Misleading reports about autism data - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
Old 04-08-2012, 09:45 PM - Thread Starter
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,313
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 97 Post(s)

In the last week, the media has been abuzz with the latest report from the CDC about autism rates, which have continued to climb.

 

2012 US autism rate is 1 in 88 children.

 

I've heard on the news and seen various websites trumpet:  "well, that just PROVES it isn't vaccines/thimerosal, because thimerosal was removed from vaccines back in 2001, and looky, the autism rate is still climbing!"

 

Let's go over some facts here.

 

Fact:  Thimerosal was never "removed from vaccines.   In 2001, vaccine companies began making single-dose, preservative-free, pre-filled syringes of previously thimerosal-preserved pediatric vaccines--but they continued to sell and distribute thimerosal-preserved vaccines to US pediatricians until at least 2004.

 

Fact:  Adult vaccines still contain thimerosal.  90% of the flu shots contain thimerosal. All thimerosal-preserved pediatric vaccines are still made in the US, and sold to developing countries (where autism rates are climbing in direct correlation to increased usage of vaccines). 

 

Fact:  Many pediatricians give adult versions of vaccines to older children, because the multi-use (thimerosal-preserved) vials are far less expensive than the single-use, prefilled syringes.

 

Fact: The 2012 US autism rates are based on data from 2008; the children in this data were born in 2000.

 

Fact: Children born in 2000 received more thimerosal by the age of 8 than any previous group of children, because in their first year, they received more thimerosal-preserved vaccines, plus, beginning in 2004, the flu shot was recommended for all children (who would get 2 doses their first year).  As stated before, 90% of flu shots are preserved with thimerosal.

 

Fact: DSM-5, the revised manual of psychiatric diagnosis, is about to be published.  Children diagnosed with autism in 2013 will be diagnosed according to DSM-5, rather than the currently used DSM-4.  DSM-5 is greatly narrowing the diagnosis of autism, which will eliminate a large percentage of those currently diagnosed with autism.  The result will be an artificial drop in the rate of autism, which will exactly coincide with the cohort of children who were vaccinated with significantly fewer thimerosal-preserved vaccines.

 

Any questions?

Taximom5 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 04-09-2012, 05:39 AM
 
emmy526's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,666
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)

 

http://www.safeminds.org/research/docs/SM%20Science%20Summary%202010-11.pdf

very long  article....lots to read

 

Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated Children and Autism: Why no Studies?

 
emmy526 is online now  
Old 04-13-2012, 07:26 AM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,828
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 144 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post

 

 

Any questions?


 

 Personally I'd like independent references for all your "Facts". :) 


Mother of two living in UK. Daughter (2007) born in USA, son (2010) born here. I'm pro natural birth, midwife care, breastfeeding, co-sleeping, baby wearing and a keen advocate of cloth diapering. I'm a full time working research scientist (physical sciences) and I'm pro-vaccine.

prosciencemum is offline  
Old 04-13-2012, 07:44 AM - Thread Starter
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,313
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 97 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post


 

 Personally I'd like independent references for all your "Facts". :) 



If you disagree with anything I have posted, and would like to discuss things like a grownup, please feel free to explain your views, and, of course, to post independent references. 

 

If you are posting on this thread for trolling purposes, then you are clearly violating forum policy here, and should be reported.

Taximom5 is offline  
Old 04-13-2012, 08:00 AM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,828
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 144 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post

 

If you are posting on this thread for trolling purposes, then you are clearly violating forum policy here, and should be reported.


It's not very nice of you to accuse me of that for just suggesting that it's more responsible to include references to claims of fact in these discussions. You asked if there were any questions.

 

 I'm researching if I want to get my son the varicella vaccine (in the UK where it is not normally offered). That's the point of this board as I understand it. Just curious - which vaccine decision are you researching? 

 


Mother of two living in UK. Daughter (2007) born in USA, son (2010) born here. I'm pro natural birth, midwife care, breastfeeding, co-sleeping, baby wearing and a keen advocate of cloth diapering. I'm a full time working research scientist (physical sciences) and I'm pro-vaccine.

prosciencemum is offline  
Old 04-14-2012, 10:07 AM
 
QueenOfTheMeadow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: with the wildlife
Posts: 17,836
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)

taximom and prosciencemom, please keep to the subject at hand.  If you wish to debate the topic, fine, but stop debating each other on a personal level.


 
QueenOfTheMeadow is offline  
Old 04-14-2012, 08:48 PM
Banned
 
stik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,860
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Those are some pretty interesting facts.  I would also like to know where they came from.  I haven't seen anything that corroborates that data, so I think the source, whatever it is, might be exagerrated or false.  I think a list of sources would be useful to the discussion.

stik is offline  
Old 04-15-2012, 02:22 AM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,828
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 144 Post(s)

QueenoftheMeadow (great username). Sorry I shouldn't have responded when provoked. 

