Ok, but why would they allow something that you feel "causes" Autism to be on the market when the majority of those children will be on some form of assistance throughout their lives? What is the purpose and what is the goal?
How is asking a question concerning what I feel about autism relevant to the OP?
I wonder, too, how our ability to treat premature babies has impacted those rates. Premature birth puts a child at increased risk of all kinds of things.
(I'm thinking more of other chronic conditions that are often blamed on vaccines, I guess. I don't really know if premature babies are at greater risk of autism.)
There was a study published in Pediatrics in 2011 from the Universtiy of Pennsylvania School of Nursing. Babies born before 37th week were five times more likely to have autism than full-term and normal weight infants. I couldn't find access to the study online though.
Add to this premature clamping of the cord. This I believe is a risk factor for future vaccine injuries. It causes loss of iron, oxygen, red blood cells, white blood cells and antibodies, and stem cells.
Thanks for that info, Mirzam. I think a lot more babies are born before 37 weeks than used to. Lots of women are induced or schedule a early c,and if they don't have their dates just right . . . There has been some pushback on this from the medical community. Premature birth is definitely majorly onthe rise.
Thanks for that info, Mirzam. I think a lot more babies are born before 37 weeks than used to. Lots of women are induced or schedule a early c,and if they don't have their dates just right . . . There has been some pushback on this from the medical community. Premature birth is definitely majorly onthe rise.
Right. If many people with autism (though not all, certainly) require more services from the government (early intervention, speech therapy, public preschool for special needs, special education, etc), surely that's costing the government a pretty penny. They would have an incentive to keep people as healthy as possible to save money. So how do you think that works?
I don't know why you are asking me how *I* think that works. I do not work for the federal government.
Sorry, I was going off of information from the march of dimes website that said it increased twenty percent from 1990 to 2006. But I guess that was out of date. Thanks for setting me straight.
Looks like its been falling for the last five years and was climbing before that, and is still a major issue, though. I'm not prepared to dismiss it as a player in the rise of various chronic conditions, including autism.
Because motive is always part of the evidence for a crime.
Speaking of relevant, taxi mom, what in the world is that picture at the top of your post??? A nun killing a beast???
What my personal feelings are about autism has nothing to do with any crime--or motive thereof--committed by those who have covered up evidence of a vaccine link to autism.
As for your question as to what the picture is, why don't you click on the link I provided in the post, and ask the author what the picture is?
What my personal feelings are about autism has nothing to do with any crime--or motive thereof--committed by those who have covered up evidence of a vaccine link to autism.
As for your question as to what the picture is, why don't you click on the link I provided in the post, and ask the author what the picture is?
No one is asking how you feeeel about autism. We're asking what antivax people think the government's motive is for a cover up?
I assure you the federal government does pay for some services to disabled children, as well as social security disability payments to autistic adults who are not self supporting, as well as losing income tax revenue on those folks. So why cover up something that's actually harming your country's population and losing you money? It doesn't make any sense. Unless you have an explanation I haven't thought of
If they were afraid of losing face if people found out they were poisoning citizens, wouldn't they just quietly change all the vaccination formulas to be non harmful or even placebos?
No one is asking how you feeeel about autism. We're asking what antivax people think the government's motive is for a cover up?
Good questions, I'll assume it's so Big Pharma and other agencies can have "Customers for life" as the article says.
I find this very disturbing:
Quote:
Sidenote: In real courts, precedent is a determining factor in theoretical causation. Precedent is not permitted in vaccine court. Meaning, any case that is won is sealed and attorneys are not allowed to review the medical documentation that influenced the award in that case. Vaccine court is not a court, but rather an administrative proceeding that takes place at the DOJ, which is an extension of DHHS. The same agency tasked with promoting and marketing vaccines to the public.
I'd sure hate to 1. Have a vaccine-injured child and all the pain and suffering that entails and then 2. Have to try to win an award in vaccine "court."
Good questions, I'll assume it's so Big Pharma and other agencies can have "Customers for life" as the article says.
I find this very disturbing:
I'd sure hate to 1. Have a vaccine-injured child and all the pain and suffering that entails and then 2. Have to try to win an award in vaccine "court."
