For all of you that don't think Autism is related to Vaccines - Page 7

BIG_DADDY · 04-09-2008, 04:05 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxIVHtbGiUw

Everyone I know with a child who has autism with the exception of one is the same way. Now go ahead and quote the AMA and the CDC now, they are looking out for you and your child. Ignore the tons of people right in front of you that are telling exactly what happened to their kid. For the billionth time I don't know what it is about the vaccines that is doing this for sure but it is what it is doing, period. There is no debate here just bunch of people working for big pharm out there putting out disinformation for the masses so they can continue making their BIG $$$$$.

BIG_DADDY · 04-10-2008, 04:02 PM

In other vaccine related news here is the latest on the anthrax vaccine. They are using our military boys as lab rats. My favorite line is: "Since 2005," Richardson said, "mandating the vaccine is now lawful only because of the FDA's willingness to ignore clear evidence in military medical records of the deaths and disabilities associated with the anthrax vaccine."

Here is the whole story.

Veteran Battles Pentagon's Vaccine, Seeks "Justice for All"
By Thomas D. Williams
t r u t h o u t | Report

Wednesday 09 April 2008

US Air Force Reserve Maj. Thomas "Buzz" Rempfer, a 43-year-old Connecticut native, is hoping he is nearing the end of nearly a decade's perpetual and unprecedented battle with the Pentagon over the legality, safety and effectiveness of mandatory anthrax vaccinations.

His and others' efforts have already netted favorable federal court rulings. They invalidated the original Department of Defense mandate and the vaccine's initial licensing.

Now Rempfer, formerly of West Suffield, Connecticut, and now of Tucson, Arizona, awaits a ruling from the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records. The board could award him back pay for lost time and promotions in the Air National Guard. If the board does not, he is likely to appeal back to the federal court. It was that court which decided in his favor by forcing another ruling from the Air Force panel.

However, much more significant to Rempfer is a broader public service goal. Rempfer and his deceased close friend, US Air Force Reserve Maj. Russell "Russ" E. Dingle, both pilots, fought their battle for others adversely affected by the vaccine. It was their belief that any victory, legally, must become a crucial military servicewide precedent, clearing all other vaccine-resisting veterans from punishment. Rempfer is acting as a representative of Dingle's estate.

In more than five years of research, Dingle and Rempfer concluded the anthrax vaccine was improperly licensed and ineffective. They found it created thousands of adverse reactions and was unnecessary. The threat of a foreign anthrax attack is extremely remote, they discovered. And, if there ever is such an attack, those exposed can take antibiotics afterward, they confirmed. That would avoid six anthrax vaccinations over 18 months as well as annual booster shots.

Significantly, the infamous 2001 anthrax powder attacks, killing five people and sickening 17 others after 9/11, were domestic and not foreign in nature. They were allegedly inspired by laboratory insiders who mailed the powder to the offices of two US senators, a number of national news offices in New York City, and elsewhere. The incidents are still under active FBI investigation.

That probe, says Fox News, recently identified three or four new suspects at an Army bioweapons lab intricately involved in helping to support the need for the mandated vaccine. They include a deputy commander, an anthrax scientist and a microbiologist. Curiously, at that point in time, the vaccine's continued use was being threatened by closer scrutiny from the US Department of Defense and other Bush administration officials. That review withered away after the attacks. However, the DOD then used the domestic incidents to claim the foreign threat was "real."

In the years before and after those episodes, Dingle's and Rempfer's findings that the vaccine was improperly licensed and thus unnecessarily mandated were eventually vindicated by a combination of a federal judge's rulings and subsequent events. After the two officers' initial investigations, the US Government Accounting Office (GAO) reported that the vaccine's systemic adverse reaction rate was 100 times higher than the 0.2 percent rate reported on the product's label.

Adverse vaccine reactions include immune disorders, muscle and joint pains, headaches, rashes, fatigue, nausea, diarrhea, chills and fever. At least half a dozen deaths and a warning against birth defects were listed on the vaccine's January 31, 2002, package insert, but they have never been proven to be vaccine-related. The vaccine is not recommended for use by pregnant women or for those who have experienced a history of Guillain-Barre Syndrome. And, last October, the GAO identified a potential $100 million in government waste annually. The anthrax vaccine stockpile for civilian emergencies had been improperly administered by the Department of Health and Human Services, the GAO report said.

Rempfer said he does not want to comment about the prospective Air Force panel's ruling. He said full attention now must be on restoring the honor and the health of all the dedicated servicemen and women who were either punished for refusing to comply with the illegal order to take the vaccine, or who became sick from it. If the Air Force panel rules in Rempfer's favor, the simple, overwhelming legal question will be: how can two military officers win damage awards and nullify their punishments for refusing the vaccine without all others similarly disciplined being cleared as well?

Despite scores of protests against the vaccine nationwide, hundreds of military service members have been punished to varying degrees for failing to obey orders to be vaccinated. Some have been court-martialed, others fined or demoted and still others removed from the service. Most prolonged attempts to resist or overturn the penalties have met with failure. And yet, a federal survey in 2002 indicated that "two-thirds of the Guard and reserve pilots and air crew members did not support DOD's mandatory (anthrax vaccinations) or any future immunization programs planned for other biological warfare agents."

Meanwhile, thousands of service members have developed sicknesses, some extremely debilitating, that have been linked by them or others to one or more of the six-shot vaccine series or the annual boosters.

Rempfer's and Dingle's efforts marked one of the most prolonged, persistent high-level bureaucratic military policy fights waged in modern times. Three other former military service members, Paul A. Sullivan of Cedar Park, Texas; Doug Rokke of Rantoul, Illinois, and Denise Nichols, a North Carolina resident, all veterans of the first Iraq war, are known likewise for incredible persistence in the face of the powerful and intractable federal bureaucracy. They, as well, continue, after more than a decade of work, to lobby the Pentagon and the US Department of Veterans Affairs for failing to recognize veterans' hazardous exposures to deadly chemicals as well as the dust from explosions of US depleted uranium munitions.

In their own struggle, Rempfer and Dingle pressed and complained their way through almost every branch of state and federal government during two presidential administrations. They were supported by others, including retired Air Force Lt. Col. John Richardson, of Pittsboro, North Carolina, Maine's Dr. Doctor Meryl Nass and Washington, DC, attorneys John J. "Lou" Michaels and Mark S. Zaid. As their mission progressed, they picked up the continuing support of Connecticut's Democratic attorney general, Richard Blumenthal, and US Rep. Christopher Shays, a Stamford, Connecticut, Republican. Both Blumenthal and Shays attempted unsuccessfully to block use of the controversial vaccine.