 

Back to the main topic, and actually I agree it could be seen as misleading to cite these new autism numbers as "proving" and increase in autism is continuing despite the removal of thimerosol in vaccines. The dates do seem a bit tight, and unless I'm missing something I do think reporting the results in this way is doing a disservice to our intelligence. However, my facts (with references) do differ somewhat from the ones previously posted: 

 

 

Since 2001 no new vaccine licensed by FDA for use in children has contained thimerosol, and all vaccines routinely recommended by CDC for children younger than 6 years of age have been thimerosal–free, or contain only trace amounts of thimerosal, except for multi–dose formulations of influenza vaccine. (http://www.cdc.gov/flu/protect/vaccine/thimerosal.htm). The original suggestions to start removing/reducing thimerosol seems to have come in 1999 (http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/SafetyAvailability/VaccineSafety/UCM096228#act)

 

In 2011-2012, out of 13 flu vaccination formulations, 4 contain thimerosol (which is 30% of them; and is only those sold in multi-dose vials where risk of infection is high and therefore the antibacterial properties of thimerosol are needed). http://www.cdc.gov/flu/protect/vaccine/vaccines.htm

I have yet to find information on the usage rates of the different vaccination formulations, but I cannot find any suggestion that 90% contain thimerosol. What I did find was a press release from "Put Children First" from 2006 which claimed the 90% figure, but gave no data, and NVIC also claim 80-90% on their "Mercury in Vaccines" page, but again no data. 

 

Recent media news about autism rates were based on data collected on 8 year olds in 2008 - and therefore they were indeed born in 2000, receiving most childhood vaccines presumably in 2000 or 2001 just around the time thimerosal was being removed from all childhood vaccines. http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/data.html

Interestingly the rates in boys and girls were drastically different (as they have been in all previous reports). Autism rates are 5 times higher in boys than girls, while vaccination rates I assume are similar (for that I have found no data I admit!). 

 

If the autism study dates follow the pattern in the table here http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/data.html the next report will be published in 2014 based on data collected in 2010, before any change to the ASD diagnosis information, and based on children born in 2002, after thimerosol was removed from all childhood vaccines. It will be interesting to see the outcome of that. A study based on new guidelines if they are implemented this year would not be published until 2016 (if it continues to be 4 years between data collection and study publication. 

 

Independent studies show no link between thimerosol containing vaccines and autism, for example: 

" In our study of MCO (managed care organization) members, prenatal and early-life exposure to ethylmercury from thimerosal-containing vaccines and immunoglobulin preparations was not related to increased risk of ASDs (autism spectrum disorders)."

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2010/09/13/peds.2010-0309

 

I also should reference the wikipedia page on Thimerosol: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiomersal. If you think they have their facts wrong you can try to edit it following their rules for properly referencing the source of your facts. 


Mother of two living in UK. Daughter (2007) born in USA, son (2010) born here. I'm pro natural birth, midwife care, breastfeeding, co-sleeping, baby wearing and a keen advocate of cloth diapering. I'm a full time working research scientist (physical sciences) and I'm pro-vaccine.

prosciencemum is offline  
Old 04-15-2012, 08:18 PM - Thread Starter
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,313
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 97 Post(s)


Quote:

Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post
 

 

"Back to the main topic, and actually I agree it could be seen as misleading to cite these new autism numbers as "proving" and increase in autism is continuing despite the removal of thimerosol in vaccines. The dates do seem a bit tight, and unless I'm missing something I do think reporting the results in this way is doing a disservice to our intelligence. However, my facts (with references) do differ somewhat from the ones previously posted:" 

 

 

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/program/ID/229731

Dr. Paul Anastas
Assistant Administrator of the EPA office of research and development and science advisor to the EPA.

Time Stamp 13:01
"Autism epidemic is real and not due to better diagnosis.”

 

"Since 2001 no new vaccine licensed by FDA for use in children has contained thimerosol, and all vaccines routinely recommended by CDC for children younger than 6 years of age have been thimerosal–free, or contain only trace amounts of thimerosal, except for multi–dose formulations of influenza vaccine. (http://www.cdc.gov/flu/protect/vaccine/thimerosal.htm). The original suggestions to start removing/reducing thimerosol seems to have come in 1999 (http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/SafetyAvailability/VaccineSafety/UCM096228#act)"

 

You seem to be confused  "Since 2001 no new vaccine licensed by FDA for use in children has contained thimerosal" does NOT mean "Since 2001, no previously manufactured thimerosal-containing pediatric vaccine has been used."  

 

As I explained in the original post, thimerosal-preserved, pediatric vaccines from multi-use vials  continued to be sold and distributed to US pediatricians AFTER 2001, who used them as long as their expiration date permitted, as late as 2004.  In addition, thimerosal-preserved flu shots are ROUTINELY used in infants as young as 6 months, unless the parents request thimerosal-free in advance, and pay the difference. The flu shots began to be recommended to pregnant women and children in 2002.

 

So we have a real epidemic of autism, as stated by the EPA, above, and also stated by UC Davis MIND Institute, referenced several times on MDC, and it so far continues to correlate with the USE of thimerosal-preserved vaccines (as opposed to PRODUCTION of thimerosal-preserved vaccines, as you were thinking).

 

"In 2011-2012, out of 13 flu vaccination formulations, 4 contain thimerosol (which is 30% of them; and is only those sold in multi-dose vials where risk of infection is high and therefore the antibacterial properties of thimerosol are needed). http://www.cdc.gov/flu/protect/vaccine/vaccines.htm

I have yet to find information on the usage rates of the different vaccination formulations, but I cannot find any suggestion that 90% contain thimerosol. What I did find was a press release from "Put Children First" from 2006 which claimed the 90% figure, but gave no data, and NVIC also claim 80-90% on their "Mercury in Vaccines" page, but again no data."

