Posted on 11/08/2011 3:56:12 AM PST by Kaslin
While most mainstream news media cover presidential campaigns or economic conditions, the feds are going under the radar and your skin -- literally -- with something that could be detrimental to your and your children's health. News just broke about their cover-up, but few, if any, agencies passed along the wire.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1 in 110 children have autism spectrum disorders, which is strikingly more than just two decades ago. (ASDs are a group of developmental disabilities that can cause communication, behavioral and social challenges.) The National Autism Association calls the 644 percent increase of ASDs among U.S. children since the early 1990s "a tragic epidemic of autism."
Many attribute the increase in the rate of ASDs to children's being exposed to significant quantities of thimerosal, a mercury-based compound that has been used since the 1930s as a preservative in certain vaccines and pharmaceutical products to prevent bacterial and fungal contamination.
According to the CDC's website, however, "to date, the studies continue to show that vaccines are not associated with ASDs. ... The most recent and rigorous scientific research does not support the argument that thimerosal-containing vaccines are harmful. ... Is thimerosal in vaccines safe? Yes."
But PR Newswire reported recently that the Coalition for Mercury-free Drugs exposed a federal cover-up between the CDC and vaccine researchers. Despite the fact that the CDC received an email from CoMeD in 2002 that revealed a causal relationship between the removal of thimerosal from vaccines and a decline in the rate of autism, the CDC encouraged the publication of a study in Pediatrics that ignored certain data and misled the medical community and public by insinuating that thimerosal in vaccines does not increase the risk of autism.
Almost inconceivably, the study in Pediatrics actually purported that autism rates increased after thimerosal was removed. And to add insult to injury, PR Newswire reported, "One coauthor, from Aarhus University, Denmark, was aware of the omission and alerted CDC officials in a 2002 email, stating 'Attached I send you the short and long manuscript about Thimerosal and autism in Denmark ... I need to tell you that the figures do not include the latest data from 2001 ... but (SET BOLD) the incidence and prevalence are still decreasing in 2001 (END BOLD)' (emphasis added)."
The deliberate avoidance and falsification of medical data to support CDC bias is heinous enough, but the fact that such information is manipulated to practice medicine on our nation's children is monstrous malpractice and even premeditated malevolence. I agree wholeheartedly with Lisa Sykes, president of CoMeD, who summarized the CDC cover-up: "This type of malfeasance should not be tolerated by those who are entrusted with our children's health and well-being."
But even the Institute of Medicine, the nation's bastion of authoritative health advice, just cleared vaccines as an autism culprit in a recent report.
And just when you think vaccination news couldn't get any worse, the San Francisco Chronicle recently reported that the National Biodefense Science Board, which advises the federal government on bioterrorism issues, voted 12-1 to recommend that the Health and Human Services Department endorse and sponsor a study to test the anthrax vaccine in children. (Do these advisory panels not think 36 federally recommended vaccinations for children by age 2 are enough?)
The truth is, as the National Autism Association reports on its website, "there are over 1500 studies and papers documenting the hypoallergenicity and toxicity of thimerosal (ethylmercury) have existed for decades," with recent research revealing commonness of speech delays and tics. The NAA adds, "Recent studies have confirmed the association between the use of thimerosal and autism has moved from 'biologically plausible' (in 2001) to a 'biological certainty.'"
Hence, justification for thimerosal's inclusion in any product is unwarranted at best and dangerous at worst. The NAA categorically states in its series of warnings about thimerosal: "Mercury is hazardous to humans. The use of a toxic poison as a preservative is undesirable, unnecessary and should be eliminated entirely."
That is why the United Nations Environment Programme is proposing a global treaty ban on mercury in vaccines, something SafeMinds, a parental advocacy group, applauds based upon the group's longevity in trumpeting the dangers of thimerosal.
But according to another recent PR Newswire report, though thimerosal is not used in vaccines for measles, mumps, oral polio, yellow fever or tuberculosis, it still is found in many diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, hepatitis B and influenza vaccines, especially in developing countries.
Since 2001 in the U.S., no new vaccine licensed by the Food and Drug Administration for use in children has contained thimerosal, except for ones to prevent influenza. Nevertheless, the CDC continues to recommend some routine vaccines with "trace amounts of thimerosal" for children younger than 6.