People get sick all the time. People go to the DR and take prescription drugs for all their ailments. Injuries from drugs, whether from proper or improper use does happen. Those things are not being questioned. What I question is why they would purposefully cause a group of people to become dependent in a sense when a large majority of the fringe crowd believe that the government is trying to reduce the population. Death by vaccine is quite rare, and if that's what is what they are doing then they obviously haven't been paying attention to the death toll of prescription drugs...
What I question is why they would purposefully cause a group of people to become dependent in a sense when a large majority of the fringe crowd believe that the government is trying to reduce the population. Death by vaccine is quite rare, and if that's what is what they are doing then they obviously haven't been paying attention to the death toll of prescription drugs...
It's hard to know why, but since there's plenty of evidence showing that they're doing it we need to act accordingly.
Because of what they do I will take most government recommendations, especially when it comes to health or the economy, with a huge grain of salt.
I don't think they necessarily want to kill people off; just make them sick and dumb enough to stay on plenty of prescription meds, preferably from cradle to grave.
I take issue with the idea that there's plenty of evidence they're covering things up. I think there's plenty of spin and little to no actual evidence.
What does the GOVERNMENT get out of keeping people on prescription drugs? Especially if it makes people so sick they can't work and draw government assistance?
I take issue with the idea that there's plenty of evidence they're covering things up. I think there's plenty of spin and little to no actual evidence.
There have been numerous experiments performed on human test subjects in the United States that have been considered unethical, and were often performed illegally, without the knowledge, consent, or informed consent of the test subjects.
The experiments include: the deliberate infection of people with deadly or debilitating diseases, exposure of people to biological and chemical weapons, human radiation experiments, injection of people with toxic andradioactive chemicals, surgicalexperiments, interrogation/tortureexperiments, tests involving mind-altering substances, and a wide variety of others. Many of these tests were performed on children, the sick, andmentally disabled individuals, often under the guise of "medical treatment".
These experiments were funded by the U.S. government and private corporations.
I often wonder what they are doing this very minute that will be revealed in twenty or fifty years.
Whenever the vaccines/autism link comes up, I always think of this article. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/autism/la-me-autism-day-four-html,0,6403471.htmlstory . The general point is that if you survey populations of people of various ages, there is always about a 1% rate of mental disabilities that look a lot like autism, but typically in previous generations they were diagnosed as something else or never diagnosed at all.
I watched the Safeminds link a few days ago where both the speaker and interviewer were saying how neither had noticed 1% of the adult population having autism. They were calling it a invisible horde. Where are those people? It's a mystery.
In the study where they went door-to-door looking for people with autism, they found about 1% of adults had autism. Here is the thing though - none of the adults knew they had it! http://www.dailyrx.com/autism-adults-often-undiagnosed
I know 7 kids with autism (not a typo - but I work with kids a lot). In 6/7 of the cases it is crystal clear the kids have autism. These are not people hiding in plain sight. With the exception of very high functioning aspergers, autism is not a disorder you "miss"
My opinion: they are looking for and finding a cohort of adults they claim have autism so they can claim autism is genetic and has always been with us at this rate. It simply makes little sense, though, there is not a large (1%) cohort of adults with autism. I thought this blog put it quite well:http://autismjabberwocky.blogspot.ca/2009/09/hidden-horde-of-adults-with-autism.html
What I question is why they would purposefully cause a group of people to become dependent in a sense when a large majority of the fringe crowd believe that the government is trying to reduce the population.
Define "fringe crowd."
If by fringe crowd you mean non-vaxxers, then I think you are wrong. Some non-vaxxers believe the government is trying to reduce the population, but I suspect strongly they are the minority. A poll could sort it out.
I don't think they necessarily want to kill people off; just make them sick and dumb enough to stay on plenty of prescription meds, preferably from cradle to grave.
"Dumb enough" is a pretty offensive thing to say about people with autism.
If by fringe crowd you mean non-vaxxers, then I think you are wrong. Some non-vaxxers believe the government is trying to reduce the population, but I suspect strongly they are the minority. A poll could sort it out.
Psst, I think fringe crowd means the minority who believe such things.
Follow Mothering