 

You seem to have difficulty in discerning the difference between "vaccination" and "shot."  A shot refers to vaccination delivered via needle, as opposed to an inhaled mist.  Both are vaccinations.   Please reread my original post and notice that I wrote "90% of vaccine SHOTS are preserved with thimerosal."  This is significant, because the FluMist vaccine, which never contained thimerosal, is contraindicated in children under the age of 3 and in pregnant women, many of whom receive flu shots at their local grocery/pharmacy/Kmart/Walmart/Target--and as of fall 2011, most chains did not use thimerosal-free shots.

 

"Recent media news about autism rates were based on data collected on 8 year olds in 2008 - and therefore they were indeed born in 2000, receiving most childhood vaccines presumably in 2000 or 2001 just around the time thimerosal was being removed from all childhood vaccines. http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/data.html

Interestingly the rates in boys and girls were drastically different (as they have been in all previous reports). Autism rates are 5 times higher in boys than girls, while vaccination rates I assume are similar (for that I have found no data I admit!)." 

 

Quite right.  So in places like New Jersey (home to half of the world's pharmaceutical manufacturers), where the autism rate is 1 in 49, the rate for boys is 1 in 23.  Mercury toxicity affects approximately 4 times as many boys as girls, given the same exposures: http://homeoint.ru/pdfs/haley.pdf

http://thinksteroids.com/forum/mens-health-forum/testosterone-mercury-synergistic-toxicity-134249716.html

 

 

"If the autism study dates follow the pattern in the table here http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/data.html the next report will be published in 2014 based on data collected in 2010, before any change to the ASD diagnosis information, and based on children born in 2002, after thimerosol was removed from all childhood vaccines. It will be interesting to see the outcome of that. A study based on new guidelines if they are implemented this year would not be published until 2016 (if it continues to be 4 years between data collection and study publication". 

 

If the autism study dates follow the pattern, then the rate in 2014 will be about 1/66, with the rate of autism in boys in New Jersey being something like 1/15.

 

"Independent studies show no link between thimerosol containing vaccines and autism, for example: 

" In our study of MCO (managed care organization) members, prenatal and early-life exposure to ethylmercury from thimerosal-containing vaccines and immunoglobulin preparations was not related to increased risk of ASDs (autism spectrum disorders)."

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2010/09/13/peds.2010-0309."

 

You are incorrect in stating it the way you do, which implies that there are not independent studies showing a link between vaccines and autism.  In fact, there are several.  They have been posted on this forum several times.  Do you disagree with those studies? 

 

http://www.annalsofepidemiology.org/article/S1047-2797(09)00207-5/fulltext

 

"Boys who received the hepatitis B vaccine during the first month of life had 2.94 greater odds for ASD compared to later- or unvaccinated boys."

The conclusion states that: "Findings suggest that U.S. male neonates vaccinated with hepatitis B vaccine had a 3-fold greater risk of ASD; risk was greatest for non-white boys." The authors used U.S. probability samples obtained from National Health Interview Survey 1997-2002 datasets--during which time, the hep B shot given to infants was ONLY available in a thimerosal-preserved version.

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16264412

" Repetitive doses of thimerosal leads to neurobehavioral deteriorations in autoimmune susceptible mice, increased oxidative stress and decreased intracellular levels of glutathione in vitro. Subsequently, autistic children have significantly decreased level of reduced glutathione. Promising treatments of autism involve detoxification of mercury, and supplementation of deficient metabolites."

 

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/07/01/autism_mercury_and_politics/

"In 2000, the CDC met with pharmaceutical companies and the FDA in secret to review its findings linking Thimerosal with the dramatic rise in neurological illnesses. According to transcripts, participants were alarmed about the undeniable links between the Thimerosal and widespread brain damage in children. Dr. Bill Weil told the group, ''You can play with [the results] all you want. They are statistically significant." Dr. Richard Johnston admitted he feared his grandchild getting a Thimerosal-containing vaccine. But the group was most concerned with keeping the findings secret. ''Consider this embargoed information," said Dr. Roger Bernier, a senior director at the National Immunization Program, at the meeting's close. The CDC now says it has ''lost" the data that supported the crucial study and has persistently defied congressional requests and federal law requiring it to open up the federal Vaccine Safety Database to scientists and the public."

 

http://nbjour.wordpress.com/2012/02/27/ten-lies-told-by-those-who-say-mercury-in-vaccines-is-safe-refuted-by-a-mother-who-knows-better/

 

You are also incorrect as charactarizing the study you linked as "independent."  Perhaps you forgot to look at the author affiliations?

  1. Abt Associates Inc, Cambridge, Massachusetts;
  2. bNational Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion,
  3. cImmunization Safety Office, and
  4. hInfluenza Division, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia;
  5. dDivision of Research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland, California;
  6. gDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Kaiser Permanente ASD Center San Jose Northern California Region, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California;
  7. eDepartment of Population Medicine, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts;
  8. fSouthern California Kaiser Permanente, and Center for Vaccine Research, University of California, Los Angeles, California; and
  9. iCenter for Health Research Southeast, Kaiser Permanente, Atlanta, Georgia
 

 

 

"I also should reference the wikipedia page on Thimerosol: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiomersal. If you think they have their facts wrong you can try to edit it following their rules for properly referencing the source of your facts."