"Two federal judges have now confirmed the Pentagon broke the law by forcing service members to take anthrax vaccine from 1998 to late 2005," said Richardson, a 1991 Gulf War F-16 pilot. "The military could have lawfully used the vaccine all along simply by asking the president to waive service members' right to informed consent about the risks of this dangerous vaccine," he said. "Instead, military and civilian leaders willfully misled the troops to protect Presidents Clinton and Bush - not the troops."

"Since 2005," Richardson said, "mandating the vaccine is now lawful only because of the FDA's willingness to ignore clear evidence in military medical records of the deaths and disabilities associated with the anthrax vaccine. Just as the government misled the American people about the threat from Iraqi anthrax and the source of the anthrax letter attacks, it continues to mislead the troops about the safety and efficacy of the anthrax vaccine."

Blumenthal jumped into the vaccine fray again three years ago by filing a friend of the court brief in a federal lawsuit brought by six anonymous service members challenging the drug. At that time, he said: "Major Rempfer has performed an extraordinary public service, a very noble and significant service in alerting the nation to the dangers of the anthrax vaccine at a time of tremendous stress on our military. He has selflessly stepped forward and volunteered to serve his country.... He has unquestioned expertise and skill as well as impressive dedication and patriotism."

But Rempfer, who is writing a book on the vaccine dispute, has always credited Dingle with the critical research, ultimately leading to federal court rulings temporarily blocking mandatory vaccine use. "Lt. Col. Dingle's career," Rempfer wrote in an obituary, "was uniquely distinguished by his noble advocacy for soldier's health rights, testifying as an expert witness for the US Congress in 1999, as well as serving as an expert for the Government Accountability Office and the Connecticut Attorney General's Office. He is missed dearly, but we will eternally benefit from his life's accomplishments, courage, service, leadership, and most importantly, his honor."

Dingle considered the vaccine program and its punishments incredibly unjust. He wrote: "When the US military no longer allows for professional dissent within its ranks; when the US military mandates that any and all orders be obeyed regardless of their moral or legal basis; when the US military allows its members to defend themselves with 'I was just following orders,' then the US military will cease to attract men and women of principal and honor.... It will end up resembling the military organizations that we have fought for the last 60 years."

In October 1998, Dingle and Rempfer first became "Tiger Team Alpha." Col. Walter Burns, a former commander of the 103rd Fighter Wing of the Connecticut Air National Guard, created the two-man team to investigate the history, safety and legality of the anthrax vaccine. The antigens stimulating immunity had been mandated for all 2.4 million military service members only weeks earlier. After a couple of months' of intensive research, Dingle and Rempfer concluded the vaccine was improperly licensed, and potentially a health danger to the troops. Those findings are still supported by many today.

However, BioPort Corporation, now Emergent BioSolutions, the vaccine's manufacturer, insists the drug is safe and effective. That position is fully endorsed by the US Food and Drug Administration and the Pentagon. Nonetheless, the manufacturer's health warnings and precautions are intricate, including what are characterized as rare, unproven serious reactions.

The vaccine has a long history of controversy over its safety and licensing dating back to before the 1991 Gulf War, and especially in the years after the conflict, when scores of service members taking it complained of adverse reactions. BioPort purchased the vaccine and its plant in 1998 from the former Michigan Biologics Products Institute, created in 1996 by the State of Michigan. That purchase inspired its own public flak.

Two of the purchasers were formerly part of the state operations. A third was former US Adm. William Crowe, first head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under former President George H.W. Bush, then ambassador to Great Britain in the presidential administration of Bill Clinton. Crowe was said by ABC News to have acquired his interest without investing a penny of his own money.

His influential ownership interest was useful politically and security-wise, since Fuad El-Hibri, a Lebanese Arab with German and US citizenship with lengthy business experience became the company's CEO.

Despite the Tiger Team's thumbs down on injections, Colonel Burns decided it was unwise to oppose the across-the-board mandate announced by then-Secretary of Defense William Cohen. Ironically, it was US Senator Cohen who ten years earlier had participated in a Congressional investigation deeming that the very same vaccine had classically created too many adverse reactions and was ineffective for inhalation exposures.

As a result of Burns's decision, half a dozen pilots, rejecting the vaccine in light of Dingle's and Rempfer's probe, were forced out of the National Guard in January 1999. Rempfer and Dingle were then pressured to resign. Despite their loss of National Guard status, Rempfer and Dingle switched to the Air Force Reserve where their superiors promoted them. Rempfer continues to fly today.

Dingle, 49, died of cancer in September 2005 after retiring from the Reserve. His double career included more than 16 years of service as a pilot and captain for American Airlines in the Boeing 767 and 737 and the McDonnell-Douglas S-80, and 21 years as an instructor pilot and flight commander in the Air Force.

Eleven months after Burns banished them, Blumenthal tried to force reinstatements for all of the pilots. But then State Adjutant Gen. William Cugno denied the request, and Republican Connecticut Gov. Jodi Rell refused to back up Blumenthal's opinion.

Rempfer and Dingle began their complaint to clear their names in the US Court of Claims three years ago. It ultimately moved into the federal court and finally to Air Force adjudicators. The two men insisted they were "coerced" out of the Guard in the spring of 1999 by Colonel Burns, their former commander, after their vaccine inquiry. Yet, it was an investigation Burns himself had requested, and it showed the vaccine was improperly licensed. At the time, Burns insisted Rempfer, Dingle and six other pilots resigned on their own with "no bad blood." But Rempfer has produced a transcript of Burns's comments saying the word "traitor" came to mind when Burns thought about their resistance to taking the vaccine. Burns nonetheless simultaneously admitted the vaccine had its problems.

On March 14, Washington, DC, US District Judge James Robertson remanded Rempfer's and Dingle's complaint back to the Air Force panel, which had rejected Rempfer's appeal to rescind his and Dingle's punishment. The panel failed to properly consider the evidence before it, Robertson ruled. Robertson's decision followed an April 2005 finding from US District Judge Emmet Sullivan, inspired in part by Rempfer's, Dingle's and their colleagues' extensive research. Sullivan temporarily halted the Defense Department mandatory anthrax vaccine inoculations for all 2.4 million service members. They had been initially ordered in 1998 by former US Secretary of Defense William Cohen.

