Posted on 01/07/2008 4:23:06 PM PST by shrinkermd
Researchers at the California Department of Public Health said autism rates in that state have continued to rise despite the removal of the mercury-containing preservative thimerosal from most childhood vaccines.
The research, which is being published in this month's Archives of General Psychiatry, looked at autism rates of children ages 3 to 12 from 1995 through March 2007 who had active cases with the department, or those who were receiving services from the state for an autism disorder.
In 1999 federal health officials recommended the elimination of thimerosal from children's vaccines on concerns about a possible link to rising autism rates seen in the 1990s.
In 2004, the Institute of Medicine concluded there wasn't a relationship between the mercury-containing vaccines and autism, but recommended researchers continue looking at autism rates as thimerosal exposure dropped.
Autism is characterized as impairments in social interaction, communication, and unusual behavior and interests. The cause of the disorder isn't known, and there is no cure, although medication and therapy can improve symptoms. Other states besides California have also reported an increase in autism rates.
Federal health officials have said part of the increase in rates, which fall under a broader definition known as autism spectrum disorders and also include Asperger's syndrome and pervasive developmental disorders, may be because of better and earlier diagnosis of the problem.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Maybe these "doctors" should be looking at what's wrogn with themselves instead.
bttt
I just cited the Amish study because they have way less autistic children than they should have according to all the studies done on autism. Also, I did say there are a few autistic children there, but those were adopted children who had vaccinations. BTW, I think that autism is caused by toxins in the environment, not by heredity. It is not a coincidence that autism first appeared at the same time that the mercury preservative was put into the vaccinations.
My point, though, is that there should be NO toleration of mercury in any vaccinations for people. Period. I also wonder where the vaccinations are made and who checks them to make sure of what precisely is in them.
It's about drugs...FDA aproved drugs.
I’ve got love for you
If you were born in the 80s, the 80s
I’ve got hugs for you
If you were born in the 80s, the 80s
I do not use Lancet as my only source, although I have run into some very methodical and interesting articles. I view science as nothing but theories and I wonder who put pressure on the co-authors to retract their conclusions? Could it have something to do with the billions of dollars the pharmaceutical companies would have to pay if there was any credence to that conclusion? Betcha someone did some major bullying behind the scenes!
Just because some doctors say that vaccines are safe, doesn’t make them so. The fact is the medical field is mandating more and more vaccinations before a child is over 25 lbs. What are long term results??? Where are the studies on the Hep B vaccinations??? All of a sudden they mandate them for a newborn infant without proper studies? Why???? Money?????? Certainly, not because they are having sex or using street drugs.
You would have to discredit all the parents who noticed a direct correlation with vaccinations and the behavior in their children—from bubbly, athletic, talking two year olds to vacant, staring, clumsy kids. Young immature bodies are not designed to have masses of shots with God-only-knows-what. Look up mercury poisoning.....you would not be able to distinguish between an autistic child or one who was poisoned by eating contaminated fish.
Come on....why would I read propaganda from the government....Do you honestly think the FDA has any of my confidence or interests at heart..... the lead in baby toys, the lead in Mexican pottery, the date rape drug for children, Do you want a list of things the FDA has declared SAFE and then they say whoops!
Because there was an increase in the number of vaccines given in the first two years of life.
BTW, I read somewhere years ago when thimerosal was first being looked at as a possible problem, that the Hg (methylmercury, ethylmercury, thimerosal)level was set by EPA as 0.1 micrograms per body weight. One vaccine had 12.5 micrograms which would be toxic to a 250 lb. guy much less a 4 lb. infant. Why would they put something like that in a child’s vaccination when in one day they can get multiple shots?
As I said in previous post, the EPA lists Hg (ethylmercury, methylmercury, thimerosal)toxic levels to be 0.1 micrograms. One vaccine had 12.5 micrograms.....You do the math and how on God’s earth would you think that something so toxic could be given to a 4 lb. baby.