 

If you trust Wikipedia's page on thimerosal over the studies I have referenced above, do feel free to give your children thimerosal-preserved flu shots as well as other thimerosal-preserved vaccines, which many pediatricians give to older children, such as the DT instead of TDaP as a tetanus booster.  Or perhaps you have already done so?


 

 

Taximom5 is offline  
Old 04-16-2012, 05:11 PM
 
purslaine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,771
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

lurk.gif

 

Taximom….you are brave!

 

I am not convinced vaccines play a role in autism - but I am not convinced they don't either.  

 

I am convinced that autism rates have risen.  100% convinced.  I have seen more autism in recent years. My mother has as well.   Teachers I work with (I am a public librarian) report more autism.  I know borderline cases of autism are diagnosed more now than in the past, which does account for some of the rise in numbers - but just some of it.  

 

We know autism has a strong genetic component.  Given the escalating numbers of autistic children we know environment must play some part in autism or the numbers would be stable. 

 

My own belief is there are probably multiple causes of autism (in addition to the necessary genetic tendency).  Vaccines (which may or may not) contribute to autism in susceptible individuals are one of the few environmental issues I can control.  

 

Even if the chances of vaccines contributing to autism are tiny I am not risking it.  My 2 nephews have autism - one has no language, one has very little.  Both are still in diapers and are 9 and 12.  One is aggressive and one is a flight risk.  Autism does not always look like this - but sometimes it does.  

 

IMHO, if you are thinking about selective and delayed I would delay until after 4 or so when the risk of developing autism is past.  Why risk it?  The only disease I think one might have grounds for in an infant is pertussis. Pertussis is common and not safe for infants - I can see why people choose to vaccinate for it.    Everything else your child has a very low risk of catching (check the stats).  Please wait.

 

 

 

kathy

 

 

 

edited for spelling

 

 

purslaine is offline  
Old 04-17-2012, 09:24 AM
 
AbbyGrant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 738
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

2000 (birth year 1992) 6.7 per 1000 = 1 in 150 children

2002 (birth year 1994) 6.6 per 1000 = 1 in 150 children

2004 (birth year 1996) 8 per 1000 = 1 in 125 children

2006 (birth year 1998) 9 per 1000 = 1 in 110 children

2008 (birth year 2000) 11.3 per 1000 = 1 in 88 children


http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/data.html

 

It would stand to reason that the children born in 2000 would have been exposed to less thimerosal than those born in the years before, yet the rate of autism is higher. I don't think it's really misleading to point to these rates as an indication that thimerosal is not a likely candidate for causing the increase although it's not exactly solid evidence. 

 

My son was born in 2008 and has never had a flu vaccine (nor did I receive any vaccines during pregnancy or while breastfeeding), so I feel confident thimerosal did not cause his autism. He has been vaccinated on a delayed schedule and on a selective basis, but given when signs of autism appeared, I have no reason to suspect vaccines. 

 

From all the research I've done since finding out my own child has autism, I think autism is primarily genetic with possible environmental triggers. I've yet to see any convincing evidence that vaccines are one of those triggers. There are studies indicating everything from not taking prenatal vitamins at the time of conception, to the time of year a child was conceived (thus indicating a possible seasonal trigger at some critical point in development...infection during the winter? pesticides during the summer?), to the age of the mother and the father (older mothers are a risk factor as are older fathers (40+) coupled with younger mothers (<30)).  Thankfully there is a lot of interest in the subject and research is ongoing, but I think it will be awhile before we have the full picture.

 

I think the rise in reported cases is mostly due to the broadened diagnostic criteria and an increase in awareness and available services particularly due to The IDEA in the US. However, I also think there are social and environmental causes as well some of which tie back into the environmental triggers and genetics causes. I've heard some interesting theories concerning changing lifestyles and social expectations and changing..er...mating habits for lack of a better word (couples having children later, The Geek Syndrome).

 

Personally, I don't have a problem with the criteria being reigned back in next year and think it has absolutely nothing to do with trying to cover up a connection with vaccines. I can understand why some in the autism community think it might be related to the expense of providing services though. That at least makes sense although I don't believe it. 

 

Anyway, in short, I think there are some legitimate reasons to not vaccinate or to delay or be selective, but avoiding autism isn't one of them IMHO.

 

 

edited to be more opinionated ; )

AbbyGrant is offline  
Old 04-17-2012, 10:44 AM - Thread Starter
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,313
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 97 Post(s)


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by AbbyGrant View Post

2000 (birth year 1992) 6.7 per 1000 = 1 in 150 children

2002 (birth year 1994) 6.6 per 1000 = 1 in 150 children

2004 (birth year 1996) 8 per 1000 = 1 in 125 children

2006 (birth year 1998) 9 per 1000 = 1 in 110 children

2008 (birth year 2000) 11.3 per 1000 = 1 in 88 children


http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/data.html

 

I am wondering why you include the statistics from 2000 (birth year 1992), as the approach to collecting the data significantly changed between 2000 and 2002:

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2007-02-08-autism_x.htm:

 

The 2000 study, which examined children who were born in 1992, involved sites in six states and 1,252 children with ASDs. The prevalence averaged 6.7 children out of every 1,000.

The 2002 study, which focused on children who were born in 1994, involved 2,685 with ASDs at sites in 14 states and found that autism prevalence ranged from a low of 3.3 in 1,000 children in Alabama to 10.6 in 1,000 in New Jersey. The overall average was 6.6 in 1,000 children, or about 1 in 150.