Sullivan declared that the anthrax vaccine is being used for an unapproved purpose and thus is "an investigational drug." It was initially approved for combating anthrax obtained through human skin contact with animals, yet it is instead being used for manufactured anthrax spores inhaled through the nose, he said. It thus requires consent from those vaccinated, he wrote. However, the judge left untouched an emergency authorization from federal health officials which allowed voluntary vaccinations. Sullivan's edict required that service members be told about the unlicensed drug's possible side effects, and ordered the consent of those soldiers, sailors and airmen if they were to be vaccinated. He decided the vaccine was not licensed property for its intended military use and remanded the complaint back to the FDA for remedial action. His final order was issued April 6, 2005.

Later, the FDA made vaccine licensing adjustments to comply with Sullivan's orders, and after a mandatory vaccine hiatus, allowed mandatory vaccinations to be restarted. The forced inoculations continue today, even though Rempfer and seven other servicemen brought still another federal court lawsuit challenging the FDA's remedial license changes. Their challenge was rejected February 29 by Washington, DC, Judge Rosemary M. Collyer, who ruled the FDA had not acted "arbitrarily or capriciously."

Four decades ago, the vaccine was largely used by agricultural workers, veterinarians and some in the wool industry. It had been scientifically tested and manufactured to protect veterinarians and those in the leather industry against skin-to-skin wound contact with infected farm animals. An initial scientific study in 1962 included an insufficient number of inhalation exposures of those working in goat hair mills to reach any conclusions of the vaccine's effectiveness.

Yet, once the military began to use it, the vaccine was aimed at protecting service members against inhalation of manufactured anthrax spores spread by enemy explosions or devices. Defense Secretary Cohen and other federal officials supporting the vaccine pointed to its successful scientific tests with animals. But the laboratory animals' health, ultimately, was not closely observed for as long a time as armed service veterans claiming sicknesses from inoculations were. Also, some of animal tests were inconclusive.

Despite the forced vaccinations, history reveals no successful enemy attacks worldwide - only an unsuccessful Tokyo spore release from a building laboratory by the terrorist group known as the Aum Shinrikyo cult in June 1993. The US mail and other anthrax spore attacks soon after the 9/11 terror attacks were reported by the FBI to be inspired by a domestic lab operation. Anthrax powder is very expensive and dangerous to manufacture, while some other unrelated biological agents are more easily created in the lab. Those exposed to the US spores in 2001 were successfully treated with ciprofloxacin or doxycycline antibacterial drugs. Yet, government officials still insisted some exposed to the deadly anthrax powder should be vaccinated, even though the vaccine is not said to be effective after spore exposure.

The attacks came at a time when the vaccine's effectiveness was being questioned on a number of fronts. For instance, at the time, the GAO's inquiry found: "Diplomatic security officials in the State Department and Central Intelligence Agency analysts agree that they have no clear evidence that US missions or interests overseas are threatened by foreign state or terrorist attacks using biological or chemical agents at this time."

While the vaccine is the only one to be mandated by the Pentagon and other US agencies to protect against such attacks, there are twenty to thirty known similar potentially deadly, infective biological agents available in many countries. And, the anthrax vaccine is inappropriate for all of them. Some 18 of them are listed by the Federation of American Scientists.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas "Dennie" Williams is a former state and federal court reporter, specializing in investigations, for the Hartford Courant. Since the 1970s, he has written extensively about irregularities in the Connecticut Superior Court, Probate Court systems for disciplining both judges and lawyers for misconduct, and failures of the Pentagon and the VA to assist sick veterans returning from war. (He can be reached at denniew@optonline).

HonestChieffan · 04-10-2008, 04:46 PM

Can we build a link to Viet Nam, Agent Orange, Swine Flu, and the Pandemic of 1918?

Lurker2:-)=) · 04-10-2008, 05:58 PM

Hi,

In regards to diagnosis rates for autism, the California numbers (which are the most commonly used)track ONLY "autism", and autism that meets ALL the criteria per the Diagnostic Statistical Manual, now edition four - revised (DSM-IV-R), for "autism". A child is not included if their diagnosis is PDD, or "autism spectrum disorders", or developmentally delayed, or anything like that. The California numbers don't track any other diagnosis, but they will add kids in if their initial PDD diagnosis is later changed to "autism". So the early numbers in the 3 to 5 range track just "autism", but DO tend rise somewhat as more children get diagnosed or change diagnosis, and diagnosis usually stabilizes at 8 to 10 years of age and doesn't change thereafter. So Asperger Syndrom or the new "Sensory sensitivity" isn't included in the California numbers, which means the rate for the entire autism SPECTRUM is much much higher than 1 in 150 kids :-(

Lurker2:-)=) · 04-10-2008, 06:09 PM

Here's an analysis of the CDC study on autism rates that I did back in 2006 for another list. BTW, the 2007 numbers were even higher than 2006's were :-(

From this article on this study, the researchers measured children
who were 8 years old in 2002, so these were children who likely were born in 1994,
and who had a meidal or school diagnosis of "autism", meaning autism spectrum disorder. The researchers used age 8 because most children should have received their diagnosis by then, and usually do not change their diagnosis label after that age.
The study admits that in at least one state (Alabama), the
researchers didn't have enough access to special education records to be sure they got
all the kids, but included that state (which had the lowest numbers by far)
in creating the "average" of one in 150 children having autism.

So, from this study, the birth rate for children with autism was
apparently at least 1 in 150 births in 1994. This is WAY higher than ANY previous
predictions for that year. I think that it's only been the last year or so,
in 2004 or 2005, that SOME people have been predicting the rate for autism
was even close to 1 in 150, and now this study says the rate was AT LEAST
that, 10 years earlier in 1994.

The number of new children diagnosed with autism has risen each and
every year since then. I would "guess-timate" that the rate for children being
born this year will be more than 1 in one hundred (1%) easily.

Let's look at this new rate in comparison with some of the
California rates. I'm taking these numbers from the "Autism Spectrum Disorders: Changes
in the California Caseload: An Update 1999 through 2002http://www.dds.ca.gov/autism/pdf/AutismReport2003.pdf
(If you haven't looked at one of these reports, you should, so that you can
see how many different factors these reports take into account in making
their caseload numbers, and how those numbers break down.)

