Evidence of govenrment cover-up re: vaccines and autism - Page 3

[Taximom5]

Originally Posted by Imakcerka 

 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.  

But the original post did not accuse the government of trying to reduce the population, and neither have I.  EVER.  

You're making a lot of grossly mistaken assumptions, either about the government, or about the people who are sharing the evidence of the government coverup.

You might as well ask why would the tobacco companies purposefully cause a large group of people to become dependent on tobacco, and/or get cancer. Just try not to assume that we believe that either the government or the tobacco companies are trying to reduce the population, please. We parents who question or even criticize vaccine safety are getting tired of being painted as "anti-vaxers" (when our children were injured by vaccinations BECAUSE we agreed to let them be vaccinated), or paranoid zealouts who think that everyone is out to get them.

Let's try and have a mature discussion of the facts presented in the OP, rather than attack the messengers, shall we?

We don't debate whether or not the tobacco companies had valid motivation for covering up evidence that tobacco causes cancer, and we don't debate their motivation fo adding addictive chemicals to cigarettes.   To try to  debate the validity of motivation to cover up vaccine-induced autism cases will only call into question the motivation of the person instigating such a debate.

[kathymuggle]

Originally Posted by Imakcerka 

….. when a large majority of the fringe crowd believe that the government is trying to reduce the population.  

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 


Psst, I think fringe crowd means the minority who believe such things.

That is not what she said.

[Taximom5]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chicharronita 


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.

Originally Posted by Eligracey 


"Dumb enough" is a pretty offensive thing to say about people with autism.

She didn't mention autistic people in her post; I think it was pretty clear she wasn't talking about autistic people.  Besides, autism isn't curable or even treatable with prescription meds. There is no "anti-autism" pill.

Perhaps you misunderstood?

[Mirzam]

Brian Hooker of Autsim Action Network's testimony to the committee:

Quote:

Dr. Brian Hooker has spent a decade using the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to extract documents from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) regarding the CDC's investigation regarding the role vaccines have played in causing the autism epidemic. The CDC claims there is no association between vaccines and autism. Fr

om the documents he has gathered thus far Dr. Hooker has discovered, however, information that reveals otherwise.

Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth - The Buddha

[erigeron]

Originally Posted by kathymuggle 

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

Kathy, did you read the article I linked? The point here is that autism was not even on the radar in previous generations, so what would seem obvious now wasn't obvious to them. Some of these people were diagnosed with something else (for example, committed to a mental institution for paranoid schizophrenia), some were living out their lives in fr'instance their elderly parents' basement, not holding a job or doing much of anything, some had always had difficulty with living life or holding a job and then when a younger relative was diagnosed it was realized that they were also on the spectrum. One of my best friends (born 1982) is probably an Aspie, but they didn't have that diagnosis when we were little. She was diagnosed with ADHD and several other things, but only realized she might also be an Aspie when a younger relative was diagnosed less than 10 years ago.  

[Eligracey]

Originally Posted by Taximom5 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chicharronita 




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.

She didn't mention autistic people in her post; I think it was pretty clear she wasn't talking about autistic people.  Besides, autism isn't curable or even treatable with prescription meds. There is no "anti-autism" pill.

Perhaps you misunderstood?

It's a thread about autism, of course she's talking about autistic people. If not, then she's off topic and needs to edit her post to stay on topic.

[Chicharronita]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

Originally Posted by Chicharronita 

Maybe you didn't see my quote from Wikipdedia?

 
Unethical human experimentation in the United States


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.

Sorry, I was speaking specifically wrt a current conspiracy and vaccines. I'm aware of our governments checkered past.

I so wish I could believe that the government suddenly grew a conscience and this is all "in the past." 

There was a paragraph on vaccines; it starts at

Quote:

From the 1950s to 1972, mentally disabled children at the Willowbrook State School in Staten Island, New York were intentionally infected with viral hepatitis, in research whose purpose was to help discover a vaccine.

Children were fed an extract made from the feces of people infected with viral hepatitis. 

There are references to current little-known outrages that have occurred since 2000, although the entry acknowledges that drug trials are now conducted in third world countries where "informed consent" isn't   given and regulations are rare or non-existent (perhaps to escape scrutiny from regular people like us who know how to find things on the Internet).

There's been at least one MDC thread on how a lot of vaccines are tested in third world countries.

The article quoted from a Vanity Fair article, "Deadly Medicine" that looks interesting.