 

It's also worth noticing that New Jersey's rate was 10.6 in 1000 in 2002, and that New Jersey is home to over half of the worlds' pharmaceutical companies, and has  the most stringent vaccine mandates for children.

 

It would stand to reason that the children born in 2000 would have been exposed to less thimerosal than those born in the years before, yet the rate of autism is higher. I don't think it's really misleading to point to these rates as an indication that thimerosal is not a likely candidate for causing the increase although it's not exactly solid evidence. 

 

No, it would not stand to reason.  Children born in 2000 were exposed to as much or more thimerosal than those born in the years before.

 

1) The transition to provider use of thimerosal-free infant formulations for Hepatitis B, DTaP, and Haemophilus influenzae type B vaccines was not complete until late 2001/early 2002. Manufacturers had completed the transition by mid 2001, but thimerosal formulations continued to move through the supply chain until administered to infants, as the FDA never issued a recall. Vaccine shelf life can be over 2 1⁄2 years. (See http://safeminds.org/mercury/mercury_releases/Thimerosal_content_of_US_vaccines.pdf)  

 

2) In addition, children born in 2000 began receiving thimerosal-preserved flu shots beginning in 2002.  Flu shots had not been routinely recommended to children in previous years.

 

3)  According to Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (http://www.chop.edu/service/vaccine-education-center/vaccine-schedule/history-of-vaccine-schedule.html),

 

Important changes to the schedule since 1995 included: 

 

Additional recommendations for existing vaccines that were extended to chidlren:   influenza (2002); hepatitis A 2006)

 
New versions of existing vaccines:  acellular pertussis vaccine (DTP - 1997); intranasal influenza (2004)
 
Discontinuation of vaccine:  Oral polio vaccine (2000); rotavirus (2000)
 
So, children born in 2000 were receiving Rotashield (which children born before 1998 did not receive), and also began receiving hep A, pneumococcal vaccine and inactivated polio, all of which were preserved with thimerosal during that time.  In addition, the DTaP, while licensed in 1997, did not make its way to many pediatricians until 2001-- which is when our pediatrician first offered it as a BRAND NEW vaccine.  Apparently, many pediatricians held off on newly-licensed vaccines until they could read post-marketing surveillance of reactions/efficacy.

 


My son was born in 2008 and has never had a flu vaccine (nor did I receive any vaccines during pregnancy or while breastfeeding), so I feel confident thimerosal did not cause his autism. He has been vaccinated on a delayed schedule and on a selective basis, but given when signs of autism appeared, I have no reason to suspect vaccines, at least not in his case. 

 

Nobody is claiming that vaccines cause/ trigger all or even most cases of autism; nobody has even suggested that it is a factor in your son's case. Perhaps in your son's case, you are an older, overweight mother; perhaps you ate large amounts of tuna while you were pregnant; perhaps you live near the freeway.  Perhaps you received a flu shot while pregnant, or had amalgam dental filligs placed while you were pregnant.  

 

It's absolutely fine and dandy that you feel you have eliminated vaccines as being linked to your son's autism.  You have no right to do so for anyone else's child.  That would be like claiming that since your son had no allergic reaction to peanuts, peanut-induced allergic responses do not exist.

 

From all the research I've done since finding out my own child has autism, I think autism is primarily genetic with possible environmental triggers. I've yet to see any convincing evidence that vaccines are one of those triggers, at least in the absence of other underlying conditions. There are studies indicating everything from not taking prenatal vitamins at the time of conception, to the time of year a child was conceived (thus indicating a possible seasonal trigger at some critical point in development...infection during the winter?, pesticides during the summer?, etc), to the age of the mother and the father (older mothers are a risk factor as are older fathers (40+) coupled with younger mothers (<30)).  Thankfully there is a lot of interest in the subject and research is ongoing, but I think it will be awhile before we have the full picture.

 

Then please explain why autism has skyrocketed from 1/10,000 to 1/88 (or more) in just a few decades.  It's already been concluded that impoved diagnostic criteria only explains a small increase, not the huge one we've seen.  We have never before seen a "primarily genetic" epidemic. Please explain how this could be.  Also please explain why so many people who have NEVER had autism in their families, who had never even HEARD of autism, have severely autistic children.

 

Certainly, there could be a genetic predisposition to things like vaccine reaction, to autoimmune disorders (which are known to be caused by vaccination), to food allergies (also known to be caused by vaccination), and to seizure disorders (also knwon to be caused by vaccination).

 

One must wonder why these genetic predispositions are not studied in relation to autism, especially since those with such genetic histories are barred from taking part in vaccine safety trials.

 

I think the rise in reported cases is mostly due to the broadened diagnostic criteria and an increase in awareness and available services.  However, I also think there are social and environmental causes as well some of which tie back into the environmental triggers and genetics.  I've heard some interesting theories concerning changing social expectations and changing..er...mating habits for lack of a better word (couples having children later, The Geek Syndrome).

 

The broadened diagnostic criteria has not changed in 12 years, but the rate of autism diagnosis has continued to skyrocket.  In addition, as posted several times on this forum, UC Davis MIND Institute has published a study that clearly show that "better diagnosis" does not explain the skyrocketing rate: http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/welcome/features/20090218_autism_environment/index.html, and they state in their paper,  "Vaccines, Thimerosal and Other Potential Environmental Causes of Autism,"  “Does this mean that we can say without a doubt that vaccines do not cause autism in some children? The answer to this question is “no”. There is emerging evidence that some children are immunologically compromised and therefore may respond in an atypical way to vaccinations.”

