Why you can bleep off when you say I need to vaccinate my children...

originally posted by: Charliezin82
TEN LIES Told by Those Who Say “Mercury in Vaccines is Safe”

Refuted by a Mother who Knows Better
REV. LISA K. SYKES



Lie # 1 “Thimerosal, 49.55% mercury by weight, is safe when used as a preservative in vaccines and other drugs.”

The Facts: The Eli Lilly Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for Thimerosal acknowledges that exposure to Thimerosal in utero and in children can cause “mild to severe mental retardation and mild to severe gross motor impairment.” The Sigma Aldrich MSDS lists abortion and fetal death as possible outcomes of in utero exposure.

Nonetheless, most seasonal and H1N1 flu shots for pregnant women and young children contain 25 micrograms of mercury in the form of Thimerosal. For this exposure to be safe, a child would need to weigh more than 550 pounds.

Thimerosal is a poison, neurotoxin, cancer-causer, and can interrupt the immune system and the normal development of an unborn baby or a child. Thimerosal is so toxic that putting it on your skin is illegal. However, the government not only allows but also defends its injection into the population, especially pregnant women and newborn children, as part of influenza vaccines currently recommended by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).


Lie #2 “Mercury was removed from all childhood vaccines in (pick any year between 1999 and the present).”

The Facts: After “realizing” the amount of mercury in the childhood vaccination schedule recommended by the CDC exceeded all national and global maximum safety limits, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the United States Public Health Service called for the immediate removal of Thimerosal from all vaccines on July 7, 1999.

By 2003, the vaccine manufacturers had begun to react to the 1999 call by lowering the mercury content in many of the Thimerosal-preserved early childhood vaccines. However, in April of 2002, the CDC began recommending that pregnant women and very young children get annual Thimerosal-preserved flu shots. The result was a ‘shell game’ which has caused widespread confusion in the public because of press reports declaring, “Since (select a year between 1999 and the present), mercury has been removed from all recommended vaccines for children except for some flu shots.”

Astoundingly, the total level of mercury exposure, if a child receives all the possible CDC-recommended vaccinations that are still Thimerosal preserved, from 6 months to 18 years of age, has actually increased. Significantly, if you put the amount of mercury added to the immunization schedule as a result of the CDC-recommended seasonal and (in 2009) H1N1 flu shots** on one side of a scale, and the amount of mercury that was subtracted from that schedule by reformulating early childhood vaccines without Thimerosal on the other side, the total amount of mercury added far outweighs the amount of mercury subtracted. In addition, today most tetanus shots and the multi-dose Sanofi Menomune® vaccine that are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) still contain 25-micrograms-a-dose mercury.

Currently, the actions taken by the vaccine manufacturers, the FDA and the CDC have increased the possible maximum childhood exposure to mercury from vaccines to twice the level that triggered the 1999 call to remove mercury from all vaccines as soon as possible! Also, new vaccine formulations with 25 micrograms of mercury per 0.5-mL dose are still being approved by the FDA for administration to pregnant women and children.

**Most doses of these flu vaccines are Thimerosal-preserved.


Lie #3 “Thimerosal is well-tested, having been used for 70 years with no problems.”

The Facts: Thimerosal has never undergone even one modern safety test. It was developed in 1927 and patented by Eli Lilly in 1928. It was first tested on small animals and killed a variety of mice, rabbits and chicks. After the animals died from exposure to Thimerosal, the decision was made to administer it to 22 patients suffering from bacterial meningitis during an epidemic in Indianapolis, Indiana in 1929.

Of the 22 persons given Thimerosal, all died, most within a day or two of administration. The doctor overseeing the trial, on stipend from Eli Lilly, declared that the patients had all died of meningitis and that Thimerosal was not observed to have caused any problem when administered to his patients. With that declaration, and a subsequent one by Eli Lilly staff that Thimerosal has a low order of toxicity for man, even though it killed small animals, Thimerosal was introduced into the drug supply. Yet, despite warnings in the published scientific literature that Thimerosal was toxic, and despite opposition to its use in every decade since, Thimerosal has remained in the drug supply.

The first protest on record against this highly toxic mercury compound was made in 1935 by the Pittman Moore Company which declared that, after testing, it found Thimerosal “was unsuitable as a preservative in serum intended for use in dogs…”

The FDA, passive with regard to safety testing, has never provided the results of appropriate toxicological tests on Thimerosal. Factually, the vaccine makers who use Thimerosal as a preservative are required by law to conduct and submit the results of such safety tests to the FDA before the FDA can legally approve a vaccine. Yet, the FDA has yet to produce even one of these vaccine maker’s toxicity studies, demonstrating Thimerosal safe for administration to humans, despite the fact that these documents have been sought in a court of law.