The FDA has approved many seasonal flu vaccines, which come in both multi-dose vials and single-dose units. Those that are produced in large quantities and are in multi-dose vials contain thimerosal, whereas the single-dose units (including nasal spray) do not contain thimerosal, because they are opened immediately and used only once. (So if you or yours insist on seasonal influenza shots, ensure they are single-dose.)
But do we really want to swap the flu bug for thimerosal? And isn't "Centers for Disease Control and Prevention" a total misnomer when the agency allows "trace amounts of thimerosal" in our children's soup of medicines? Are we really going to allow our children to be mercury-laced vaccinated guinea pigs? At the very least, shouldn't we avoid all thimerosal-containing products for precautionary reasons?
Jose Dorea, professor of nutritional sciences at the University of Brasilia, hit the health nail right on the head when he recently said: "The evidence continues to mount that mercury in vaccines is not safe, that negative effects happen even with vaccine levels of exposure. We must end the use of thimerosal as soon as possible. No pregnant mother or child should have to trade getting mercury injected into them for the prevention of an infectious disease."
So let the buyer beware! Or, should I say, let the booster beware! Don't check your brain in at the door of your family's health care. And don't ever be afraid to ask the hard questions of your health practitioners -- for example, "What are the exact ingredients in that syringe?"
It is your health, and they are your children, entrusted to you by God, so be bold in ensuring their safety and welfare. You still have the constitutional right to refuse any health care you deem unnecessary.
Yet you happily post on a thread that has the word vaccines in the title?
And then you spout nonsense about kids getting too many vaccinations, without any facts to support your case, only feelings.
I seems like I spend my entire life allaying parent's fears concerning vaccines because they "read something on the internet". It is ridiculous that people feel the need to weigh in on vital matters of health with no background, reasearch or facts....
.....only feelings.
If you don't want your beliefs questioned vigorously, don't post them.
.She is in her 40's and still has not had a vaccination for small pox. It would only be necessary if she were to leave the country....
?
They stopped giving out the Smallpox vaccine in 1972. And smallpox was declared eradicated in 1980. There is no vaccine necessary.
PS it was before 1972 try a little math
PSPS Free Republic is open to all kinds of idea's and beg your sweet pardon, I'll post them as long as I want. It's not your house its Jim's and he decides what it or is not posted.. You want to censor opinions, start your own forum...my post was not about "feeling" it was about observation...but you do seem to have a comprehention problem so I'll just let it go at that...
I misspelled a word, can you find it...its like Where's Waldo. I am sure you have read that book..LOL
You said:
She is in her 40's and still has not had a vaccination for small pox.
How can you "still not have a vaccination" that doesn't exist?
Then you say:
It would only be necessary if she were to leave the country...
How can you NOT know smallpox has been eradicated???
Talk about "buying a clue"!
Free Republic is open to all kinds of idea's and beg your sweet pardon, I'll post them as long as I want. It's not your house its Jim's and he decides what it or is not posted...
Yes, you can post whatever you want, but don't complain when someone strenuously disagrees with you.
You want to censor opinions, start your own forum...my post was not about "feeling" it was about observation...but you do seem to have a comprehention problem so I'll just let it go at that...
No, you "observed" a child getting a number of vaccines and "felt" it was too many. Without A SINGLE SHRED of evidence, I might add.
If you feel you must keep interrupting my reading on free republic, continue to do so, but don’t expect me to answer any more....post away.......
How, in the name of all that is good and holy, am I "interrupting" you???
If you don't want to click on a link, DON'T DO IT! Nobody is forcing you to come back to this thread.
Climb down off your cross.
Those explanations are not at all opposite. They are different factors contributing to the same observation.
There are fewer developmentally disabled children these days. Because many of the children having easily diagnosable ones (trisomy 13, 18, and 21) are aborted, there is a higher proportion of children having non-trisomy developmental disabilities.
Fewer children being institutionalized means there is a higher likelihood of seeing any child with a developmental disability. Since the proportion of autistic children is higher in that group, there is a higher chance that when you do see a developmentally disabled child, he/she is autistic.
Another factor that I forgot to mention before is the role of random distribution. Clusters can form purely by chance, so you may happen to live in a place where several families with autistic children randomly moved in. Also, is there a school for the developmentally disabled nearby?
There are many possibilities. There is no reason to assume that the incidence of genuine autism has increased, without accounting for all of the other factors.