 

Personally, I don't have a problem with the criteria being reigned back in next year and think it has absolutely nothing to do with trying to cover up a connection with vaccines. I can understand why those in the autism community think it might be related to the expense of providing services though.  That at least makes sense although I don't believe it. 

 

Would you have a problem with criteria being reigned in if your child lost much-needed services, and was significantly impacted as a result?

 

Anyway, in short, I think there are some legitimate reasons to not vaccinate or to delay or be selective, but avoiding autism isn't one of them IMHO.

 

Tell that to the family of Hannah Poling, Bailey Banks, and the thousands of parents of children who suffered vaccine-induced seizures and resulting brain injuries that included autism.  There are 2000-odd cases that were admitted and compensated in "Vaccine Court."  Tell them that their childrens' reactions should in no way make any other parent think twice about delaying vaccines, or turning down the ones proven to be unnecessary/unsafe (like the flu shot, hepatitis B for most newborns, and Gardasil).



 

Taximom5 is offline  
Old 04-17-2012, 10:57 AM - Thread Starter
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,313
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 97 Post(s)


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

lurk.gif

 

Taximom….you are brave!

 

 

 



That's very kind of you, but really, I'm not.  I'm just tired of people denying the truth.  I don't care if they are denying it out of ignorance, out of fear--fear of disease, of not being able to rely on modern medicine after all, of their own culpability in their own childrens' health issues, out of "herd mentality," or out of sheer evil (like Holocaust deniers).  

 

I'm tired of the media publishing lies and half-truths.  I'm tired of finding 1) that there ARE studies that DO show serious problems with vaccines and 2) that those studies have been systematically buried.

 

Informed consent is not "informed" if relevant information is withheld, and people are subjected to an intensive propaganda campaign.

 

It's time to set the record straight.

 

 

Taximom5 is offline  
Old 04-17-2012, 11:41 AM
 
purslaine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,771
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

This is an interesting read:

 

http://www.smartvax.com/images/PDF/gr-autism_and_vaccines_world_special_report1.pdf

 

The USA has the highest number of vaccines in the world - and the highest autism rate (I believe).

 

That does not prove vaccines (or huge amounts of vaccines) cause autism….but it is suspicious.

 

What other ways does the USA differ from, say Denmark, which might contribute to autism?  I am very curious about what could be causing this epidemic.  

 

an interesting graph on the historic rates of autism :

 

http://autismspeaksblog.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/prevalence-graph1.jpg

 

If you read the fine print under the graph it says that 25% of growth may be due to broader diagnosis.  

 

 

 

purslaine is offline  
Old 04-17-2012, 12:12 PM
 
Slmommy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 875
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I believe I have read autism in UK is 1/60-something? Not sure about diagnostic differences.

Slmommy is offline  
Old 04-17-2012, 12:38 PM
 
purslaine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,771
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

yeah - Canada's rate is fairly high as well. The amount of vaccines we use is also fairly high.

 

It makes me wonder if there is a thresh-hold the body can tolerate wrt to vaccines - that countries that keep below this threshold have less autism? (total speculation here).

 

purslaine is offline  
Old 04-17-2012, 01:36 PM
 
Bokonon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Diego
Posts: 2,948
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


 

Edited to delete personal info.

 

The biggest crime here is that it is acknowledged that the autism rate has skyrocketed and no one is doing anything to determine why.  No one is testing vaccinated vs. unvaccinated, spectrum vs. neurotypical, diet, environmental toxins in the home and school, etc.  This is a health crisis.


A, jammin.gif mama to a boy (2005) and a girl (2009)
Bokonon is offline  
Old 04-17-2012, 03:17 PM
 
AbbyGrant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 738
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

(I apologize for the weird formatting issues.  It looks fine when I preview, so I can't fix it.)

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taximom5

I am wondering why you include the statistics from 2000 (birth year 1992), as the approach to collecting the data significantly changed between 2000 and 2002:

 

Because those are the CDC numbers for that year. shrug.gif If you follow the link I provided to the CDC, you will see that I was showing the data from their table. Anyway, removing the 2000 data does not change the fact that rates continued to rise over the 90s and into 2000 when thimerosal was being removed from vaccines. 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5

It's also worth noticing that New Jersey's rate was 10.6 in 1000 in 2002, and that New Jersey is home to over half of the worlds' pharmaceutical companies, and has  the most stringent vaccine mandates for children.

 

This seems neither here nor there unless you're saying just being near pharmaceutical companies increases one's chances of having autism.  Anyway, New Jersey is one of the best states to live in if you have a child with autism because they have outstanding services. I have relatives there and have been tempted to move there. And I'm not sure what you mean about them being the "most stringent."  I would think that award would go to West Virgina and Mississippi since they only have medical exemptions. 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5

No, it would not stand to reason.  Children born in 2000 were exposed to as much or more thimerosal than those born in the years before.

 

Thimerosal was being phased out as early as 1999 (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4927a5.htm). And I may have just missed it, but I see nothing in your link stating that "children born in 2000 were exposed to as much or more thimerosal than those born in the years before."

 

       Quote:

Originally Posted by Taximom5

So children born in 2000 were receiving Rotateq (which children born before 1998 did not receive), and also began receiving hep A, pneumococcal vaccine, and inactivated polio, all of which were preserved with thimerosal during that time. 

