*Autism Is Caused By Vaccination Overload*

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,


1. But that old tired BS about its not all the vaccines the children are getting in overlaod quanities, is just that BS!
2. When I was a child I never knew a person who had Autism, and throughout all my years of school, I never met one.
3. And as far as I know nobody I know has ever known one either, those who I grew up with anyways.
4. We are talking some 40 years ago, when I was a kid.
5. Not until the early 1990's did I ever hear of it.
6. First off, when I was a kid, getting shots for school, I got no more than 5 shots as I remember.
7. Now adays, the children get over 40 shots before they can go to school.
8. That's a helluva lot for a young system to absorb, it just can't be done by every kid, that's why they go haywire.
9. Their minds get fried plain and simple.
10. Link and Sample:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autism



"The prevalence of autism is about 1–2 per 1,000 people; the prevalence of ASD is about 6 per 1,000, with about four times as many males as females. The number of people diagnosed with autism has increased dramatically since the 1980s, partly due to changes in diagnostic practice; the question of whether actual prevalence has increased is unresolved."




Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Noir]

Right, first of you need the word 'may' in the topic title, or atleast an 'I think'

Secondly, think about all the things that have changed, not just from your childhood, but from your parents childhood, afterall what has changed from their days to yours may of brought about the changes that have lead to the increase when you and your generation started popping out babies.

Now when you consider all the things that have changed, is it not a lil silly to produce a topic with no medical evidence in support of the topic title, and claim it is just on factor?

[Monkeybone]

i don't think that you get 40 for one thing... i know it was a number through out, i do things like that too...

and they have yet to prove that, in fact the released an article condeming the "test" that concluded the link, saying it wasn't proper.

and to follow along with Noir, yah.. look at how things have changed since the days of your parents. It could be the vaccines... it could be the stuff they put in our food now.


and lastly Chess... are you using wikipedia as a ref or for the definition of Autism... because you know.. it's wikipedia...

[Kathianne]

Honestly folks:

http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/kuszewski20100319/


Autism And Vaccines: Why People Still Believe The Hype

Andrea Kuszewski
Andrea Kuszewski
The Rogue Neuron

Posted: Mar 19, 2010

Early last month, the now-famous paper by Dr Andrew Wakefield that supposedly linked vaccines to the onset of autism, was formally retracted by the Lancet, the journal that published it back in 1998. This was a monumental decision, considering it was the conclusions drawn from this paper that launched the firestorm of debate around the safety of vaccines, and likely the cause of the current vaccine crisis.

It goes without saying, but in case some of you have not made the connection yet, this retraction means that there never was a valid link between vaccines and autism; not even one study can show this. Wakefield’s study was never able to be replicated (because of his poor and dishonest methods), and every scientific study conducted following his that attempted to find a similar link was unsuccessful. Scientists have been saying for years that there must have been something fishy with his study to have gotten that result, but the public (at least a large portion of it) would not listen. Now even Wakefield himself has said that his study is invalid, and yet the supporters remain.

I find it very interesting that there was so little media coverage of the retraction as compared to the attention the paper got when it first came out. One would think that news of false evidence provided to support a false theory of autism would at least be as big of a story, if not bigger. However, that was not the case. Incidentally, I predicted this would happen the very moment I read the press release.

There are a few reasons for this reaction.

First, I must clarify that the “Anti-Vaccine” crowd is a diverse group, each sub-type with their own agenda and reason for believing in the theory so vehemently.....

The above was in reaction to the retraction finally issued in February by Lancet:

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/340/feb02_4/c696


Published 2 February 2010, doi:10.1136/bmj.c696
Cite this as: BMJ 2010;340:c696

News
Lancet retracts Wakefield’s MMR paper

Clare Dyer

1 BMJ

The Lancet has retracted the 12 year old paper that sparked an international crisis of confidence in the safety of the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine when its lead author suggested a link between the vaccine and autism.

Andrew Wakefield was found guilty by the General Medical Council last week of dishonesty and flouting ethics protocols.

The UK regulator held that Dr Wakefield abused his position, subjected children to intrusive procedures such as lumbar puncture and colonoscopy that were not clinically indicated, carried out research that breached the conditions of ethics committee approval, and brought the medical profession into disrepute.

In a statement published online (www.thelancet.com) the editors of the Lancet said: "Following the judgment of the UK General Medical Council’s Fitness to Practise Panel on Jan 28, 2010, it has become clear that several elements of the 1998 paper by Wakefield et al are incorrect, contrary to the findings of an earlier investigation.

"In particular, the claims in the original paper that children were ‘consecutively referred’ and that investigations were ‘approved’ by the local ethics committee have been proven to be false. Therefore we fully retract this paper from the published record."

Evan Harris, a Liberal Democrat MP and doctor, who had called for the retraction, said: "The whole thing is flawed. You should not publish or leave in the literature papers which are unethical."...