Lie #4 “No published peer-reviewed studies have shown any harm from Thimerosal.”

The Facts: The published scientific literature about Thimerosal can be divided into two distinct sets with opposite conclusions regarding its toxicity.

The first set is comprised of studies directly or indirectly supported by the pharmaceutical industry, showing that “there is no evidence of harm” from Thimerosal. These studies are the ones most often quoted by the Press. Most of these studies are statistical. In many cases, the data from which their conclusions are derived have been ‘lost’ or are unavailable or inconsistent. Significantly, the 2004 Institute of Medicine Vaccine Safety Review Committee, which defended Thimerosal, relied upon such statistical studies rather than the clinical evidence that the committee received.

Read more here - traceamounts.com...

When I need to understand more about a scientific issue I have no clue about, the first thing I do is listen to a Methodist Reverend.
Works every time.

Oh, thiomersal isn't mercury like common salt isn't sodium.
And chemophobia can be cured (but only if you want it to be).

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: Charliezin82
TEN LIES Told by Those Who Say “Mercury in Vaccines is Safe”

Refuted by a Mother who Knows Better
REV. LISA K. SYKES



Lie # 1 “Thimerosal, 49.55% mercury by weight, is safe when used as a preservative in vaccines and other drugs.”

The Facts: The Eli Lilly Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for Thimerosal acknowledges that exposure to Thimerosal in utero and in children can cause “mild to severe mental retardation and mild to severe gross motor impairment.” The Sigma Aldrich MSDS lists abortion and fetal death as possible outcomes of in utero exposure.

Nonetheless, most seasonal and H1N1 flu shots for pregnant women and young children contain 25 micrograms of mercury in the form of Thimerosal. For this exposure to be safe, a child would need to weigh more than 550 pounds.

Thimerosal is a poison, neurotoxin, cancer-causer, and can interrupt the immune system and the normal development of an unborn baby or a child. Thimerosal is so toxic that putting it on your skin is illegal. However, the government not only allows but also defends its injection into the population, especially pregnant women and newborn children, as part of influenza vaccines currently recommended by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).


Lie #2 “Mercury was removed from all childhood vaccines in (pick any year between 1999 and the present).”

The Facts: After “realizing” the amount of mercury in the childhood vaccination schedule recommended by the CDC exceeded all national and global maximum safety limits, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the United States Public Health Service called for the immediate removal of Thimerosal from all vaccines on July 7, 1999.

By 2003, the vaccine manufacturers had begun to react to the 1999 call by lowering the mercury content in many of the Thimerosal-preserved early childhood vaccines. However, in April of 2002, the CDC began recommending that pregnant women and very young children get annual Thimerosal-preserved flu shots. The result was a ‘shell game’ which has caused widespread confusion in the public because of press reports declaring, “Since (select a year between 1999 and the present), mercury has been removed from all recommended vaccines for children except for some flu shots.”

Astoundingly, the total level of mercury exposure, if a child receives all the possible CDC-recommended vaccinations that are still Thimerosal preserved, from 6 months to 18 years of age, has actually increased. Significantly, if you put the amount of mercury added to the immunization schedule as a result of the CDC-recommended seasonal and (in 2009) H1N1 flu shots** on one side of a scale, and the amount of mercury that was subtracted from that schedule by reformulating early childhood vaccines without Thimerosal on the other side, the total amount of mercury added far outweighs the amount of mercury subtracted. In addition, today most tetanus shots and the multi-dose Sanofi Menomune® vaccine that are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) still contain 25-micrograms-a-dose mercury.

Currently, the actions taken by the vaccine manufacturers, the FDA and the CDC have increased the possible maximum childhood exposure to mercury from vaccines to twice the level that triggered the 1999 call to remove mercury from all vaccines as soon as possible! Also, new vaccine formulations with 25 micrograms of mercury per 0.5-mL dose are still being approved by the FDA for administration to pregnant women and children.

**Most doses of these flu vaccines are Thimerosal-preserved.


Lie #3 “Thimerosal is well-tested, having been used for 70 years with no problems.”

