Originally Posted by Sherlock007
As vaccine-injury covers anything from needle-stick injury to neurological damage, MT, perhaps I should rephrase the question: How many neurologically vaccine-damaged children do you know who do not have - and have never had - autistic behaviours?
If you mean brain damaged, then all brain damaged people exhibit behaviours which might now be classified as autism spectrum disorders. So do some Down's Syndrome children.
The boundaries are now so blurred that I think that is adding to the confusion.
|Reading that, I picture a large number of children, perhaps at a kindergarten or playcentre, with over half of them unvaccinated and autistic. However they could be a small group of special needs children whose mothers get together for support from time to time.
Please would you clarify: What sort of group? How many children altogether? How old are they? How many have not been vaccinated who have an ASD? Where are they on the spectrum? Did they regress after a normal period of development and become autistic? Do they have official diagnoses? Do they have additional officially diagnosed disorders? Have you asked the parents if they were ever vaccinated?
I don't know the answers to any of the questions you ask. The information comes from a close friend of mine who has an unvaccinated child who I do know, and who belongs to an autism support group where parents are referred after diagnosis.
I'm not interested enough to go and ask her to give all her friends the third degree questioning that a researcher would. She said that "many" of the parents there chose not to vaccinate, yet have children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorders.
She's not the sort of person who would lie.
|Maybe so. There are certainly non-vaccinated children with autism.
One child I know appeared normal at birth but at around six-weeks he had a major seizure which resulted in hemiplegia and epilepsy. His mother who leads an ultra-healthy alternative lifestyle and completely avoids doctors, was sprayed with liquid herbicide while she was pregnant with him. He was prescribed anti-epileptic medication which she used for a while but suspected that it was doing more harm than good so switched completely to alternative medicine - and the seizures finally subsided.
What caused his autism? His mother's life-style? A deranged immune system? An immature immune system? A genetic pre-disposition? Chemical poisoning from his mother while in utero then from her breastmilk for six weeks? The epilepsy, or the anti-seizure medication? She suspects the anti-seizure medication. Maybe it was.
For a child to have a seizure disorder, there has to be an underlying condition in order for them to prescribe drugs.
People react differently to sprays. Some clear them okay, and others don't. Those who don't often have glutathione pathways that don't work.
I think it would be unfair to blame the medication, since there was a reason why the medication in the first place. That could either have been direct toxicity from the spray or an underlying disorder exacerbated by the spray, so its very hard to assign causation.
Quite a few children who start with seizures and never use medication at all, also have their seizures subside. Having said that when you look at seizure medication, one of the side effects listed is seizures.
A bit like anti-depressant medication, and one of the side effects listed is depression.
What I don't understand is why parents don't read the package inserts or make any effort to find out about side effects, but that's another pet whinge of mine, so ignore it
|I know another unvaccinated child who became autistic at six months of age after exactly the same medication.
The Burbacher study was about thimerosal (mercury) in vaccines. I've never heard of monkeys getting amalgam fillings, so I think one can safely assume that the infant monkeys used in the study weren't exposed to mercury in utero, but they were injected with vaccines according to the immunisation schedule at the time, and the mercury from the vaccines ended up permanently in the monkeys’ brains.
Burbacher found that the mercury had caused a significant increase in microglia and a decrease in astrocytes.
Burbacher et al cite Vargas et al as "having demonstrated an active neuroinflammatory process in brains of autistic patients, including a marked activation of microglia."
Comparison of Blood and Brain Mercury Levels in Infant Monkeys Exposed to Methylmercury or Vaccines Containing Thimerosal
Doing a search for microglia and astrocytes, I learned that microglia are responsible for cleaning up debris caused by injury or disease. The toxins from microglia adversely affect astrocytes. Astrocytes normally nurture and protect neurons - and play an important role in the processing of information for memory. So, I don't find it surprising that some children become autistic after vaccination solely because of thimerosal on the brain.
I agree and disagree. If you assume that the stats are 1 autistic per 150 children... and you assume that all autism is caused by mercury in vaccines, for every 1 child, 149 don't get autism from the mercury in their vaccines.
Why not? What is the difference between the 149 who don't get autism and the one that does?
Have you read the basis of epigenetics and methylation? Could it be that the "one" out of 150 have a defective biochemistry functioning, and the 149 don't?
This study here:
|Geier DA Geier MR
Med Sci Monit. 2006 May 29;12(6):CR231-239
An assessment of downward trends in neurodevelopmental disorders in the United States following removal of thimerosal from childhood vaccines.