California's statistics look at ALL persons in California's database three
years of age and older, with the medical diagnosis of autism. There were
10,360 kids and adults in December 1998. (This would be the second year
where the data includes the children born in 1994). Now, these numbers do
NOT include children with a dx of PDD or Asperger's in the CA database, ONLY
autism. The researchers in the CDC study DID include PDD and "educational
autism" so the eligible children counted for 1998 in CA, are fewer than the
eligible children the latest researchers counted. I am comparing the
increasing proportions, so this is ONLY "guess-timates", but it's a way for
me to put this into perspective. :-)

In December 2002, California counted (with their same criteria, adding in
new cases) 20,377 kids three years old and older with autism, a 97% increase
over 4 years. Almost all of the additional 10,017 children added in those
four years were the new 3 to 5 year olds, as well as the now 6-year-olds who
were the then-uncounted 2-year-olds in 1998, and so were included in the 6
to age level as well. So the number of children born with autism continues
to increase each year, entering the system in CA at age 3 or older. It can
take several years for a child to get the "official" diagnosis of DSM-IV
autism, rather than PDD or another diagnosis that doesn't "qualify" the
child for inclusion in the autism numbers until later than 3 to 5 years of
age. Remember that, too, when you look at the 2006 numbers - they will be
adding kids to last year's numbers for a couple years yet, as they "update
the database".

Data released in 2006's California Autism report (Schafer Autism Report:&#65279)included a chart comparing the 2002 numbers with 2006 numbers, and breaking the numbers down by age.

* = % OF WHOLE FOR THAT YEAR ** = % INCREASE OVER FOUR YEARS

INCREASE FROM DECEMBER 2002 TO DECEMBER 2006

3-5 year olds 4039 *(20%) 3-5 year olds 6348 (19%) ** 36%
6-9 year olds 5884 (29%) 6-9 year olds 8782 (27%) 33%
10-13 year olds 3733 (18%) 10-13 year olds 6312 (19%) 41%
14-17 year olds 1825 (9%) 14-17 year olds 4108 (13%) 56%
18-21 year olds 1118 (5%) 18-21 year olds 2102 (6%) 47%
22 to 62 & older 3762 (18%) 22 to 62 & older 5125 (16%) 27%
TOTAL: 20,377 TOTAL: 32,809

The children born in 1994 (when the rate was 1 in 150 according to the new
study) and who were 8 years old in 2002 were included in the 5884 children
in the 2002 category of six-to-nine-year-olds.
These children would be part of the 6312 children in the 10 to 13 year old
group in 2006.

If the proportion of CA children with DSM-IV autism remains the same
to the total number of US children with the wider diagnosis categories counted by
the latest researchers (and that's a BIG "if") then the birthrate for
children with autism has gone up significantly every year. There was a 20%
increase in 3-5 year olds in 1998 over 1997 alone, and 1997 was the year
that those children born in 1994 (when the rate now estimated at 1 in 150
occurred) entered the system.

If the rate for children being born with autism SPECTRUM disorder back in 1994 was truly AT LEAST 1 in 150, and we've increased the percentage every year, we are talking catastrophic rates for 2006.

The sad fact is, though, that these CDC numbers are the best and most accurate
ones that researchers have been able to come up with to date. And they may even
be lower than reality...

**Donger** · 04-10-2008, 07:49 PM

I haven't read through the whole thread, but the gist is that vaccines are causing an increase in autism cases, yes?

If so, what are the chances that "doctors" are simply diagnosing more kids as autistic as compared to before?

'Hamas' Jenkins · 04-10-2008, 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donger

I haven't read through the whole thread, but the gist is that vaccines are causing an increase in autism cases, yes?

If so, what are the chances that "doctors" are simply diagnosing more kids as autistic as compared to before?

Clearly, we need a vaccine for autism.

**Donger** · 04-10-2008, 08:28 PM

"The number of reported cases of autism increased dramatically in the 1990s and early 2000s. This increase is largely attributable to changes in diagnostic practices, referral patterns, availability of services, age at diagnosis, and public awareness."

Okay, so, did anything happen to vaccinations during the same period? Did mercury in vaccines increase during this period?

NewChief · 04-10-2008, 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donger

I haven't read through the whole thread, but the gist is that vaccines are causing an increase in autism cases, yes?

If so, what are the chances that "doctors" are simply diagnosing more kids as autistic as compared to before?

Post #87 and other Lurker 2 posts between this one and that one sort of address this. In all honesty, that was my initial reaction as well, because I deal with a lot of autistic (and other ASD) kids in my work. My personal experience is that, yes, many of them wouldn't have been diagnosed as "autistic" back in the day. I believe that some of the rise in autism is a result of heightened awareness leading to increased diagnosis, but evidently it doesn't explain the full extent of the rise, at least according to the studies posted by Lurker 2.

HonestChieffan · 04-11-2008, 06:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donger

"The number of reported cases of autism increased dramatically in the 1990s and early 2000s. This increase is largely attributable to changes in diagnostic practices, referral patterns, availability of services, age at diagnosis, and public awareness."

Okay, so, did anything happen to vaccinations during the same period? Did mercury in vaccines increase during this period?

All studies done in Canada, Denmark, Sweden, US, Australia, and France have been wrong. No connection was found in any of the studies so its clear these data are wrong and must be ignored. Big Pharma is afoot.

BIG_DADDY · 04-11-2008, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

Clearly, we need a vaccine for autism.

Rep

kepp · 04-11-2008, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by melbar

As I said above, thats what really scared us about our son. Tip toeing, fascination with spinning wheels, and clapping his individual hands when he gets excited. He is fine now (still does these) and shows expression, emotion, etc., but we still have moments that scare us.

Where did you learn about these symptoms?

Lurker2:-)=) · 04-11-2008, 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kepp

Where did you learn about these symptoms?

Hi,
A good INITIAL ROUGH screening tool that lists SOME of the behaviors seen in young children that MAY have autistic symptoms, AND that you can get online is the M-CHAT, or CHecklist for Autism in Toddlers (Modified). You can read about it at

http://www.firstsigns.org/screening/tools/rec.htm

You can even download it, and this site also gives scoring instructions.

I have to STRONGLY CAUTION *ANYONE* against using this tool ALONE to diagnose autism. This is a screening checklist: it is DESIGNED to err on the side of having the child "fail" if there is any reasonable risk factors seen. The POINT of this kind of tool is to allow nurses, early childhood professionals and even lay people to run the screen, then send a child that fails to a SPECIALIST, who may or MAY NOT confirm that the child has autism OR another developmental delay.

So PLEASE do NOT run the test on your child or a friend's child and declare the kid autistic, because the child MAY WELL NOT BE. If they fail the screening tool, it ONLY means that there are SOME suspicious behaviors that should be looked at by a professional neurologist. This is NOT a *hard diagnostic test*, okay???

JohnnyV13 · 04-11-2008, 11:25 PM

The only way I would believe that doctors are "in" on some kind of "conspiricy" is if they were to treat their own children in ways different than what they recommend for others. I mean really, do you think doctors would immunize their OWN children like that, just to suport some kind of vast conspiricy with the pharm companies? No way.