 

I think you must have meant RotaSheild which was taken off the market anyway in 1999, so kids born in 2000 wouldn't have received it. RotaTeq was not approved until 2006 and does not contain thimerosal.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5

Nobody is claiming that vaccines cause/ trigger all or even most cases of autism

 

Perhaps not here today, but yes, some people are claiming vaccines are responsible for the increase in cases of autism.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taximom5
 

nobody has even suggested that it is a factor in your son's case.

 

And I haven't suggested they did.  shrug.gif  I was just giving a little personal information as to why I'm here and why I care about this issue and how I got started researching it. Also thought I throw it out there in case anyone tried to imply my son's autism was caused by vaccines. 

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taximom5
 

Perhaps in your son's case, you are an older, overweight mother; perhaps you ate large amounts of tuna while you were pregnant; perhaps you live near the freeway.  Perhaps you received a flu shot while pregnant, or had amalgam dental filligs placed while you were pregnant. 

 

You seem to be digging deep here to try to insult me and blame me for my child's autism. Anyway, I said right in that bit you quoted that I did not receive any vaccines while pregnant or while breastfeeding. I'm not even going to address the rest.  Perhaps there was some trigger I could have controlled for.  Or maybe my son was just born that way.  Maybe it was my genes or his fathers or the combination and/or maybe there was some trigger beyond our control.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5

It's absolutely fine and dandy that you feel you have eliminated vaccines as being linked to your son's autism.  You have no right to do so for anyone else's child.  That would be like claiming that since your son had no allergic reaction to peanuts, peanut-induced allergic responses do not exist.

 

No it would not. See, I never said that because my son's autism was not caused by vaccines then vaccines don't cause autism. I said because my son has autism, I researched the issue which led me to the conclusion that they don't. You have your opinion. I have mine. And I do have the right to state mine even on this board. 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5

Then please explain why autism has skyrocketed from 1/10,000 to 1/88 (or more) in just a few decades.  It's already been concluded that impoved diagnostic criteria only explains a small increase, not the huge one we've seen.  We have never before seen a "primarily genetic" epidemic. Please explain how this could be.  Also please explain why so many people who have NEVER had autism in their families, who had never even HEARD of autism, have severely autistic children.

 

Certainly, there could be a genetic predisposition to things like vaccine reaction, to autoimmune disorders (which are known to be caused by vaccination), to food allergies (also known to be caused by vaccination), and to seizure disorders (also knwon to be caused by vaccination).

 

One must wonder why these genetic predispositions are not studied in relation to autism, especially since those with such genetic histories are barred from taking part in vaccine safety trials.

 

I know you said no one is saying most autism cases are caused by vaccines, but that sure sounds like what you're saying.  And you have stated a lot of things here as fact that are simply not facts. It has not "been concluded that improved diagnostic criteria only explains a small increase."  That was one source. That is not a consensus. And genetic predispositions are not being studied?  That is just flat out false. Just by reading things like the NYT and listening to NPR I've heard about quite a bit of research related to genetics. And I mentioned several other things besides genetics that you seem to have ignored, so I am not going to explain to you any further why I think autism rates have "skyrocketed." The information is quite easy to find based on what I've already said if anyone truly cares to research further. 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taximom5

Would you have a problem with criteria being reigned in if your child lost much-needed services, and was significantly impacted as a result?

 

There was a discussion about this change on the Special Needs Parenting board already where I shared my views, but in short, I don't think the change is going to mean children losing much needed services.  Services for early intervention and school are not simply based on a diagnosis but rather on how a child is functioning. A diagnosis does not guarantee services and lack of one does not preclude them.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5

Tell that to the family of Hannah Poling, Bailey Banks, and the thousands of parents of children who suffered vaccine-induced seizures and resulting brain injuries that included autism.  There are 2000-odd cases that were admitted and compensated in "Vaccine Court."  Tell them that their childrens' reactions should in no way make any other parent think twice about delaying vaccines, or turning down the ones proven to be unnecessary/unsafe (like the flu shot, hepatitis B for most newborns, and Gardasil).

 

IIRC, it was Hannah Poling that had a known mitochondrial disorder. And a possible vaccine injury that includes possible brain damage resulting in some autistic like symptoms and seizures due to an existing medical condition is an entirely different topic. Maybe mitochondrial disorders are a reason to not vaccinate. I have no idea. Like I said earlier, I think there are valid reasons for not vaccinating or delaying or being selective. I just don't think autism is one of them. I think it muddies the waters and makes people seem irrational because the evidence doesn't support it.

 

 

(I apologize for the weird formatting issues.  It looks fine when I preview, so I can't fix it.)

 

 

edited to be less wishy washy ; )

AbbyGrant is offline  
Old 04-17-2012, 03:24 PM
 
Bokonon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Diego
Posts: 2,948
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by AbbyGrant View Post

 

 

 

 

IIRC, it was Hannah Poling that had a known mitochondral disorder. And vaccine injury due to underlying medical conditions that included brain damage resulting in autism like symptioms is an entitely different topic.  I think midochondiral disorders might be good reason to not vaccinate.  Like I said earlier, I think there are valid reasons for not vaccinating or delaying or being selective. I just don't think autims is one of them.  I think it muddies the waters and makes people seem irrational because the evidence doesn't support it.  