Background: The US is in the midst of an epidemic of neurodevelopmental disorders (NDs). Thimerosal is an ethylmercury-containing compound added to some childhood vaccines. Several previous epidemiological studies conducted in the US have associated Thimerosal-containing vaccine (TCV) administration with NDs. Material/Methods: An ecological study was undertaken to evaluate NDs reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) from 1991 through 2004 by date of receipt and by date of vaccine administration. The NDs examined included autism, mental retardation, and speech disorders. Statistical trend analysis was employed to evaluate the effects of removal of Thimerosal on the proportion of NDs reported to VAERS. Results: There was a peak in the proportion of ND reports received by VAERS in 2001-2002 and in the proportion of ND reports by date of vaccine administration in 1998. There were significant reductions in the proportion of NDs reported to VAERS as Thimerosal was begun to be removed from childhood vaccines in the US from mid-1999 onwards. Conclusions: The present study provides the first epidemiological evidence showing that as Thimerosal was removed from childhood vaccines, the number of NDs has decreased in the US. The analysis techniques utilized attempted to minimize chance or bias/confounding. Additional research should be conducted to further evaluate the relationship between TCVs and NDs. This is especially true because the handling of vaccine safety data from the National Immunization Program of the CDC has been called into question by the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences in 2005.
might indicate that the removal of mercury from vaccines has reduced autism by removing the trigger of whatever mechanism it is, as hypothesised by Dr Boyd Haley, i.e. Apo-E 4, and perhaps others.....
|I think that people give more thought to the environment and nutrition than they do to vaccines, paracetamol and antibiotics. After all, Doctors prescribe those, why should they think about them.
So $#&@ happens? Get a life?!
I would say that most parents of vaccine-damaged children don't see it in quite the same way, MT.
I don't think too many people give a thought even to nutrition really.
I'm sorry you took it that way Sherlock. I guess sometimes my pragmatism could be seen as "dont-give-a-damness"
Yes, Shit happens. What do you do when shit happens? Sit there, blame everyone and get a stomach ulcer?
|How can you possibly compare your passing on an inherited immunodeficiency - to parents trusting a routine, globally-accepted, safe medical procedure to protect their child?
the difference? I've passed an inherited immunodeficiency to one of my children. Yes, that child is more at risk to disease than normal children. But I also know that with my history that vaccines are quite dangerous to someone with that immunodeficiency. The medical profession would say that the immunodeficiency means that its more important that my child gets vaccines. I disagree.
An ordinary parent might take their child with an immunodeficiency and get a vaccine, and their child might have a vaccine reaction. So they might say that it was BECAUSE of the vaccine that the child is damaged. They would be correct in one sense, in that, if my son is anything to go by, he is still okay, because I've not run the risk.
BUT if I had my son vaccinated and he then had a reaction that resulted in an autoimmune disease, while the vaccine would have been the trigger, I would have to say that the REASON the vaccine triggered the reaction was because my son's immune system was such that that was a distinct possibility.
So, if you have a child with, say, APO-E4 gene, and get a child vaccinated, then there is a chance of heavy metal toxicity. Most parents don't know that, so they might consider it solely the vaccines fault.
But for me, if I had a child with an APO-E4 genetype and knowing that, if I vaccinated and my child got autism as a result, do I blame the vaccine, or the fact that children with APO-E 4 can't excrete mercury and it was the methylation effect of that gene that resulted in mercury poisoning, therefore autism?
I don't know how many children who have autism have APO-E 4 or any other metabolic pathway disorder. Some of the others here like Jane S, and Bestbirths, and others might be able to discuss that with more competence.
There is no difference to the two examples in my mind.
Should the medical profession know all these things? Technically yes, but you and I both know that they don't want to know and don't give a toss. And accept no responsibility or accountability for it. And most parents trust them.
|There was absolutely nothing you or anyone else could have done to prevent your son's immunodeficiency. You can't possibly take the blame for something you're not responsible for and haven't done.
I'm not taking blame. I'm saying, this is the situation that exists today. I'm not going to allow him to have vaccines, and doctors will have to walk over my dead body to remove his tonsils, because with the immunodeficiency he has, if he loses his tonsils, then he will be in real trouble. For me, its a question of him living his life understanding the odds as I see them.
|Parents of vaccine-injured children thought they were protecting their child. Medical experts, the media, books on children's health, society, family and friends told them so.