BIG_DADDY · 04-12-2008, 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyV13

The only way I would believe that doctors are "in" on some kind of "conspiricy" is if they were to treat their own children in ways different than what they recommend for others. I mean really, do you think doctors would immunize their OWN children like that, just to suport some kind of vast conspiricy with the pharm companies? No way.

Where did anyone in over 100 posts say say, claim or even insinuate in any way that all the doctors are involved in some mass conspiracy?

Mojo Rising · 04-12-2008, 08:44 PM

Has anyone done a study that compares the risk of vaccinating the kids and getting autism vs. not vaccinating them and getting the diseases they are being vaccinated against?

Even though you are saving your kid from the risk of autism, you are exposing them to the risk of being inflicted with the diseases that are trying to be stopped.

Some of these diseases are now more threatening with terrorism and more international travel.

Plus, your kid will not be accepted in most schools, sports, etc. that require vaccination records.

Personally, I heard the anti-vaccination debate and chose that their argument was not compelling enough at this point to go "Commando" with my kid.

I have a girl, but faced the circumsision decision before I knew what she was going to be. I would have circumsised if she would have been a boy.

04-09-2008, 04:05 PM
BIG_DADDY THE RED MENACE Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Texas Casino cash: $2558410	For all of you that don't think Autism is related to Vaccines http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxIVHtbGiUw Everyone I know with a child who has autism with the exception of one is the same way. Now go ahead and quote the AMA and the CDC now, they are looking out for you and your child. Ignore the tons of people right in front of you that are telling exactly what happened to their kid. For the billionth time I don't know what it is about the vaccines that is doing this for sure but it is what it is doing, period. There is no debate here just bunch of people working for big pharm out there putting out disinformation for the masses so they can continue making their BIG $$$$$.
Posts: 32,522