The Facts: Thimerosal has never undergone even one modern safety test. It was developed in 1927 and patented by Eli Lilly in 1928. It was first tested on small animals and killed a variety of mice, rabbits and chicks. After the animals died from exposure to Thimerosal, the decision was made to administer it to 22 patients suffering from bacterial meningitis during an epidemic in Indianapolis, Indiana in 1929.

Of the 22 persons given Thimerosal, all died, most within a day or two of administration. The doctor overseeing the trial, on stipend from Eli Lilly, declared that the patients had all died of meningitis and that Thimerosal was not observed to have caused any problem when administered to his patients. With that declaration, and a subsequent one by Eli Lilly staff that Thimerosal has a low order of toxicity for man, even though it killed small animals, Thimerosal was introduced into the drug supply. Yet, despite warnings in the published scientific literature that Thimerosal was toxic, and despite opposition to its use in every decade since, Thimerosal has remained in the drug supply.

The first protest on record against this highly toxic mercury compound was made in 1935 by the Pittman Moore Company which declared that, after testing, it found Thimerosal “was unsuitable as a preservative in serum intended for use in dogs…”

The FDA, passive with regard to safety testing, has never provided the results of appropriate toxicological tests on Thimerosal. Factually, the vaccine makers who use Thimerosal as a preservative are required by law to conduct and submit the results of such safety tests to the FDA before the FDA can legally approve a vaccine. Yet, the FDA has yet to produce even one of these vaccine maker’s toxicity studies, demonstrating Thimerosal safe for administration to humans, despite the fact that these documents have been sought in a court of law.


Lie #4 “No published peer-reviewed studies have shown any harm from Thimerosal.”

The Facts: The published scientific literature about Thimerosal can be divided into two distinct sets with opposite conclusions regarding its toxicity.

The first set is comprised of studies directly or indirectly supported by the pharmaceutical industry, showing that “there is no evidence of harm” from Thimerosal. These studies are the ones most often quoted by the Press. Most of these studies are statistical. In many cases, the data from which their conclusions are derived have been ‘lost’ or are unavailable or inconsistent. Significantly, the 2004 Institute of Medicine Vaccine Safety Review Committee, which defended Thimerosal, relied upon such statistical studies rather than the clinical evidence that the committee received.

Read more here - traceamounts.com...

When I need to understand more about a scientific issue I have no clue about, the first thing I do is listen to a Methodist Reverend.
Works every time.

Oh, thiomersal isn't mercury like common salt isn't sodium.
And chemophobia can be cured (but only if you want it to be).

Hmmm - I'm out of this now - when probably the best written article, with actual facts compiled is so easily dismissed for nothing other than a person's religious beliefs there is no discussion to be had. Tell me she is making money from selling something and I'll question her motives, but this is sheer ignorance you're speaking.

Have fun shouting at computer screens and telling people their killing children. Nazi Germany would be proud of the propaganda going down here, with abuse and insults sent to those that dare question their Government.

One last thing - for anyone reading this trying to decipher what is real - always look where the money is and where it isn't, and what is motivating the conversation.

There's one side making billions of dollars telling people they are killing children if they don't buy their medicine; who are protected by their peers in government from any legal consequences for mistakes...

Then there are the folks that are just concerned for the safety of their children. We may not all have medical degrees but we aren't stupid.

You all may resume shouting at the computer screen.

originally posted by: Charliezin82
One last thing - for anyone reading this trying to decipher what is real - always look where the money is and where it isn't, and what is motivating the conversation.

There's one side making billions of dollars telling people they are killing children if they don't buy their medicine; who are protected by their peers in government from any legal consequences for mistakes...

Then there are the folks that are just concerned for the safety of their children. We may not all have medical degrees but we aren't stupid.

You all may resume shouting at the computer screen.

I really don't get it... we were having a decent conversation about your facts, and instead of replying to me, you decided to change the goal post to mercury and then went on a rant.... I guess you couldn't debunk my points.

Anyway, take care then, and if you really want to see the money you should check out Mercola et al, the mansions they have. And if you still want, we can discuss the myth of vaccines being profitable to 'Big Pharma', I have lots of evidence to show you. Ta ta.

a reply to: GetHyped

Saying I have concerns over Autism and Vaccines, isn't saying I have a different opinion, it just says I have concerns.

That's a conversation lot's of people want to have. Insulting someone for having that question or concern isn't okay.

a reply to: amazing

Concern trolling:

the action or practice of disingenuously expressing concern about an issue in order to undermine or derail genuine discussion.

originally posted by: toolgal462
THIS sort of a response is just so wrong. Jesus, what the hell is wrong with people?

