Childhood diseases return as parents refuse vaccines

Autism rates are now 1 in 55 males that are vaccinated.

Amish dont vaccinate and dont get autism.


The evidence suggests that mercury doesnt cause autism since
it has been taken out of vaccines, it doesnt suggest
that vaccines dont cause autism.



Does anybody have any data to contradict this?

reply to post by Griffo


Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you

It is simple:
Step 1. Look up the known components of vaccine injections.
Step 2. Cross-reference with known toxins and carcinogens.

Congratulations, you have learned something horrible about "science."

reply to post by RRokkyy


Just a small correction: Mercury has been taken out of *some* vaccinations. Depending on where you live, some still contain it.

Originally posted by RRokkyy
Autism rates are now 1 in 55 males that are vaccinated.

Amish dont vaccinate and dont get autism.


The evidence suggests that mercury doesnt cause autism since
it has been taken out of vaccines, it doesnt suggest
that vaccines dont cause autism.

Does anybody have any data to contradict this?

I think it is you who are lacking data, or at least you have failed to provide a link to it with your post..

How do you know Amish don't get autism? Publish your sources for studies done on autism rates for Amish.

I had trouble finding an actual study but I did find this. childhealthsafety.wordpress.com... There are some interesting links in there.

reply to post by Universer


Literally everything is toxic in the right doses.

Originally posted by john_bmth
Literally everything is toxic in the right doses.

Yes, I suppose if I ate 30 lbs of fresh organic vegetables in one "dose" I would explode. I think I will take that risk over any amount of seriously toxic substances being injected right into my body. Thanks for playing.

Originally posted by Universer

Originally posted by john_bmth
Literally everything is toxic in the right doses.

Yes, I suppose if I ate 30 lbs of fresh organic vegetables in one "dose" I would explode. I think I will take that risk over any amount of seriously toxic substances being injected right into my body. Thanks for playing.

You would be wise to read up on toxicity levels before scare mongering. For example, arsenic is not only found in the human body but also in those delicious organic vegetables you used in your example. The important point is dosage.

Originally posted by john_bmth

Originally posted by Universer

Originally posted by john_bmth
Literally everything is toxic in the right doses.

Yes, I suppose if I ate 30 lbs of fresh organic vegetables in one "dose" I would explode. I think I will take that risk over any amount of seriously toxic substances being injected right into my body. Thanks for playing.

You would be wise to read up on toxicity levels before scare mongering. For example, arsenic is not only found in the human body but also in those delicious organic vegetables you used in your example. The important point is dosage.

OH, I SEE NOW. You are saying that there is an amount of fresh organic vegetables that I could actually consume that would kill me from arsenic poisoning. Why didn't I think of that before? Why didn't the governments inform me of this? Gosh, I better start eating something besides delicious organic vegetables quick!!! And to think I thought your point was totally scare-mongery before.

reply to post by Universer


Now you're making a strawman argument. My point is that listing the chemicals used in a vaccination jab and saying "look! They're toxic!" is meaningless unless you mention the doses used compared to the doses considered harmful. What you are doing is scare mongering, i.e. "the use of fear to influence the opinions and actions of others towards some specific end".

Yeah well when it comes to having your child be sick for a little while compared to dying a horrible death due to vaccine related cancer I know as a parent what I would do.

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by Universer

 

Now you're making a strawman argument. My point is that listing the chemicals used in a vaccination jab and saying "look! They're toxic!" is meaningless unless you mention the doses used compared to the doses considered harmful. What you are doing is scare mongering, i.e. "the use of fear to influence the opinions and actions of others towards some specific end".

So, it's acceptable to put toxins and carcinogens into vaccines, according to you, as long as the person doesn't keel over and die on the spot. Now do I understand you correctly?

Nope, I don't want people to be afraid AT ALL. I want them to wake up and do their own research. Fear-mongering is the domain of those pushing these toxic vaccines.

So what if someone has done their own research and still thinks this is BS? What you call "Toxins" I call preservatives.

I have gotten every vaccination I'm supposed to have, get annual flu vaccinations, and even have had the three Gardasil vaccinations. No flu or HPV for me! I have never gotten sick from them, but the Gardasil did hurt where they injected it for a few hours. Felt like a pro wrestler punched me in the arm!

Vaccinations save lives. I hope to God no one who is anti-vaccine ever has a kid who dies of a preventable disease. Their blood will be on the hands of the parents.

Don't public schools require vaccinations anyway?

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by RRokkyy
Autism rates are now 1 in 55 males that are vaccinated.

Amish dont vaccinate and dont get autism.


The evidence suggests that mercury doesnt cause autism since
it has been taken out of vaccines, it doesnt suggest
that vaccines dont cause autism.

Does anybody have any data to contradict this?

I think it is you who are lacking data, or at least you have failed to provide a link to it with your post..

How do you know Amish don't get autism? Publish your sources for studies done on autism rates for Amish.

Is your Google broken?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????


www.ageofautism.com...
Olmsted on Autism: 1 in 10,000 Amish

Amish buggy Managing Editor's Note: Dr. Max Wiznitzer of University Hospitals in Cleveland is an expert witness for the government against the families who file in the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.