I have similar discussions with people all the time. It’s either the weather, “global warming”, vaccines, and other issues science related.
You handle it well.
Thank you.
I enjoy the challenge, and these discussions help me to sharpen my writing and communication skills.
Are you a pediatrician?
With so much disinformation on the internet, it seems an uphill battle to counter it.
thank you for your opinion...
And once again gg demonstrates her complete inablility to distinguish between facts and opinion.
Do you see all those numbery-looking things in aruanan's post? Those are NUMBERS. Do you see that word with the pretty color? That's called a "link". That sends you to a place where he got is "numbers". That means the "numbers" are indeed "facts".
Seesh.
Nope. DMD.
With so much disinformation on the internet, it seems an uphill battle to counter it.
Unfortunately, this insanity is way too pervasive. And it is hurting kids. Not in an abstract, "well they might cause autism" way. But a concrete, dead child way. And the majority of the people who push this crap have absolutes no idea what they are talking about. And it pisses me off.
Keep fighting the good fight.
I see no reason to assume it hasn't, especially since the perception that autism has increased is not mine alone, but is widespread. There is no need to protect either hypothesis.
The perception is there because it gets a lot of publicity. Whenever something gets a lot of publicity, there is always a perception that it is occurring more often than before it was publicized.
Sure. Sometimes. And sometimes (as in my own case on this subject), the perception came first. This is a complex phenomenon, maybe several phenomena under a single category, possibly with both genetic predispositions and environmental triggers at work. Plus, sample groups that keep moving geographically and are hard to define rigorously.
But dismissing personal observation is not scientific. It's illogical to say that because publicity can make a phenomenon appear more frequent, whenever a phenomenon appears frequent, it must be as a result of publicity. Gut impressions are actually the source of most hypotheses. The scientific method comes in when you test them. A lot hinges on who does the testing, and how well-designed and honest the tests are.
Clusters of cases is one reason. The clustering may be random, or it may be related to an external factor. There could, for example, be a school catering to a specific population in that area.
Publicity plays a huge role in the perception of incidence. The (now withdrawn) report on a link between autism and vaccines was published and widely publicized. People who never had a reason to notice autistic people began to notice them, and automatically accepted the premise that autism has increased.
It is actually not scientific to elevate personal observation to the status of measured data. As a scientist, if I notice that there seems to be more or less of something than usual, my first question is, is there a real increase or decrease in what I have observed? In many cases, it turns out that it is *not* real. If it does turn out to be real, then I have to proceed to the next question: why? In the case of autism, we have had such a huge broadening of the definition of autism that the question of whether or not the increase in incidence is real has not been scientifically answered.
The true incidence of autism spectrum disorders is likely to be within the range of 30–60 cases per 10 000, a huge increase over the original estimate 40 years ago of 4 per 10 000. The increase is largely a consequence of improved ascertainment and a considerable broadening of the diagnostic concept. And, as this recent article discusses, there has been a lot of progress made towards understanding the genetic basis of autism.
I'm sorry, this is in theory possible somewhere, on some subject, but in this case it's just gobbledigook. It's not a "broadening of the diagnostic concept" in my case, which is my starting point. It's an increase in odd kids who don't show signs of Mongolism. I pointed out myself that clustering is conceivable. But your faith that there has been no increase in autism is just faith—the evidence of things unseen and unproved. You just keep asserting that people's observations are not to be trusted, and surrounding the assertion with scientistic language—but you adduce no counter-observations. This is not a fruitful exchange because you're simply trying to match someone's observation with "it might not be, so it couldn't be." That's not logical, in the scientific method or otherwise.
I thank you for your replies in any case.
No. What I'm trying to do is introduce you to the way scientists think. When you see something, you can't automatically accept the first explanation that pops into your head about it. A true scientist tries to think of alternate explanations, and asks themselves a series of "what-if" questions. A true scientist does not become emotionally attached to an idea. Your problem is that you have become emotionally attached to the idea that vaccines cause autism, and you really have seen more autistic kids, so it must be true.
But when you get away from the popular news media, and look instead at the scientific literature, there is no such link, and there is no real evidence that anything other than a broadening of the diagnostic category is responsible for the supposed increase in autism.
Did you even read the abstract and article I linked? They both say pretty much what I've tried to say.
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.