BTW, I love salt.
The FDA site provides citations. I am certainly very aware of the games that can get played with vaccinations, etc. Please see the following:
A post of mine from 2004:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1298330/posts?page=4#4
and after the vaccine release:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1907188/posts?page=30#30
What do you think of my comments? I think that I've just demonstrated that I am not biased in favor of vaccination claims.
Thimerosal is not a mercury compound. It contains ethylmercury (not methylmercury).
Do you understand the difference between methylmercury and ethylmercury and other other organomercury compounds and elemental mercury and inorganic mercury compounds? Do you understand the difference between acute effects and chronic effects? Do you understand how EPA numbers are set? Do you understand what an RfD is?
I'm not trying to pull a "Back off, man...I'm a scientist" line here...these technical ideas are critical to understanding the claims you're citing. I'm providing the links to where you can confirm these things and get a better understanding of the topic.
the Hg (methylmercury, ethylmercury, thimerosal)level was set by EPA as 0.1 micrograms per body weight. One vaccine had 12.5 micrograms which would be toxic to a 250 lb. guy much less a 4 lb. infant.
Do you realize that the 0.1 µg/kg level you cited for the EPA is NOT a "toxic level." In fact, it's actually 0.1 µg/kg/day--it's a reference dose level, and is for chronic exposure over time. See this, including sidebar.
Read about how it was derived and it will be difficult to stay convinced that it's representative of ethylmercury.* Some basic chemistry and a bit of research on the web will show you that's not the case.Why would they put something like that in a child’s vaccination when in one day they can get multiple shots?
Why would they put something like that in a child’s vaccination when in one day they can get multiple shots?
Because they want to reduce the risk to the child--and the best way is by a single, safe injection...which this is.
But now I see...you are lobbying for the health care industry, looking to require more pediatric visits, eh? ;-)
BTW, why do you believe the EPA when they list methylmercury effects ("similar to autism"), if you don't trust others...is it just because they line up with your preconceived ideas?
I'll end with this... In 2002, a 3-year-old died from being forced to drink 3 quarts of water in a 4-hour period. Does that mean water shouldn't be consumed, or that it's harmful over the long term? Obviously not.
*Note that for the methylmercury oral RfD, a BMD approach was used rather than a NOAEL/LOAEL one. Also note that nearly 10% of childbearing-age American women have blood levels that already exceed the RfD.
Haven't you heard? The date of July 18 causes autism. Of course, not in every case, but you would have to discredit all the parents who noticed a direct correlation with the passage of time and the behavior in their children--from bubbly, athletic, talking two year olds to vacant, staring, clumsy kids.
Yes, precisely! It's the only answer!
;-)
My point is, if autism effects reveal themselves at that age, of course there's that change then--whether a child has received a vaccination or not.
Yes...outright death, like the result prior to the use of mercury, was so much better than autism. </sarc>
I asked:
Once again I ask, since thimerosal was in vaccines for decades, why did autism rates only increase in the 80s?
I would also add, as the science of vaccines became more precise, the amount of thimerosal shrank over time. So a child in the '60s, while getting fewer shots, received much more thimerosal than a child in the '80s.
That simple fact completely disproves your premise.
Because there was an increase in the number of vaccines given in the first two years of life.
So, there should be a direct correlation between the increase in the vaccine schedule and the rise in autism. Can you show us that date?
Should there be toleration of mercury in seafood? the air? water?
What is the smallest level you are willing to tolerate?
You do realize that there are naturally-occurring mercury containing compounds, don't you? Should we actively remove them from the environment?
What about arsenic? It's a potent toxin. Should we not tolerate ANY in the water, even if it's naturally occurring?
Need a reference on that one.
And then there’s deadly cyanide ~ peach pits, cherry pits, etc. It’s all over the place. Waaaahahahahah! We’re all gonna’ die.
Repeat after me......"because the schools get more funding for labeled students."
It all starts to makes sense once this is understood.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.