Yeah, yeah, blah, blah, blah...gubmint science. Here’s an expert!
Jenny McCarthy: If you look at the vaccine schedule, and you can go on www.generationrescue.com and that’s a really good website… the vaccines that you received in 1983 were ten. Today they’re thirty-six. Thirty-six vaccinations compared to ten back in the day. A lot of these kids seem to be born with a little bit of an auto-immune problem. Maybe they can’t really detox some of the toxins in the environment as easily. For instance, one of the things is glutathione. Glutathione is everyone’s bodies’ natural anti-oxidant that gets rid of toxins and viruses and stuff like that. We’ve noticed that a lot of these kids have low glutathione. So we say, “God, if these kids are born with low glutathione, a lower immune system, then how are they supposed to now take thirty-six vaccines when we never had that before?” So it’s real easy when you look at that list of what it was like, and what it’s like now, to go, “Ah! I see the escalation of vaccines and I see the escalation of autism,” and that’s how we got there.
As with the statin hype (some people are helped) the hype with all the 'preventable' diseases that children can be immunized for has increased 7 fold since the mid-late 60's.
Mumps, measles, whooping cough, diphtheria, tetanus, TB, smallpox, and polio were pretty much the standard immunizations when I was a kid, but today, diseases once practically eradicated from the US are back and climbing.
I think the crap in our food (preservatives, antibiotics and steroids ingested by the expecting mothers) combined with the additional 'needed vaccinations for kids' in our meat supply is the culprit triggering the rise in autism. Think about the sheer level of the combination of these man-made substances in our systems today.
Of course, the quest profits will keep the scientists quite for these answers.
Durasell, thanks for responding.
Your response is a lot longer but I wanted to quote just the first part of what you wrote because I believe that unintentionally, you've made a strong point.
How many people take the time to carefully read before responding?
I read your entire response and based upon your first sentence, I doubt that you read mine.
A difficulty we all face is that the information highway is jam-packed with scientific facts while unproven, untested hearsay, gossip and guesses are loading up on the on-ramps.
If you're not going to read and address what I've personally experienced, why in the world would I bother reading alleged quotes from some actress neither one of us know personally?