By Dan Olmsted

It is unanimous, apparently -- the rate of autism among the Amish is low. Really, really low. So low that if it were the same in the rest of the population, we wouldn't even be talking about the subject. Shockingly low.

But not so shocking that anyone feels compelled to follow up on the information or its logical implications -- not four years ago when I first pointed it out, not today when the clues it contains are more intriguing than ever -- in fact, never, never, never.

In April 2005 I wrote a UPI column called The Amish Anomaly that began this way: "Where are the autistic Amish? Here in Lancaster County, heart of Pennsylvania Dutch country, there should be well over 100 with some form of the disorder. I have come here to find them, but so far my mission has failed ..."

In case anyone had any lingering doubts about the virtual absence of autism among the Amish, they were effectively put to rest on Friday night's Larry King segment when Dr. Max Wiznitzer -- defending the vaccine program, arguing autism has not increased and insisting it is a genetic disorder preset from birth, said the rate of autism in northeastern Ohio, the nation's largest Amish community, was 1 in 10,000. He should know, he said: "I'm their neurologist."

So in a nation with an autism rate of 66 per 10,000 -- cut that in half if you want, to focus just on full-syndrome, classic, Kanner autism -- we're looking at a population with one-sixty-sixth, or one thirty-third, or one-whatever, the going rate. Heck, let's just say the autism rate in the USA were only 10 per 10,000; for some reason, the Amish autism rate would still be an order of magnitude lower. That, as they say in the medical journals, is statistically significantly. Massively so, I would say.

That leaves, it seems to me, two questions: Why is the rate so much lower, and why doesn't anyone in mainstream medicine seem to care, other than to fling it out as a debating point to demonstrate -- what, exactly?

Dr. Wiznitzer said those Amish were vaccinated. Well, OK, interesting. That's half right, according to what I reported about that same area back in June of 2005:

"The autism rate for U.S. children is 1 in 166, according to the federal government. The autism rate for the Amish around Middlefield, Ohio, is 1 in 15,000, according to Dr. Heng Wang.

"He means that literally: Of 15,000 Amish who live near Middlefield, Wang is aware of just one who has autism. If that figure is anywhere near correct, the autism rate in that community is astonishingly low.

"Wang is the medical director, and a physician and researcher, at the DDC Clinic for Special Needs Children, created three years ago to treat the Amish in northeastern Ohio.

"I take care of all the children with special needs," he said, putting him in a unique position to observe autism. "The one case Wang has identified is a 12-year-old boy."

He said half the children in the area were vaccinated, half weren't. That child, he said, was vaccinated, but let's not split hairs here. Either vaccinated or unvaccinated, that's a low rate -- 1 in 5000. The question I didn't think to ask at the time but will soon, is, exactly how were those half vaccinated? Flu shots for pregnant moms? Hep B at birth? Chickenpox and MMR on the same day at one year? Rotavirus, Hep B, Hep A, and on and on? Or did it look more like the less intense, less front-loaded schedule in place in the rest of the country back before the autism epidemic began? The kind Jenny and Jim and J.B. and Jerry (hey, the four J's!) keep harking back to when the autism rate was, like, 1 in 10,000 and we still managed to stave off wholesale plagues.

Let's even stipulate that the vaccine schedule for every single Amish child is now fully loaded and follows the CDC to a T. What is Wiznitzer's point? That the Amish genes protect them? Well, good for them, then, let's find out why. Or, that some kind of other environmental risk is absent? In that case, autism is a genetic vulnerability with an environmental trigger, and something about the Amish world is not triggering it, which puts us back about where I started four years ago. There would have been plenty of time to have the answer right now if Julie Gerberding weren't still filibustering the question by talking about numerators, denominators and getting more research into the pipeline as fast as bureaucratically possible (meaning never, never, never).

Critics of the Amish Anomaly -- like critics of the idea that vaccines might be implicated in autism -- want to have it every which way. First, they want to say I just plain missed all the autism cases -- droning on about the Clinic For Special Children, which refused to speak with me over a period of many months. When one of their doctors did finally talk to a blogger whose stated purpose was to tear my reporting apart (a "fraud," he called me), that doctor said, oh yes, they do see Amish kids with autism -- but then went on to say those were ONLY kids with other identifiable genetic disorders. In other words, risk factors. He specifically said they DO NOT see "idiopathic autism," a basically nonsense phrase that he used to mean autism without any other accompanying disorders. In other words, they don't see the kind of autism now running at a rate of 1 in 100 or so in the rest of the country. The kind no one can figure out. The kind that is destroying a generation and their families and our future along with it. ("You don't have an affected child," people tell me. Yes, but I have an affected world.)

By asserting the Amish have an autism rate of 1 in 10,000 Wiznitzer is in fact scoring a point -- they call it an "own goal," an "oops, I didn't mean to tap the other team's shot in." The point he's accidentally but effectively reinforcing is the one made by the unfailingly intelligent Bernadine Healy -- that there are so many, many obvious studies being left undone by those afraid to do them, even as they sneer and snarl at the rest of us. The Amish are just one study left undone among -- well, one among ten thousand or so.