04-10-2008, 04:02 PM	#91
BIG_DADDY THE RED MENACE Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Texas Casino cash: $2558410	In other vaccine related news here is the latest on the anthrax vaccine. They are using our military boys as lab rats. My favorite line is: "Since 2005," Richardson said, "mandating the vaccine is now lawful only because of the FDA's willingness to ignore clear evidence in military medical records of the deaths and disabilities associated with the anthrax vaccine." Here is the whole story. Veteran Battles Pentagon's Vaccine, Seeks "Justice for All" By Thomas D. Williams t r u t h o u t \| Report Wednesday 09 April 2008 US Air Force Reserve Maj. Thomas "Buzz" Rempfer, a 43-year-old Connecticut native, is hoping he is nearing the end of nearly a decade's perpetual and unprecedented battle with the Pentagon over the legality, safety and effectiveness of mandatory anthrax vaccinations. His and others' efforts have already netted favorable federal court rulings. They invalidated the original Department of Defense mandate and the vaccine's initial licensing. Now Rempfer, formerly of West Suffield, Connecticut, and now of Tucson, Arizona, awaits a ruling from the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records. The board could award him back pay for lost time and promotions in the Air National Guard. If the board does not, he is likely to appeal back to the federal court. It was that court which decided in his favor by forcing another ruling from the Air Force panel. However, much more significant to Rempfer is a broader public service goal. Rempfer and his deceased close friend, US Air Force Reserve Maj. Russell "Russ" E. Dingle, both pilots, fought their battle for others adversely affected by the vaccine. It was their belief that any victory, legally, must become a crucial military servicewide precedent, clearing all other vaccine-resisting veterans from punishment. Rempfer is acting as a representative of Dingle's estate. In more than five years of research, Dingle and Rempfer concluded the anthrax vaccine was improperly licensed and ineffective. They found it created thousands of adverse reactions and was unnecessary. The threat of a foreign anthrax attack is extremely remote, they discovered. And, if there ever is such an attack, those exposed can take antibiotics afterward, they confirmed. That would avoid six anthrax vaccinations over 18 months as well as annual booster shots. Significantly, the infamous 2001 anthrax powder attacks, killing five people and sickening 17 others after 9/11, were domestic and not foreign in nature. They were allegedly inspired by laboratory insiders who mailed the powder to the offices of two US senators, a number of national news offices in New York City, and elsewhere. The incidents are still under active FBI investigation. That probe, says Fox News, recently identified three or four new suspects at an Army bioweapons lab intricately involved in helping to support the need for the mandated vaccine. They include a deputy commander, an anthrax scientist and a microbiologist. Curiously, at that point in time, the vaccine's continued use was being threatened by closer scrutiny from the US Department of Defense and other Bush administration officials. That review withered away after the attacks. However, the DOD then used the domestic incidents to claim the foreign threat was "real." In the years before and after those episodes, Dingle's and Rempfer's findings that the vaccine was improperly licensed and thus unnecessarily mandated were eventually vindicated by a combination of a federal judge's rulings and subsequent events. After the two officers' initial investigations, the US Government Accounting Office (GAO) reported that the vaccine's systemic adverse reaction rate was 100 times higher than the 0.2 percent rate reported on the product's label. Adverse vaccine reactions include immune disorders, muscle and joint pains, headaches, rashes, fatigue, nausea, diarrhea, chills and fever. At least half a dozen deaths and a warning against birth defects were listed on the vaccine's January 31, 2002, package insert, but they have never been proven to be vaccine-related. The vaccine is not recommended for use by pregnant women or for those who have experienced a history of Guillain-Barre Syndrome. And, last October, the GAO identified a potential $100 million in government waste annually. The anthrax vaccine stockpile for civilian emergencies had been improperly administered by the Department of Health and Human Services, the GAO report said. Rempfer said he does not want to comment about the prospective Air Force panel's ruling. He said full attention now must be on restoring the honor and the health of all the dedicated servicemen and women who were either punished for refusing to comply with the illegal order to take the vaccine, or who became sick from it. If the Air Force panel rules in Rempfer's favor, the simple, overwhelming legal question will be: how can two military officers win damage awards and nullify their punishments for refusing the vaccine without all others similarly disciplined being cleared as well? Despite scores of protests against the vaccine nationwide, hundreds of military service members have been punished to varying degrees for failing to obey orders to be vaccinated. Some have been court-martialed, others fined or demoted and still others removed from the service. Most prolonged attempts to resist or overturn the penalties have met with failure. And yet, a federal survey in 2002 indicated that "two-thirds of the Guard and reserve pilots and air crew members did not support DOD's mandatory (anthrax vaccinations) or any future immunization programs planned for other biological warfare agents." Meanwhile, thousands of service members have developed sicknesses, some extremely debilitating, that have been linked by them or others to one or more of the six-shot vaccine series or the annual boosters. Rempfer's and Dingle's efforts marked one of the most prolonged, persistent high-level bureaucratic military policy fights waged in modern times. Three other former military service members, Paul A. Sullivan of Cedar Park, Texas; Doug Rokke of Rantoul, Illinois, and Denise Nichols, a North Carolina resident, all veterans of the first Iraq war, are known likewise for incredible persistence in the face of the powerful and intractable federal bureaucracy. They, as well, continue, after more than a decade of work, to lobby the Pentagon and the US Department of Veterans Affairs for failing to recognize veterans' hazardous exposures to deadly chemicals as well as the dust from explosions of US depleted uranium munitions. In their own struggle, Rempfer and Dingle pressed and complained their way through almost every branch of state and federal government during two presidential administrations. They were supported by others, including retired Air Force Lt. Col. John Richardson, of Pittsboro, North Carolina, Maine's Dr. Doctor Meryl Nass and Washington, DC, attorneys John J. "Lou" Michaels and Mark S. Zaid. As their mission progressed, they picked up the continuing support of Connecticut's Democratic attorney general, Richard Blumenthal, and US Rep. Christopher Shays, a Stamford, Connecticut, Republican. Both Blumenthal and Shays attempted unsuccessfully to block use of the controversial vaccine. "Two federal judges have now confirmed the Pentagon broke the law by forcing service members to take anthrax vaccine from 1998 to late 2005," said Richardson, a 1991 Gulf War F-16 pilot. "The military could have lawfully used the vaccine all along simply by asking the president to waive service members' right to informed consent about the risks of this dangerous vaccine," he said. "Instead, military and civilian leaders willfully misled the troops to protect Presidents Clinton and Bush - not the troops." "Since 2005," Richardson said, "mandating the vaccine is now lawful only because of the FDA's willingness to ignore clear evidence in military medical records of the deaths and disabilities associated with the anthrax vaccine. Just as the government misled the American people about the threat from Iraqi anthrax and the source of the anthrax letter attacks, it continues to mislead the troops about the safety and efficacy of the anthrax vaccine." Blumenthal jumped into the vaccine fray again three years ago by filing a friend of the court brief in a federal lawsuit brought by six anonymous service members challenging the drug. At that time, he said: "Major Rempfer has performed an extraordinary public service, a very noble and significant service in alerting the nation to the dangers of the anthrax vaccine at a time of tremendous stress on our military. He has selflessly stepped forward and volunteered to serve his country.... He has unquestioned expertise and skill as well as impressive dedication and patriotism." But Rempfer, who is writing a book on the vaccine dispute, has always credited Dingle with the critical research, ultimately leading to federal court rulings temporarily blocking mandatory vaccine use. "Lt. Col. Dingle's career," Rempfer wrote in an obituary, "was uniquely distinguished by his noble advocacy for soldier's health rights, testifying as an expert witness for the US Congress in 1999, as well as serving as an expert for the Government Accountability Office and the Connecticut Attorney General's Office. He is missed dearly, but we will eternally benefit from his life's accomplishments, courage, service, leadership, and most importantly, his honor." Dingle considered the vaccine program and its punishments incredibly unjust. He wrote: "When the US military no longer allows for professional dissent within its ranks; when the US military mandates that any and all orders be obeyed regardless of their moral or legal basis; when the US military allows its members to defend themselves with 'I was just following orders,' then the US military will cease to attract men and women of principal and honor.... It will end up resembling the military organizations that we have fought for the last 60 years." In October 1998, Dingle and Rempfer first became "Tiger Team Alpha." Col. Walter Burns, a former commander of the 103rd Fighter Wing of the Connecticut Air National Guard, created the two-man team to investigate the history, safety and legality of the anthrax vaccine. The antigens stimulating immunity had been mandated for all 2.4 million military service members only weeks earlier. After a couple of months' of intensive research, Dingle and Rempfer concluded the vaccine was improperly licensed, and potentially a health danger to the troops. Those findings are still supported by many today. However, BioPort Corporation, now Emergent BioSolutions, the vaccine's manufacturer, insists the drug is safe and effective. That position is fully endorsed by the US Food and Drug Administration and the Pentagon. Nonetheless, the manufacturer's health warnings and precautions are intricate, including what are characterized as rare, unproven serious reactions. The vaccine has a long history of controversy over its safety and licensing dating back to before the 1991 Gulf War, and especially in the years after the conflict, when scores of service members taking it complained of adverse reactions. BioPort purchased the vaccine and its plant in 1998 from the former Michigan Biologics Products Institute, created in 1996 by the State of Michigan. That purchase inspired its own public flak. Two of the purchasers were formerly part of the state operations. A third was former US Adm. William Crowe, first head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under former President George H.W. Bush, then ambassador to Great Britain in the presidential administration of Bill Clinton. Crowe was said by ABC News to have acquired his interest without investing a penny of his own money. His influential ownership interest was useful politically and security-wise, since Fuad El-Hibri, a Lebanese Arab with German and US citizenship with lengthy business experience became the company's CEO. Despite the Tiger Team's thumbs down on injections, Colonel Burns decided it was unwise to oppose the across-the-board mandate announced by then-Secretary of Defense William Cohen. Ironically, it was US Senator Cohen who ten years earlier had participated in a Congressional investigation deeming that the very same vaccine had classically created too many adverse reactions and was ineffective for inhalation exposures. As a result of Burns's decision, half a dozen pilots, rejecting the vaccine in light of Dingle's and Rempfer's probe, were forced out of the National Guard in January 1999. Rempfer and Dingle were then pressured to resign. Despite their loss of National Guard status, Rempfer and Dingle switched to the Air Force Reserve where their superiors promoted them. Rempfer continues to fly today. Dingle, 49, died of cancer in September 2005 after retiring from the Reserve. His double career included more than 16 years of service as a pilot and captain for American Airlines in the Boeing 767 and 737 and the McDonnell-Douglas S-80, and 21 years as an instructor pilot and flight commander in the Air Force. Eleven months after Burns banished them, Blumenthal tried to force reinstatements for all of the pilots. But then State Adjutant Gen. William Cugno denied the request, and Republican Connecticut Gov. Jodi Rell refused to back up Blumenthal's opinion. Rempfer and Dingle began their complaint to clear their names in the US Court of Claims three years ago. It ultimately moved into the federal court and finally to Air Force adjudicators. The two men insisted they were "coerced" out of the Guard in the spring of 1999 by Colonel Burns, their former commander, after their vaccine inquiry. Yet, it was an investigation Burns himself had requested, and it showed the vaccine was improperly licensed. At the time, Burns insisted Rempfer, Dingle and six other pilots resigned on their own with "no bad blood." But Rempfer has produced a transcript of Burns's comments saying the word "traitor" came to mind when Burns thought about their resistance to taking the vaccine. Burns nonetheless simultaneously admitted the vaccine had its problems. On March 14, Washington, DC, US District Judge James Robertson remanded Rempfer's and Dingle's complaint back to the Air Force panel, which had rejected Rempfer's appeal to rescind his and Dingle's punishment. The panel failed to properly consider the evidence before it, Robertson ruled. Robertson's decision followed an April 2005 finding from US District Judge Emmet Sullivan, inspired in part by Rempfer's, Dingle's and their colleagues' extensive research. Sullivan temporarily halted the Defense Department mandatory anthrax vaccine inoculations for all 2.4 million service members. They had been initially ordered in 1998 by former US Secretary of Defense William Cohen. Sullivan declared that the anthrax vaccine is being used for an unapproved purpose and thus is "an investigational drug." It was initially approved for combating anthrax obtained through human skin contact with animals, yet it is instead being used for manufactured anthrax spores inhaled through the nose, he said. It thus requires consent from those vaccinated, he wrote. However, the judge left untouched an emergency authorization from federal health officials which allowed voluntary vaccinations. Sullivan's edict required that service members be told about the unlicensed drug's possible side effects, and ordered the consent of those soldiers, sailors and airmen if they were to be vaccinated. He decided the vaccine was not licensed property for its intended military use and remanded the complaint back to the FDA for remedial action. His final order was issued April 6, 2005. Later, the FDA made vaccine licensing adjustments to comply with Sullivan's orders, and after a mandatory vaccine hiatus, allowed mandatory vaccinations to be restarted. The forced inoculations continue today, even though Rempfer and seven other servicemen brought still another federal court lawsuit challenging the FDA's remedial license changes. Their challenge was rejected February 29 by Washington, DC, Judge Rosemary M. Collyer, who ruled the FDA had not acted "arbitrarily or capriciously." Four decades ago, the vaccine was largely used by agricultural workers, veterinarians and some in the wool industry. It had been scientifically tested and manufactured to protect veterinarians and those in the leather industry against skin-to-skin wound contact with infected farm animals. An initial scientific study in 1962 included an insufficient number of inhalation exposures of those working in goat hair mills to reach any conclusions of the vaccine's effectiveness. Yet, once the military began to use it, the vaccine was aimed at protecting service members against inhalation of manufactured anthrax spores spread by enemy explosions or devices. Defense Secretary Cohen and other federal officials supporting the vaccine pointed to its successful scientific tests with animals. But the laboratory animals' health, ultimately, was not closely observed for as long a time as armed service veterans claiming sicknesses from inoculations were. Also, some of animal tests were inconclusive. Despite the forced vaccinations, history reveals no successful enemy attacks worldwide - only an unsuccessful Tokyo spore release from a building laboratory by the terrorist group known as the Aum Shinrikyo cult in June 1993. The US mail and other anthrax spore attacks soon after the 9/11 terror attacks were reported by the FBI to be inspired by a domestic lab operation. Anthrax powder is very expensive and dangerous to manufacture, while some other unrelated biological agents are more easily created in the lab. Those exposed to the US spores in 2001 were successfully treated with ciprofloxacin or doxycycline antibacterial drugs. Yet, government officials still insisted some exposed to the deadly anthrax powder should be vaccinated, even though the vaccine is not said to be effective after spore exposure. The attacks came at a time when the vaccine's effectiveness was being questioned on a number of fronts. For instance, at the time, the GAO's inquiry found: "Diplomatic security officials in the State Department and Central Intelligence Agency analysts agree that they have no clear evidence that US missions or interests overseas are threatened by foreign state or terrorist attacks using biological or chemical agents at this time." While the vaccine is the only one to be mandated by the Pentagon and other US agencies to protect against such attacks, there are twenty to thirty known similar potentially deadly, infective biological agents available in many countries. And, the anthrax vaccine is inappropriate for all of them. Some 18 of them are listed by the Federation of American Scientists. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thomas "Dennie" Williams is a former state and federal court reporter, specializing in investigations, for the Hartford Courant. Since the 1970s, he has written extensively about irregularities in the Connecticut Superior Court, Probate Court systems for disciplining both judges and lawyers for misconduct, and failures of the Pentagon and the VA to assist sick veterans returning from war. (He can be reached at denniew@optonline). __________________ The diabolical genius of Marxism-Socialism is that it provides the emotional and intellectual road map for autocrats to persuade millions of people to support their own enslavement to government. ~Mark Levin April 15, 2019
Posts: 32,522