[Chicharronita]

Originally Posted by Taximom5 

 

But the original post did not accuse the government of trying to reduce the population, and neither have I.  EVER.  

You're making a lot of grossly mistaken assumptions, either about the government, or about the people who are sharing the evidence of the government coverup.

You might as well ask why would the tobacco companies purposefully cause a large group of people to become dependent on tobacco, and/or get cancer. Just try not to assume that we believe that either the government or the tobacco companies are trying to reduce the population, please. We parents who question or even criticize vaccine safety are getting tired of being painted as "anti-vaxers" (when our children were injured by vaccinations BECAUSE we agreed to let them be vaccinated), or paranoid zealouts who think that everyone is out to get them.

Let's try and have a mature discussion of the facts presented in the OP, rather than attack the messengers, shall we?

We don't debate whether or not the tobacco companies had valid motivation for covering up evidence that tobacco causes cancer, and we don't debate their motivation fo adding addictive chemicals to cigarettes.   To try to  debate the validity of motivation to cover up vaccine-induced autism cases will only call into question the motivation of the person instigating such a debate.

I'm sorry that I caused the thread to derail a bit. 

[Chicharronita]

Originally Posted by Taximom5 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chicharronita 


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.

Originally Posted by Eligracey 


"Dumb enough" is a pretty offensive thing to say about people with autism.

She didn't mention autistic people in her post; I think it was pretty clear she wasn't talking about autistic people.  Besides, autism isn't curable or even treatable with prescription meds. There is no "anti-autism" pill.

Thanks; you're right I didn't mean the autistic; never mind that sadly there is no "anti-autism"  pill.

[kathymuggle]

Originally Posted by erigeron 

Kathy, did you read the article I linked? The point here is that autism was not even on the radar in previous generations, so what would seem obvious now wasn't obvious to them. Some of these people were diagnosed with something else (for example, committed to a mental institution for paranoid schizophrenia), some were living out their lives in fr'instance their elderly parents' basement, not holding a job or doing much of anything, some had always had difficulty with living life or holding a job and then when a younger relative was diagnosed it was realized that they were also on the spectrum. One of my best friends (born 1982) is probably an Aspie, but they didn't have that diagnosis when we were little. She was diagnosed with ADHD and several other things, but only realized she might also be an Aspie when a younger relative was diagnosed less than 10 years ago.  

Not yet.  I will read it.  High functioning aspies might have been missed in years gone past, but all forms of autism are increasing and some of those would not be missed.  

Here is an interesting image - it proposes that only about 25% of cases of autism are now called autism when they once would have been called mental retardation.

All in all, it proposes that 46% of the rise in autism is attributed to unknown causes.  

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/111102/full/479022a/box/2.html

[Monkey's Mum]

Originally Posted by Chicharronita 

Maybe you didn't see my quote from Wikipdedia?
 

Unethical human experimentation in the United States

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.

Wikipedia is not a valid and unbiased source. It is a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit and add to.

[Bokonon]

Originally Posted by Monkey's Mum 

Wikipedia is not a valid and unbiased source. It is a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit and add to.

That article is extensively cited.

[kathymuggle]

Originally Posted by Chicharronita 

I'm sorry that I caused the thread to derail a bit. 

You didn't.  It was derailed long before you started to post.

[Jennyanydots]

Originally Posted by Chicharronita 

The article quoted from a Vanity Fair article, "Deadly Medicine" that looks interesting.

Great article, thanks for the link! It is well worth reading- gives further insight into the motivations of the huge, profit hungry pharmaceutical industry.
Don't fool yourself for one second into thinking they care about benefitting humanity or improving quality of life for children one iota. They want to sell product, plain and simple. And "government" in a democracy is run by the people who stand up and make themselves heard... Well, pharma speaks with a very loud voice, folks. Our government IS pharma. And big AG, big Oil, etc. You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to recognize corruption when it's right in front of your face.

[Rrrrrachel]

Originally Posted by kathymuggle 

Not yet.  I will read it.  High functioning aspies might have been missed in years gone past, but all forms of autism are increasing and some of those would not be missed.  

Here is an interesting image - it proposes that only about 25% of cases of autism are now called autism when they once would have been called mental retardation.

All in all, it proposes that 46% of the rise in autism is attributed to unknown causes.  