True. And therefore, because they chose to trust others to make the right choices for them, they feel that its right for them to blame those doctors and governments for the fact that their children are damaged. Problem is, the doctors and government don't see it that way. So what do they do then, apart from feeling that its all unjust and unfair?
|No doubt, your ds can communicate effectively, can live without your support, has friends, can find a fulfilling job and will be able to marry and have children despite immunodeficiency.
Well, sort of. He has dyslexia, which means its almost impossible for him to pass exams because though he knows the work, there is never enough time for him to write enough down. He has many of the sensitivities that dyslexic children have, and cannot function under time pressure.
|One day you will have the satisfaction of knowing that he won't need you to care for him any more.
Hopefully. That time hasn't come yet.
|He doesn't face a life-time of being misunderstood;
That not true. Dyslexics are constantly misunderstood. He constantly has to watch what he says and how he says it, and often says nothing, because he's not sure if he's "read" the situation the way normal people would.
|of being devalued by an uncaring society;
I don't know about that yet. I see some evidence of that at the moment.
|or of living in a group-home or an institution because of a needle prick that you agreed to because you trusted your doctor's word when he said he needed it and it was safe.
I'm stonkered here. Yes, there is a sense where I could say that if I'd had this son vaccinated he could be vaccine damaged, and I might be in that situation where he had to go into a group-home or an institution.
But I'm not in that situation precisely because I didn't trust my doctor when he said it was MORE important that my son be vaccinated. My instincts just screamed at me that that was a load of baloney. So I didn't do it.
Do you think that its right for parents to "blame" the doctors they chose to trust for the outcome?
Turn the tables. Just say your son had a problem and the doctor wanted you to do something, and you said no, and it turned to custard. Do you then blame the doctor for not forcing you to do what he had suggested, even though the outcome might have been the same?
Where do the boundaries of personal responsibilities to ourselves and our children begin and end?
That too, is an individual choice. Some people consider doctors to be in loco parentis, except the parentis in loco, is never in loco when things go wrong.
About three months ago, someone started a thread here saying that she was going to go ahead and vaccinate becuase that way, if everything we said here could go wrong, did go wrong, it would be the fault of the person who recommended it, which set off an interesting heated discussion. I don't know if the thread still exists. I will try and find it.
|If someone put a new petrol recommended by experts in your new car and wrecked the engine you wouldn't sit down and say, "!@#$ happens". You'd want someone to take responsibility, particularly if your insurance wouldn't cover the damage, the experts lied and told you that it hadn't happened before and no one could repair the engine.
Very true. And I'd take that risk with a metal machine that I know could replaced, but I'd not use the same level of trust of decision making with a body that can't be replaced or re-cycled.
The two scenarios for me, don't even come in the same orbit of "risk-analysis"
|And I guess you'd be exceedingly angry and upset if anyone told you "Sometimes it's just the way it is and you have to get on with it!."
If you are referring to "many" children from the "group" you mentioned above, the same questions apply.
With regard to a car, I'd say that myself.
With regard to children, .... no, I don't think I would be angry or upset.
People said that to me, about our first child's birth, and I realise thatwhile I could moan whinge and snap about it, because it turned to custard because I made that choice to trust people who I shouldn't have trusted. Moaning about it, just turned people off from me.
At the time, when it looked like the birth was impacting very badly on our son, I did moan, and people did say that.
All I could do was realise the truth in it, and get on with it. What else was I supposed to do?
But I made sure that didn't happen again. Instead, I had a home birth, and we home schooled a dyslexic
People have also made comments about our youngest son to me, but I know that what you have said is the truth. Dyslexia is the way he is, and he has to get on with it, and find coping skills. There are also some people who say that dyslexic children can blame their mothers for not having enough essential fatty acids in their diets so that the wiring in their brain isn't laid down properly, so I suppose I could blame myself for that. But I don't. His pregnancy was tricky in that there were so many foods I couldn't eat. I can see how it could have been that I was short of essential fatty acids, but they were the very foods that if I ate, turned around and came back up in short order.
I have to be practical in the way I approach things, and the way I stay sane is not to blame, but to get on with it.
And I also feel that the only way for parents of Autistic children to move forwards is to flick the rear vision mirror to one side, and try to retrieve their children in any way possible. There are many here who are in the process of doing that, or who have done that. In the end, its the future that matters in a world that won't accept blame.
Parents have a choice. They can work themselves into a stomach ulcer with anger at who they see at the guilty culprit, or they can look for ways to make tomorrow as good as it can be. Or I guess they can do both. Whatever they do, it comes down to how an individual wants to live their lives.