04-10-2008, 04:46 PM	#92
HonestChieffan Seeking the Truth daily Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: In the Country in MO Casino cash: $-1595691	Can we build a link to Viet Nam, Agent Orange, Swine Flu, and the Pandemic of 1918? __________________ "We read books for knowledge; We read the Bible for wisdom!"
Posts: 54,799

04-10-2008, 05:58 PM	#93
Lurker2:-)=) Starter Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: heart of Lambsland Casino cash: $10004900	Hi, In regards to diagnosis rates for autism, the California numbers (which are the most commonly used)track ONLY "autism", and autism that meets ALL the criteria per the Diagnostic Statistical Manual, now edition four - revised (DSM-IV-R), for "autism". A child is not included if their diagnosis is PDD, or "autism spectrum disorders", or developmentally delayed, or anything like that. The California numbers don't track any other diagnosis, but they will add kids in if their initial PDD diagnosis is later changed to "autism". So the early numbers in the 3 to 5 range track just "autism", but DO tend rise somewhat as more children get diagnosed or change diagnosis, and diagnosis usually stabilizes at 8 to 10 years of age and doesn't change thereafter. So Asperger Syndrom or the new "Sensory sensitivity" isn't included in the California numbers, which means the rate for the entire autism SPECTRUM is much much higher than 1 in 150 kids :-(
Posts: 49