Natural Selection is wrong? What the hell is wrong with you?

originally posted by: Charliezin82

originally posted by: Pardon?

When I need to understand more about a scientific issue I have no clue about, the first thing I do is listen to a Methodist Reverend.
Works every time.

Oh, thiomersal isn't mercury like common salt isn't sodium.
And chemophobia can be cured (but only if you want it to be).



Hmmm - I'm out of this now - when probably the best written article, with actual facts compiled is so easily dismissed for nothing other than a person's religious beliefs there is no discussion to be had. Tell me she is making money from selling something and I'll question her motives, but this is sheer ignorance you're speaking.

Have fun shouting at computer screens and telling people their killing children. Nazi Germany would be proud of the propaganda going down here, with abuse and insults sent to those that dare question their Government.

First of all, it's not a very well written article.
There aren't any facts, just statements not backed up by any citations or sources.
I haven't dismissed it upon her religious beliefs at all, I've just stated what she has addressed herself as.
What she also hasn't stated is her medical or scientific experience and background but she does state some common errors which science doesn't support.
That's why I'm dismissing her.
She is more than likely making money from the video she was in and promoting but I have no evidence of that...

Please read what people write and then form a conclusion.
Doing it the other way doesn't work very well.

And then you made a Godwin.
I mean come on, you're better than that (aren't you?).

a reply to: Pardon?.


Interesting article where baby monkeys were given the standard dose of vaccines and they showed signs of autism. vvwww.newstarget.com...

This topic just makes me glad I don't have children. One thing I don't understand though, how is not having your child vaccinated a threat to vaccinated children? If they are vaccinated, what is the threat? Seems like a guilt tactic to me, but I don't know the science of vaccinations.

originally posted by: Agartha
This is the one that I have never been able to understand.

Why are your kids at risk? They are vaccinated! Therefore it should only be the other kids, those who are not vaccinated, that should be at any risk.

To put it another way, if you are immunized, aren't you immune? The disease can't hurt you. You should be free of concern.
P

Very simple to explain (again):

1) Vaccines (just like all drugs/contraception/etc) are not 100% effective, they are very effective, some more than others (on average they are between 90-100%).

2) Some children cannot be immunized, for various reasons, for example having severe allergies to a component, being too young, etc.

3) For some children vaccines will not work as effectively because of their immune system is weaker, for example some children with cancer, HIV etc.

The children in points 2 and 3 rely on our children to be vaccinated, because contagious diseases will have more difficulty reaching them if they are surrounded with people who are immune.

originally posted by: anonentity
Interesting article where baby monkeys were given the standard dose of vaccines and they showed signs of autism. vvwww.newstarget.com...

Have you read the study this article is about? Please do, instead of relying on a poorly written article that has no references and does not explain how the authors got to their conclusion.

Read the study and then we can discuss it as all the data is there (I have read it). And no, it does not show baby monkeys got autism due to vaccines.

a reply to: Rezlooper

how do you school your children? I agree that they must be fully vaccinated before entering public schools. Its already happened on more than one occasion where measles has made a come-back.

You must think about the other children your children could be affecting...these are not things you can easily control.

Im sure you already do, but think about protecting your own children as well.

time.com...

originally posted by: TruMcCarthy
This topic just makes me glad I don't have children. One thing I don't understand though, how is not having your child vaccinated a threat to vaccinated children? If they are vaccinated, what is the threat? Seems like a guilt tactic to me, but I don't know the science of vaccinations.

My post above was actually a reply to you (the first part), but I was in a hurry, I didn't quote you properly and now it's too late to amend.

originally posted by: Agartha

originally posted by: Agartha
This is the one that I have never been able to understand.

Why are your kids at risk? They are vaccinated! Therefore it should only be the other kids, those who are not vaccinated, that should be at any risk.

To put it another way, if you are immunized, aren't you immune? The disease can't hurt you. You should be free of concern.
P

Very simple to explain (again):

1) Vaccines (just like all drugs/contraception/etc) are not 100% effective, they are very effective, some more than others (on average they are between 90-100%).

2) Some children cannot be immunized, for various reasons, for example having severe allergies to a component, being too young, etc.

3) For some children vaccines will not work as effectively because of their immune system is weaker, for example some children with cancer, HIV etc.