Dan Olmsted in Editor of Age of Autism.

Originally posted by Spencer1989
So what if someone has done their own research and still thinks this is BS?

Then bully for them.

Originally posted by Spencer1989
What you call "Toxins" I call preservatives.

I prefer a touch of organic lemon, raw honey or Bragg's raw apple cider vinegar as a preservative.

Originally posted by Spencer1989
Vaccinations save lives.

No, they don't.

Originally posted by Spencer1989
Don't public schools require vaccinations anyway?

No. They try pretty hard to make you think they do, however. All you have to do is hand them a form and they shut up real quick.

reply to post by Universer


Are you saying they should use lemon, honey, and apple cider vinegar as preservatives in vaccines? Really?

Originally posted by Spencer1989
reply to post by Universer

 

Are you saying they should use lemon, honey, and apple cider vinegar as preservatives in vaccines? Really?

Sounds delicious. LOLz

(Oh, sorry, I guess to be clear and a bit less snarky I should say again: Vaccines are useless. They shouldn't put any preservatives in them because they shouldn't be made in the first place.)

reply to post by Griffo


Keep believing the lies.

Man made potions are black magic. They are poison to the human body.

Originally posted by Universer

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by Universer

 

Now you're making a strawman argument. My point is that listing the chemicals used in a vaccination jab and saying "look! They're toxic!" is meaningless unless you mention the doses used compared to the doses considered harmful. What you are doing is scare mongering, i.e. "the use of fear to influence the opinions and actions of others towards some specific end".

So, it's acceptable to put toxins and carcinogens into vaccines, according to you, as long as the person doesn't keel over and die on the spot. Now do I understand you correctly?

Nope, I don't want people to be afraid AT ALL. I want them to wake up and do their own research. Fear-mongering is the domain of those pushing these toxic vaccines.

Now you're being silly. I've explained my point quite clearly, if you cannot grasp it that is not my problem.

reply to post by RRokkyy
Please learn how to quote external sources:

Posting work written by others. **ALL MEMBERS READ**

if you post something that is not 100% your own writing or work you must use the EX TAG, post NO MORE THAN 10% of the original (or three paragraphs, whichever is least), and GIVE A LINK TO THE SOURCE MATERIAL.... Failure to do so will get you a MANDATORY 3 DAY POST BAN on the first offense,

You broke at least two site rules, by not using the EX tags, and by quoting an excessive amount of the article. But if you ask a mod nicely they may fix your post for you, if you've exceeded the 2 hour edit window.

And if I had found your source in a Google search, it wouldn't have answered my question. If you're asking other people if they can dispute your data, then you should provide the data you want to see disputed. You haven't provided any reliable data, only anecdotes. Your source simply mentions that one guy knows of one autism case. It doesn't mention any assessment done on the thousands of others he doesn't know that he seems to be assuming don't have autism.

Also, I found that it may only be true that vaccination rates are lower in Amish, not that they don't vaccinate at all:

I just read, for the umpteenth time, a statement that "the Amish don't vaccinate, and that's why there are no Amish people with autism."

This statement draws, in part, from claims by Age of Autism writer Dan Olmsted - and, at least in this case, Mr. Olmsted is wrong....

I got my first inkling that this myth was, in fact, a myth, when I read this piece in the Combatting Autism from Within website:

The idea that the Amish do not vaccinate their children is untrue," says Dr. Kevin Strauss, MD, a pediatrician at the CSC. "We run a weekly vaccination clinic and it's very busy." He says Amish vaccinations rates are lower than the general population's, but younger Amish are more likely to be vaccinated than older generations.

Strauss also sees plenty of Amish children showing symptoms of autism. "Autism isn't a diagnosis - it's a description of behavior. We see autistic behaviors along with seizure disorders or mental retardation or a genetic disorder, where the autism is part of a more complicated clinical spectrum." Fragile X syndrome and Retts is also common among the clinic's patients...

."We know autism when we see it, but we don't go actively into the Amish community and screen for ASD."

That last sentence is the main problem with your claim.Your source doesn't cite studies on autism rates for Amish where a statistically significant part of the population has been screened for it. So that deals with the autism claim.

Regarding the "Amish don't vaccinate" claim:

Rebecca, who grew up among the Amish, confirms that about 70% of the Amish in Lancaster County do, indeed, vaccinate.

It took me a while to find a study but here's some information on a study:

“The Amish don’t vaccinate” and “the Amish don’t have autism”. Both statements are incorrect. The Amish have no religious prohibition against vaccination and they do have autism.

The paper, Prevalence Rates of Autism Spectrum Disorders Among the Old Order Amish, demonstrates a preliminary prevalence of 1 in 271 as the prevalence of autism amongst Amish children in two Amish communities: Holmes County, Ohio and Elkhart-Lagrange County, Indiana.

That's the kind of assessment you need to determine autism rates. There's a link to the paper there too. Note that the rate found is not 1 in 10.000 as your source claims, it's 1 in 271 when someone actually made a proper determination.