04-10-2008, 06:09 PM	#94
Lurker2:-)=) Starter Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: heart of Lambsland Casino cash: $10004900	Here's an analysis of the CDC study on autism rates that I did back in 2006 for another list. BTW, the 2007 numbers were even higher than 2006's were :-( From this article on this study, the researchers measured children who were 8 years old in 2002, so these were children who likely were born in 1994, and who had a meidal or school diagnosis of "autism", meaning autism spectrum disorder. The researchers used age 8 because most children should have received their diagnosis by then, and usually do not change their diagnosis label after that age. The study admits that in at least one state (Alabama), the researchers didn't have enough access to special education records to be sure they got all the kids, but included that state (which had the lowest numbers by far) in creating the "average" of one in 150 children having autism. So, from this study, the birth rate for children with autism was apparently at least 1 in 150 births in 1994. This is WAY higher than ANY previous predictions for that year. I think that it's only been the last year or so, in 2004 or 2005, that SOME people have been predicting the rate for autism was even close to 1 in 150, and now this study says the rate was AT LEAST that, 10 years earlier in 1994. The number of new children diagnosed with autism has risen each and every year since then. I would "guess-timate" that the rate for children being born this year will be more than 1 in one hundred (1%) easily. Let's look at this new rate in comparison with some of the California rates. I'm taking these numbers from the "Autism Spectrum Disorders: Changes in the California Caseload: An Update 1999 through 2002http://www.dds.ca.gov/autism/pdf/AutismReport2003.pdf (If you haven't looked at one of these reports, you should, so that you can see how many different factors these reports take into account in making their caseload numbers, and how those numbers break down.) California's statistics look at ALL persons in California's database three years of age and older, with the medical diagnosis of autism. There were 10,360 kids and adults in December 1998. (This would be the second year where the data includes the children born in 1994). Now, these numbers do NOT include children with a dx of PDD or Asperger's in the CA database, ONLY autism. The researchers in the CDC study DID include PDD and "educational autism" so the eligible children counted for 1998 in CA, are fewer than the eligible children the latest researchers counted. I am comparing the increasing proportions, so this is ONLY "guess-timates", but it's a way for me to put this into perspective. :-) In December 2002, California counted (with their same criteria, adding in new cases) 20,377 kids three years old and older with autism, a 97% increase over 4 years. Almost all of the additional 10,017 children added in those four years were the new 3 to 5 year olds, as well as the now 6-year-olds who were the then-uncounted 2-year-olds in 1998, and so were included in the 6 to age level as well. So the number of children born with autism continues to increase each year, entering the system in CA at age 3 or older. It can take several years for a child to get the "official" diagnosis of DSM-IV autism, rather than PDD or another diagnosis that doesn't "qualify" the child for inclusion in the autism numbers until later than 3 to 5 years of age. Remember that, too, when you look at the 2006 numbers - they will be adding kids to last year's numbers for a couple years yet, as they "update the database". Data released in 2006's California Autism report (Schafer Autism Report:&#65279)included a chart comparing the 2002 numbers with 2006 numbers, and breaking the numbers down by age. * = % OF WHOLE FOR THAT YEAR ** = % INCREASE OVER FOUR YEARS INCREASE FROM DECEMBER 2002 TO DECEMBER 2006 3-5 year olds 4039 (20%) 3-5 year olds 6348 (19%) * 36% 6-9 year olds 5884 (29%) 6-9 year olds 8782 (27%) 33% 10-13 year olds 3733 (18%) 10-13 year olds 6312 (19%) 41% 14-17 year olds 1825 (9%) 14-17 year olds 4108 (13%) 56% 18-21 year olds 1118 (5%) 18-21 year olds 2102 (6%) 47% 22 to 62 & older 3762 (18%) 22 to 62 & older 5125 (16%) 27% TOTAL: 20,377 TOTAL: 32,809 The children born in 1994 (when the rate was 1 in 150 according to the new study) and who were 8 years old in 2002 were included in the 5884 children in the 2002 category of six-to-nine-year-olds. These children would be part of the 6312 children in the 10 to 13 year old group in 2006. If the proportion of CA children with DSM-IV autism remains the same to the total number of US children with the wider diagnosis categories counted by the latest researchers (and that's a BIG "if") then the birthrate for children with autism has gone up significantly every year. There was a 20% increase in 3-5 year olds in 1998 over 1997 alone, and 1997 was the year that those children born in 1994 (when the rate now estimated at 1 in 150 occurred) entered the system. If the rate for children being born with autism SPECTRUM disorder back in 1994 was truly AT LEAST 1 in 150, and we've increased the percentage every year, we are talking catastrophic rates for 2006. The sad fact is, though, that these CDC numbers are the best and most accurate ones that researchers have been able to come up with to date. And they may even be lower than reality...
Posts: 49

04-10-2008, 07:49 PM	#95
Donger "Think BOOM!" Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: 33.675° N 106.475° W Casino cash: $6819900 VARSITY	I haven't read through the whole thread, but the gist is that vaccines are causing an increase in autism cases, yes? If so, what are the chances that "doctors" are simply diagnosing more kids as autistic as compared to before? __________________ I think the young people enjoy it when I "get down," verbally, don't you?
Posts: 191,135

04-10-2008, 08:28 PM	#97
Donger "Think BOOM!" Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: 33.675° N 106.475° W Casino cash: $6819900 VARSITY	"The number of reported cases of autism increased dramatically in the 1990s and early 2000s. This increase is largely attributable to changes in diagnostic practices, referral patterns, availability of services, age at diagnosis, and public awareness." Okay, so, did anything happen to vaccinations during the same period? Did mercury in vaccines increase during this period? __________________ I think the young people enjoy it when I "get down," verbally, don't you?
Posts: 191,135

04-11-2008, 11:25 PM	#103
JohnnyV13 Veteran Join Date: May 2003 Location: Tucson AZ Casino cash: $5385200	The only way I would believe that doctors are "in" on some kind of "conspiricy" is if they were to treat their own children in ways different than what they recommend for others. I mean really, do you think doctors would immunize their OWN children like that, just to suport some kind of vast conspiricy with the pharm companies? No way.
Posts: 4,222

04-12-2008, 08:44 PM	#105
Mojo Rising Veteran Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: OC Casino cash: $10009560	Has anyone done a study that compares the risk of vaccinating the kids and getting autism vs. not vaccinating them and getting the diseases they are being vaccinated against? Even though you are saving your kid from the risk of autism, you are exposing them to the risk of being inflicted with the diseases that are trying to be stopped. Some of these diseases are now more threatening with terrorism and more international travel. Plus, your kid will not be accepted in most schools, sports, etc. that require vaccination records. Personally, I heard the anti-vaccination debate and chose that their argument was not compelling enough at this point to go "Commando" with my kid. I have a girl, but faced the circumsision decision before I knew what she was going to be. I would have circumsised if she would have been a boy.
Posts: 1,792