The children in points 2 and 3 rely on our children to be vaccinated, because contagious diseases will have more difficulty reaching them if they are surrounded with people who are immune.

originally posted by: anonentity
Interesting article where baby monkeys were given the standard dose of vaccines and they showed signs of autism. vvwww.newstarget.com...

Have you read the study this article is about? Please do, instead of relying on a poorly written article that has no references and does not explain how the authors got to their conclusion.

Read the study and then we can discuss it as all the data is there (I have read it). And no, it does not show baby monkeys got autism due to vaccines.

An interesting topic that isn't discussed very often is the fact that those vaccinated are more likely to be carriers and spread certain diseases more so than those who are unvaccinated.

The idea that an unvaccinated person is automatically a carrier or someone to blame for the spread of disease is preposterous.

Detection of Measles Virus RNA in Urine Specimens from Vaccine Recipients
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

CASE OF VACCINE-ASSOCIATED MEASLES FIVE WEEKS POST-IMMUNISATION, BRITISH COLUMBIA, CANADA, OCTOBER 2013
www.eurosurveillance.org...

Acellular pertussis vaccines protect against disease but fail to prevent infection and transmission in a nonhuman primate mode
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

100 measles vaccines deaths, zero measles death in the past 10 years
vaccineimpact.com...

originally posted by: m1kelowry
An interesting topic that isn't discussed very often is the fact that those vaccinated are more likely to be carriers and spread certain diseases more so than those who are unvaccinated.

The idea that an unvaccinated person is automatically a carrier or someone to blame for the spread of disease is preposterous.

Nope, vaccinated people are not more likely to be carriers and spread disease, if this was true then we would see (would have already seen) a pandemic of preventable diseases, due to billions of people in the world being vaccinated (and spreading disease, according to antivaxx theories).

Detection of Measles Virus RNA in Urine Specimens from Vaccine Recipients
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

First of all this is from 1995, medicine advances so much each year that you need to post more recent literature.

Second, the MMR is a live attenuated vaccine, which means the virus is in a weakened state and it cannot reproduce and cause a full blown illness, it can only stimulate an immune response. So even if somebody is exposed to that urine, it could never made them ill because it's not the full live virus.

There have been studies on 'shedding', with a lack of detectable antibodies in the unvaccinated contact groups, one example from 2015: Multicentre safety and immunogenicity trial of attenuated measles vaccines.

CASE OF VACCINE-ASSOCIATED MEASLES FIVE WEEKS POST-IMMUNISATION, BRITISH COLUMBIA, CANADA, OCTOBER 2013 www.eurosurveillance.org...

Your own link says that so far there's only been one case of suspected vaccine associated measles, emphasis on suspected as the symptoms cannot be distinguished between a vaccine and a wild virus, and the child's family knew somebody with measles who attended their church. Also, they were querying whether it was something besides measles, as the symptoms could have been another illness with a rash, but impossible to tell as the child was immunised and antibodies found for measles (obviously).

But it's good this was publicly reported, so we can keep a record of cases like this.

Acellular pertussis vaccines protect against disease but fail to prevent infection and transmission in a nonhuman primate mode
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

^^? This is not about shedding or vaccinated spreading disease, which is what your post is about.

100 measles vaccines deaths, zero measles death in the past 10 years
vaccineimpact.com...

^^ I have already replied to this on page 9.

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: Pardon?.


Interesting article where baby monkeys were given the standard dose of vaccines and they showed signs of autism. vvwww.newstarget.com...

If you can be bothered to search for the actual study itself and disregard anti-vax sites' commentary on it you will quite clearly see that the study doesn't state what the sites say. Not that anti-vax sites would lie to you about anything...
www.ane.pl...
That was a pilot study done in 2008.
An anti-vax gravy-train poured money into a follow-up study (actually following the scientific method for once) and this was the result.
Macaques Don't Get Autism from Vaccines.

Strangely the anti-health brigade didn't promote this one very much...

originally posted by: m1kelowry

originally posted by: Agartha

originally posted by: Agartha
This is the one that I have never been able to understand.

Why are your kids at risk? They are vaccinated! Therefore it should only be the other kids, those who are not vaccinated, that should be at any risk.

To put it another way, if you are immunized, aren't you immune? The disease can't hurt you. You should be free of concern.
P

Very simple to explain (again):

1) Vaccines (just like all drugs/contraception/etc) are not 100% effective, they are very effective, some more than others (on average they are between 90-100%).