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/111102/full/479022a/box/2.html

I've seen that statistic before and I am in no way saying its definitely false, but there are several studies around that have found a similar or same rate of autism in older generations as I'm the current one. Just offering that as an "opinions vary" thing, not an I'm right and you're wrong thing.

[kathymuggle]

Originally Posted by Jennyanydots 



Don't fool yourself for one second into thinking they care about benefitting humanity or improving quality of life for children one iota. They want to sell product, plain and simple. And "government" in a democracy is run by the people who stand up and make themselves heard... Well, pharma speaks with a very loud voice, folks. 

Good point.

An article on big pharm and its influence on politics and life:

http://www.drugwatch.com/2012/01/19/influence-of-big-pharma/

[Mirzam]

Originally Posted by kathymuggle 

 

Not yet.  I will read it.  High functioning aspies might have been missed in years gone past, but all forms of autism are increasing and some of those would not be missed.  

Here is an interesting image - it proposes that only about 25% of cases of autism are now called autism when they once would have been called mental retardation.

All in all, it proposes that 46% of the rise in autism is attributed to unknown causes.  

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/111102/full/479022a/box/2.html

In the Israeli study, Advancing Paternal Age and Autism, Asperger's was even more rare than autism in the 1980s, the rate of classical autism was 8.4 in 10,000 with even fewer Asperger's. So increase of people with Asperger's syndrome is even more dramatic and serious than that of autism. The data was obtained using current diagnostic criteria so is comparable with current data for current cases.

[Chicharronita]

Originally Posted by Bokonon 

Originally Posted by Monkey's Mum 

Wikipedia is not a valid and unbiased source. It is a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit and add to.

That article is extensively cited.

Yes.

And normally I'd agree with you MM. I actually am a little surprised it's even in there.

But believe it or not the 167 references are just the beginning of its sources.

[DrToni]

You are missing the links

It's not that government wants this. The federal advisory committees are comprised of drug company high level expert employees. While this violates all FACA guidelines, it is the case at the FDA (VRBAC) the CDC ( APIC) and the HHS (NVAC).

the federal bodies set up to regulate the industry, is the industry. Just as in the gas and oil and the banking industry.

legislators vote with re-election in mind. If you do not support big industries interest, you will not have funding for your next run.

ANd, those of the federal advisory committtees that aren't pharma employees become employees or lobbyists for the industry.

It is a revolving door and it is completely rigged.

This goes for all the regulatory committees.

Big industry is running our federal advisory committees as well as congress.

TB

[VinceinAZ]

Quote:

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'm slightly surprised by the naivete of this comment and question.  First, the money doesn't come out of the pockets of any of those involved in the policy making process.  It comes out of tax dollars.  Second, there is a huge profit margin in vaccines.  Why vaccines?  Because vaccines are protected by law against lawsuits because of the terrifying possibility that if vaccines were not profitable, major pharmaceutical manufacturing corporations would stop making them.  No lawsuits, maximum profits.  Third, Big Pharm provides huge campaign contributions.  If any elected official were to question the safety of vaccines, that money train would stop, and coincidentally, their political opponents would start getting those big contributions.  Fourth, there is a strong denial of the risks of vaccines, even of thimerosal (ethyl mercury), even when injected into the bloodstream of an expectant mother, a neonatal infant, or a toddler.  The human brain is still developing at this point.  To say that mercury could be harmful would be admitting that the politician was wrong, and was an accessory to the harming and even death of countless children.  And last, the incident rate of 1 in 88 children with Autistic Spectrum Disorder was only revised in May 2012, and is in fact based on studies of children from 2008.  The ASD rate is growing apace with the increasing vaccine schedule.  And we still don't know how many other children are harmed in other ways, such as SIDS, autoimmune disorders, allergic reactions, gastrointestinal problems, neuropathies, and a long additional list. There has been no conclusive study conducted to determine in this country if vaccinated versus unvaccinated children are healthier.  Dr. Colleen Boyle of the CDC admitted this in testimony to Congress.  Not enough research has been done, despite being well aware of the escalating epidemic.  Coincidentally, many of the CDC's top officials and researchers go into the pharmaceutical industry after leaving the CDC.  They tend to be VERY well paid.   The "government" is not a single entity who feels the pain of having to provide more services to a growing percentage of the population.  It is not a corporation who acts when revenues decline.  It is a big pile of elected officials, each with their own agenda, getting re-elected.  They get paid whether they save or endanger their constituency.