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,


1. Ok how many people did you grow up with that was Autistic?
2. I know the answer.
3. Zero.
4. Okay explain how these children are getting it?
5. You can not.
6. Its a *CWN FACT*, its the vaccines.
7. You or anyone else can not disprove my *Fact*.
8. Wakfield was bought.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Kathianne]

Sorry bout that,


1. Ok how many people did you grow up with that was Autistic?
2. I know the answer.
3. Zero.
4. Okay explain how these children are getting it?
5. You can not.
6. Its a *CWN FACT*, its the vaccines.
7. You or anyone else can not disprove my *Fact*.
8. Wakfield was bought.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

Yep, you got your 'facts' at the local dump. :laugh2: Well I guess that is where good Sasquatchs hang out.

[Nukeman]

Sorry bout that,


1. Ok how many people did you grow up with that was Autistic?
2. I know the answer.
3. Zero.
4. Okay explain how these children are getting it?
5. You can not.
6. Its a *CWN FACT*, its the vaccines.
7. You or anyone else can not disprove my *Fact*.
8. Wakfield was bought.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas
Dude they EXPANDED the definition to inlude a slew of other children that when I was growing up WOULD NOT HAVE MET THE DEFINITION. Now that being said a vast majority of these kids ARE NOT AUTISTIC just misbehaved. They really need a spanking and discipline instead of medication and labels.

Schools (public schools) get MORE money for EVERY child with disablilities so they are more than happy to label or list the child as autistic instead of a "pain in the ass" that just needs spanked.

You can not open a definition and than say look at the huge increase in the number of cases. this is just like the government changing the weight and hieght standards for obeseity. You cant change a standard overnight than say look how many more obese people there are.

It is all BS...

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,




Yep, you got your 'facts' at the local dump. :laugh2: Well I guess that is where good Sasquatchs hang out.


*WARNING THIS IS A NON PC AREA*

1. The govenment doesn't want the data harvested.
2. If the data would be opened up, then it would be obvious that the countless vaccines are doing this.
3. They can pin point when it all began, if they wanted too.
4. But if they do, the population will be in an uproar!!!
5. Sure kids get fewer deadly illnesses, but its just a trade off.
6. The govenment thinks, its better to have 1 in 160 live autisitc children, than having 2 in 160 permantly dead, THEIR CALCULATIONS.
7. Children die anyway, of flu, of many hit and run sicknesses.
8. But to knowingly cause an illness, even randomly is *EVIL*.
9. The child being over dosed with all these shots isn't willing to do it, if he had a choice.
10. He's/She's, being lied too, each and every day it happenes, its a *LIE*.
11. Its not safe, you might be damaged as a child, getting the over doses they get today.



Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,





Dude they EXPANDED the definition to inlude a slew of other children that when I was growing up WOULD NOT HAVE MET THE DEFINITION. Now that being said a vast majority of these kids ARE NOT AUTISTIC just misbehaved. They really need a spanking and discipline instead of medication and labels.

Schools (public schools) get MORE money for EVERY child with disablilities so they are more than happy to label or list the child as autistic instead of a "pain in the ass" that just needs spanked.

You can not open a definition and than say look at the huge increase in the number of cases. this is just like the government changing the weight and hieght standards for obeseity. You cant change a standard overnight than say look how many more obese people there are.

It is all BS...




1. So we just need to beat the shit out of these autistic children?
2. Then go after the fat kids?


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Kathianne]

Sorry bout that,









1. So we just need to beat the shit out of these autistic children?
2. Then go after the fat kids?


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

Nukeman is right, many of the kids diagnosed with 'Auspergers' have parents that do not agree on discipline and the 'autistic' child is very adept at manipulating them. Now truly autistic, severe, is rare. It also existed when we were young, they were not in the schools. Neither were Down's kids, deaf/blind, most CP, kids on ventilators...They are there now.

[Nukeman]

Sorry bout that,









1. So we just need to beat the shit out of these autistic children?
2. Then go after the fat kids?


Regards,
SirJamesofTexasNot at all what I said and you know it and if you think otherwise your only being puerile!!

I SAID THEY (gov't) EXPANDED the diagnosis/definition of autism to include just about ANY child with behavioral problems... When SOME not ALL could benefit from discipline.

There are real cases of autism but the definition has been so expanded to included too many people.....

As for going after the fat kids..... why not???? they should be made to understand the importance of excercise and good nutrition. If they aren't getting it at home they need to get it somewhere.

Are you happy thinking about how they will be taken care of in the later years as a morbidly obese adult. I can tell you first hand that it is VERY difficult to take care of them from simple things of changing bed linen to imaging. These people just don't fit on the standard equipment and a lot of it has been expanded to hold up to 450lbs but we have people greater than that and continue to get larger and BITCH at us because we can't accomodate them... Give me a break!!!!!!