism and that chelators help affected children. There is no medical evidence to support that claim. However, there is evidence that the products can be dangerous: according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a 5-year-old autistic boy died of a heart attack while being given an intravenous chelation treatment at his doctor's office in 2005. The same year, a 2-year-old girl in Texas suffered the same fate. Read more: http://healthland.time.com/2010/10/.../topstories+(TIME:+Top+Stories)#ixzz12UBdf2rR
wow, this is a red herring if i ever saw one. and what does 911 have to do with the mercury-autism link?
anyone who claims to be objective should look at the listed symptoms of mercury poisoning and those for autism. they will find that they are IDENTICAL. mercury and other heavy metals damage not only the brain but other parts of the nervous system as well, and this is not even refutable. epidemics of paralysis occurred shortly after introduction of new insecticides such as lead arsenate. furthermore, polio virus was never proven to cause paralysis: http://www.vaclib.org/basic/polio/polio1.pdf http://www.vaclib.org/basic/polio/polio2.pdf
No, that would describe the ones who were looking desperately for a viral cause of the paralysis. the virus that would come to be known as polio virus had never been isolated when Salk made his vaccine. in fact, Salk got his so-called viral isolates, which were not isolates at all - as they were a concoction of cellular debris, DNA fragments, toxins, as well as viruses, from the brains of monkeys that had been used in research. when damaged spinal tissue was examined, there were many different kinds of viruses found there apart from the virus that would become known as poliovirus. viruses can easily hide in tissues already damaged by toxins, and this is a far better explanation than that a single virus was responsible for the damage. outside of the industrialized west, many populations were found to have antibodies to and be immune from poliovirus, yet there were no epidemics of paralysis. the disease of paralysis was not contagious, though the virus was claimed to be contagious. the paralyzed were not quarantined or otherwise isolated, yet the disease was not spread to, say, other family members no matter how intimately they came in contact with those affected. this meant that an infectious virus was probably not responsible. the CDC drastically changed the guidelines for reporting polio after the mass vaccination program, so that nearly all cases where identical symptoms existed would be classified under new names such as aseptic meningitis, Guillain-Barre Syndrome, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, etc. - 170 new disease categories in all, to hide the fact that the polio epidemic never went away. Whereas prior to the mass vaccination program, all that was required for a patient to be diagnosed as having polio were symptoms, however mild - 99 percent of polio patients weren't paralyzed, and of the remaining 1 percent, half of these would recover from their paralysis within about a month - after the mass vaccination program was implemented one had to have been paralyzed for over two months and the virus also had to be found in order to be reported as polio. if one studies the numbers for meningitis cases and polio cases before and after the mass vaccination program, one finds that the numbers were merely reversed in some areas such as LA County. in other areas, the total meningitis cases was fifty to 80 percent greater than the number of polio cases that had existed prior to the mass vaccination program, and this would suggest that the polio vaccine itself was causing paralysis. in fact, in 1959, the Journal of the American Medical Association said that it was widely accepted that the Salk vaccine turned out to be "worthless". all of europe except for denmark banned the Salk vaccine shortly after the hundreds of cases of death that occurred immediately after receiving the Salk vaccine.
the CDC and NIH are two extremely corrupt and dishonest agencies. I wonder how people can believe them. both of these agencies concealed for decades the fact that polio vaccines were riddled with extremely oncogenic SV40(Simian Virus 40) and SCMV, which have repeatedly been implicated and found in brain tumors and other cancers. the public only found out about their lies when parents of vaccine-induced children sued the manufacturers of the vaccines. one of the most blatant cover-ups was the case of Bernice Eddy, who was the lead researcher at NIH during the fifties. She found that the polio vaccine was making monkeys die, and later found that it caused the growth of large tumors in 20 of 23 hamsters, and also found the presence of SV40 in the hamsters who had been injected. NIH silenced her the first time, and when she did found out through conducting her own tests the link between SV40 and cancer, they demoted her and took away her lab. The CDC: where should I start? so many instances of lying. In particular, last year in the wake of the swine flu scare. so these latest denials by the NIH and the CDC should considered with their past history in mind.
Wouldn't it be easier if this fella just gave us the link to the 'talking points' forum he's getting this stuff from rather than regurgitating it in this manner?
Well, that too maybe. The thing is WHY would the doctors and researchers be doing this? To what purpose? Even if we exempt the pharmaceutical industry from any sort of morality, (which I don't accept anyway), what would be the motive behind all the OTHER people involved?
http://www.sparks-of-light.org/polio-research-docs.html http://www.sparks-of-light.org/poliomyth.html