2) Some children cannot be immunized, for various reasons, for example having severe allergies to a component, being too young, etc.

3) For some children vaccines will not work as effectively because of their immune system is weaker, for example some children with cancer, HIV etc.

The children in points 2 and 3 rely on our children to be vaccinated, because contagious diseases will have more difficulty reaching them if they are surrounded with people who are immune.

originally posted by: anonentity
Interesting article where baby monkeys were given the standard dose of vaccines and they showed signs of autism. vvwww.newstarget.com...

Have you read the study this article is about? Please do, instead of relying on a poorly written article that has no references and does not explain how the authors got to their conclusion.

Read the study and then we can discuss it as all the data is there (I have read it). And no, it does not show baby monkeys got autism due to vaccines.

An interesting topic that isn't discussed very often is the fact that those vaccinated are more likely to be carriers and spread certain diseases more so than those who are unvaccinated.

The idea that an unvaccinated person is automatically a carrier or someone to blame for the spread of disease is preposterous.

reported/

You need to understand how diseases are propagated then you might not make such a ridiculous remark.
If you're immune to a disease e.g. through vaccination, that disease does not have the ability to reproduce and spread.
If you're not immune to a disease e.g. unvaccinated, the disease can reproduce and spread.

That's very basic stuff and judging by the links you've posted I would assume that your core knowledge is intact so that you should already comprehend the basics.
Unless of course you don't actually understand the core science and are just regurgitating stuff found on anti-vax sites.

My money's on the latter.

a reply to: Pardon?


Well something is fuelling the dramatic rise in Autism, I doubt whether its something in Nature. Because as far as it being a survival trait its the exact opposite. The neurological damage is being caused by something. We have dramatic rises in Autism Diabetes and Cancer. As far as any study that would confirm the link with vaccines, you would also have another study with the complete opposite results. Simply because the Pharma companies couldn't afford another thalidomide fiasco. Plus all the other long line of fiascos, which have been made public, and I am sure their are more that have not been made public. Since six vested interested corporations now own all the media reporting agencies, go figure.

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: Pardon?


Well something is fuelling the dramatic rise in Autism, I doubt whether its something in Nature. Because as far as it being a survival trait its the exact opposite. The neurological damage is being caused by something. We have dramatic rises in Autism Diabetes and Cancer. As far as any study that would confirm the link with vaccines, you would also have another study with the complete opposite results. Simply because the Pharma companies couldn't afford another thalidomide fiasco. Plus all the other long line of fiascos, which have been made public, and I am sure their are more that have not been made public. Since six vested interested corporations now own all the media reporting agencies, go figure.

"Well something is fuelling the dramatic rise in Autism" [sic] (autism doesn't need to be capitalized)
Firstly, there hasn't been a dramatic rise in autism, there's been a widening of the criteria and an increase and improvement of diagnostic techniques.
Secondly, if it's not something in Nature (nature doesn't need to be capitalized) well where is it? Is is superNatural as that's what your implying?
Thirdly, you're implying that because "autism in increasing" it must be vaccines as it can't be anything else.
Why?

There hasn't been a viable study which shows a link with vaccines ever.
But there have been countless ones which show no link,

Finally, if you're basing what you believe on an unfounded conspiracy then I'm afraid I can't help you.
It's definitely not based upon science.

Bear in mind though, relatively recently a vaccine was pulled from the shelves due to a very small increase in adverse events so your conspiracy is even more baseless than you realise.
www.cdc.gov...

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: Pardon?


Well something is fuelling the dramatic rise in Autism, I doubt whether its something in Nature. Because as far as it being a survival trait its the exact opposite. The neurological damage is being caused by something. We have dramatic rises in Autism Diabetes and Cancer. As far as any study that would confirm the link with vaccines, you would also have another study with the complete opposite results. Simply because the Pharma companies couldn't afford another thalidomide fiasco. Plus all the other long line of fiascos, which have been made public, and I am sure their are more that have not been made public. Since six vested interested corporations now own all the media reporting agencies, go figure.

In the past, any type of mental illness was shamed and hidden in families. I can see how autism would be similar. With more awareness of autism, more parents are coming out and finding help for their children, for themselves!

ONe of my best friends has an autistic son. The years of dealing with it and finding ways of coping with it has made her mother question if she has had autism all of her life and never sought help. She noticed that she had striking personality similarities to her grandson.

I would say awareness is the major contributions for the dramatic rise in Autism...not vaccinations.