In case anyone missed it in the news today...
http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/01/06/autism-vaccine-fraud/
-Charles
http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/01/06/autism-vaccine-fraud/
-Charles
Vaccines and Autism
- Thread starter ChazHollywood
- Start date
danthebugman
BoM Nov '10
Yeah saw it on Yahoo last night...can't help but shake my head in disgust. Perhaps they were asleep on the day ethics were discussed.
Dan
Dan
danthebugman
BoM Nov '10
Status or fake tits and tight ass?
Q: Who are you?
A: My name is Derek Bartholomaus and I work professionally in the Entertainment Industry as a Post Production Supervisor/Producer on various television programs. I am a member of the Independent Investigations Group and I am the Lead Investigator into the IIG Billy Meier Investigation. I am also the creator of the Conservative Truths website (currently on hiatus until January 2012) which uses Census Bureau Statistical Reports to compare the differences between Conservative and Liberal Presidencies and Conservative and Liberal States.
this guy lists tables with botulism, tetanus as well as other diseases we are not regularly vaccinated against as an infant. While these may be preventable deaths the vaccines were not part of the vaccine campaign, the parents of autistic children, were working on.
My problem with this site is it uses sensationalism to make a point. Jenny never said don't give you kid a tetanus shot at age 5. It is the increased vaccination schedule we have seen in the past 30 years as HMOs try to save money on Dr's visits.
For me, the bottom line is my autistic son has an abnormal amount of mercury in his system. Autism and acute mercury poisoning have the same symptoms in case you are wondering why I'm saying this. Can I guarantee where he got that? NO. But I do know, he got a huge barrage of shots at 9 months of age, and was never the same. Over night change. Maybe it was just a coincidence and had nothing to do with the vaccines. I do know the vaccines he received were full of thiomersal, which contains a shit ton of mercury. More than I would want administered to my 260 lb frame much less that of an infant. California and most of the USA and EUR are stopping or have stopped using vaccines that contain this preservative. Why? If it's not causing problems why remove it?
Do any of us really trust a multi trillion dollar industry?
Science is field that exiles anyone who is going against the herd. You better not get caught saying everyone else is wrong, or they will make sure you are discredited. I never thought mainstream science was ever going to say, oops, sorry, we made a mistake. And to think a Dr that stood up against the mainstream, would be discredited is not that far fetched. He's just collateral damage.
yeah I am bummed, I wanted to know why my kid, at age 6, still can not speak and rarely understands or comprehends what I am saying. I want someone to blame, and so do all parents with children who have disabilities. With this news, the search down this avenue of treatment will be blocked. I will still bet we see a linear decline in autism cases as we get further removed from the inclusion of thiomersal as a preservative in our children's vaccines. It was never the vaccine, it was the preservative. At least that was the argument.
Last edited:
r3db4r0n
BoM Jan '11
Status because of fake tits and tight ass
Was this study not peer reviewed when it was originally published?
orangedog
Navin R Johnson
The article claims (and I have heard before) that vaccination rates have dropped and "not fully recovered". If I had to guess, I would also think that the influx of immigrants without vaccines has increased (not a knock against immigrants, just realistically thinking of people coming from countries that maybe aren't developed nations). Therefore, the percentage of people without vaccines should have increased over some period of recent time.
It would be interesting to see a study done in the future of the rate of (or per capita) cases of diseases that the vaccines were designed to treat. Compare that to the period before the study was released when vaccine rates were higher.
That is probably the best way to know.
As dprice mentioned... if it is just one ingredient of the vaccine, hopefully that is rectified for future use.
Saddening that "science" has this element...
njstone
BoM January 2010
There are a couple REAL things at issue here:
1) Cases of Autism have increased by over 500% in the last decade or so ... something is causing this epidemic
2) Prior to this guys "study," it was widespread for vaccines to contain traces of toxic heavy metals, specifically mercury.
3) Mercury has been proven to be bad for brain development, and although it has only been coincidentally linked to Autism many doctors believe the link may be causal.
4) Since this "study," nearly all manufacturers of vaccines have now eliminated ALL toxins from their vaccines.
In my opinion, and the opinion of most pediatricians I've spoken to, this direct end result is VERY good for children. Even if the original study was bogus, at least the direct end result was to make healthier vaccines.
Of course, many claim that an indirect end result was that less children are being vaccinated, which from a public health standpoint is bad. But frankly, I think that the number of people who opted to NOT vaccinate their children directly because of this study are fairly low. There are many reasons people choose not to vaccinate, not least of which is the slight chance that their child could contract the disease because of the vaccine itself.
Our Choice:
When it came time to choose to vaccinate our son, we chose NOT TO at the time, but to wait an extra year to start most of his vaccinations (he has them all now, at 3). This was because our son has a blood relative (1st cousin) with Autism, and his mother (my wife) has a learning disability, making our son's statistical likelihood of developing a developmental disability highly increased.
We decided that his likelihood of getting Mumps was ridiculously low compared to the fear of something worse like Autism, so we put off the vaccines. I don't regret that decision.
1) Cases of Autism have increased by over 500% in the last decade or so ... something is causing this epidemic
2) Prior to this guys "study," it was widespread for vaccines to contain traces of toxic heavy metals, specifically mercury.
3) Mercury has been proven to be bad for brain development, and although it has only been coincidentally linked to Autism many doctors believe the link may be causal.
4) Since this "study," nearly all manufacturers of vaccines have now eliminated ALL toxins from their vaccines.
In my opinion, and the opinion of most pediatricians I've spoken to, this direct end result is VERY good for children. Even if the original study was bogus, at least the direct end result was to make healthier vaccines.
Of course, many claim that an indirect end result was that less children are being vaccinated, which from a public health standpoint is bad. But frankly, I think that the number of people who opted to NOT vaccinate their children directly because of this study are fairly low. There are many reasons people choose not to vaccinate, not least of which is the slight chance that their child could contract the disease because of the vaccine itself.
Our Choice:
When it came time to choose to vaccinate our son, we chose NOT TO at the time, but to wait an extra year to start most of his vaccinations (he has them all now, at 3). This was because our son has a blood relative (1st cousin) with Autism, and his mother (my wife) has a learning disability, making our son's statistical likelihood of developing a developmental disability highly increased.
We decided that his likelihood of getting Mumps was ridiculously low compared to the fear of something worse like Autism, so we put off the vaccines. I don't regret that decision.
njstone
BoM January 2010
Yes, and it always will. Just think briefly about the history of science. For a long period of time, scientists knew the earth was flat, and the center of the solar system. For most of science's history, science knew that heavier-than-air flight was completely impossible. Scientists knew that the speed of light was constant. Scientists knew that man evolved linearly from apes. Scientists knew that trans-locational causes could not have local effects. Scientists knew for a long time that time was a constant.
Scientist now know differently.
What's my point? Do not put your faith in science. It is ever changing, ever re-evaluating and re-understanding the universe ... as it should. Many scientists are humble enough to say "This is how we understand things today," but some are so prideful as to state categorically "This is how it is, period." The latter are usually disproven as their field of science improves.
Sometimes it takes "science" hundreds of years to change it's mind, sometimes it takes weeks. Just look up the stance on caffeine over the last 20 years. "It's good for you," It's bad for you," "It's good for some people," "It will give you cancer," "It improves brain function for certain things and reduces it for others," "It causes cardiovascular decay," etc. etc. I stopped keeping up with the studies after a while.
orangedog
Navin R Johnson
True, although I maintain a distinction between inaccuracy and unethical methodology.
Your point would still be appropriate, though.
njstone
BoM January 2010
Certainly. And although I'm no conspiracy theorist, I have to admit that it's highly unlikely that the US Government would admit it if the additives in the vaccines were actually a factor in those cases of Autism. Any Surgeon General worth their salt would ... correctly ... risk life in prison by lying about it.
If the vaccines were at fault, and everyone knew it, people would stop getting their children vaccinated--even though the problems have been corrected. This would lead to multiple epidemics and thousands of children, elderly, and immune-compromised citizens dying, to say the least. If there is a cover-up, it's one some people might concur with, "for the greater good" as they say.
Doctors and scientists make mistakes all time time. That's just the nature of the field. People just have to understand that there is no such thing as a valid "Promise of safety."
Just to nitpick: scientists still know this. The speed of light in a vacuum is still a constant. Light travels at different speeds in different mediums (hence why a prism can produce a rainbow), but this was known at least as far back as Newton.
Dude, before I say anything else I want you to know that I agree with almost everything you've said so far, and I really respect that you've thought things through and decided what was right for your family instead of just listening to some celebrity with a theory well outside her field, based entirely on one data point and a bunch of conjecture.
I think a big problem we're having right now is that science is misunderstood by a lot of people on a very fundamental level. Science is the collected body of everything we understand so far, and a process for updating and refining it. Sure a lot of it is wrong. A lot of it is right, too or at least right enough to be of practical use.
In my day to day life I see going with the scientific consensus like raising with pocket aces. Will you win every time? Of course not, but it's still the best move in the circumstance[1]. Besides, in some matters it's not just the best we have, it's quite literally all we have to go on.
-Charles
1. Before taking my metaphor to the card table, I should warn you that I'm a lousy poker player.
orangedog
Navin R Johnson
relativity?
I believe the idea that the speed of light is constant regardless of the observer is actually relatively recent. The reason the idea was very hard to swallow is because the consequence is non-constant time!
nitpick^2!!
:eyepoke: -Charles