Wouldn't a child with autism-like symptoms have to be tested for mitochondrial disorders to rule those out though, and aren't most children with those symptoms diagnosed with autism?

 

There are many vaccine injuries and brain damage that have identical symptoms to "autism-like" symptoms.  

 


A, jammin.gif mama to a boy (2005) and a girl (2009)
Bokonon is offline  
Old 04-17-2012, 03:32 PM
 
AbbyGrant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 738
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

 

Quote:

The USA has the highest number of vaccines in the world - and the highest autism rate (I believe).

 

 

South Korea had the highest autism rate last I heard. 

 

http://www.autismsupportnetwork.com/news/new-study-finds-autism-rates-south-korea-now-1-38-children-38994322

 

IIRC, Japan was pretty high too, but I'll come back to post a source.  Have to feed the kids. 

AbbyGrant is offline  
Old 04-17-2012, 03:38 PM
 
purslaine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,771
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)



 

Quote:
Originally Posted by AbbyGrant View Post

 

 

South Korea had the highest autism rate last I heard. 

 

http://www.autismsupportnetwork.com/news/new-study-finds-autism-rates-south-korea-now-1-38-children-38994322

 

IIRC, Japan was pretty high too, but I'll come back to post a source.  Have to feed the kids. 



Wow.  Thanks for the info.

 

 

I took a quick peek at Korea's schedulele - they also vaccinate very early and heavily. 

 

 http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/704919_13

 

I will dig up Japans in a few hours (I am at work right now - naughty me!).  It  will be interesting to see their vaccination rate and autism rate.

 

I wonder if there are any countries with low mandatory vaccines and high autism rates? 

 

 

 

purslaine is offline  
Old 04-17-2012, 04:48 PM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Resistance Free Earth
Posts: 7,609
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 134 Post(s)

An article about research into the "genetic" cause of Autism: Autism Is A Research Growth Area: No Profit In Finding the Cause.


t
 
"There are only two mistakes you can make in the search for the Truth. Not starting, and not going all the way." ~ Mark Passio
Mirzam is online now  
Old 04-17-2012, 05:07 PM
 
emmy526's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,666
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)

Are there any studies at all on aluminum in vaccines given to infants, and the effects of that on the developing brain?  i know there are some adult studies out there that correlate aluminum cookware and other aluminum exposure thru out a lifetime that claims to be a component for Alzheimers/dementia related brain disease.  Could the accumulation of aluminum received in vaccines, play any part at all in the autism debacle?  or could the random DNA that the mother got in her vaccines in her lifetime somehow mutate the gene code in the child after conception?  

emmy526 is online now  
Old 04-17-2012, 06:55 PM
 
purslaine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,771
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=autism-rise-driven-by-environment

 

Another article for those of us interested in looking at possible environmental causes of autism.

purslaine is offline  
Old 04-17-2012, 07:13 PM
 
AbbyGrant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 738
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

     Quote:

Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=autism-rise-driven-by-environment

 

Another article for those of us interested in looking at possible environmental causes of autism.


That's about the study from UC Davis that Taximom5 referenced in her earlier post. It does not suggest vaccines but other possible environmental factors. I think there's some merit to the idea of environmental triggers.

AbbyGrant is offline  
Old 04-17-2012, 07:34 PM
 
purslaine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,771
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by AbbyGrant View Post

     Quote:


That's about the study from UC Davis that Taximom5 referenced in her earlier post. It does not suggest vaccines but other possible environmental factors. I think there's some merit to the idea of environmental triggers.


I know it is not about vaccines but other things that might be environmental triggers.

 

That's Ok - any exploration of possible environmental triggers is a good thing, IMHO.  

 

I found it interesting that according to the article much of the research money  went towards studies that focused on genetics, with little $$ focused on environmental triggers.  As I do believe there is likely an environmental component to autism it makes little sense to me.  Maybe genetics are just more controllable than environment (oh - you carry the gene - think twice about procreating versus stay away from these environmental toxins that are everywhere).  Genetics is easier.  Perhaps the scientific community also feel closer to pinning down the genetics versus the environmental causes - hence the money goes there?  I just don't know.  

 

 

 

purslaine is offline  
Old 04-17-2012, 07:45 PM
 
beckybird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The Shattered Paradigm
Posts: 2,032
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 74 Post(s)

From Kathy's article:

 

"That means the rest [autism diagnoses] is unexplained and likely caused by something that pregnant women or infants are exposed to, or a combination of genetic and environmental factors."

 

"Many researchers have theorized that a pregnant woman's exposure to chemical pollutants, particularly metals and pesticides, could be altering a developing baby's brain structure, triggering autism."

 

I believe vaccines are just one of many possible causes. There are so many dangerous chemicals in our environment and food supply (don't forget to research GMO), resulting in a toxic overload.


 
 
 "Medical propaganda ops are, in the long run, the most dangerous. They appear to be neutral. They wave no political banners. They claim to be science. For these reasons, they can accomplish the goals of overt fascism without arousing suspicion.” — Jon Rappoport
 
 
 
beckybird is online now  
Old 04-17-2012, 08:22 PM
 
AbbyGrant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 738
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Perhaps there should be a spin off in a more appropriate forum to continue the more general "what causes autism" discussion.

AbbyGrant is offline  
Old 04-17-2012, 08:41 PM
 
beckybird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The Shattered Paradigm
Posts: 2,032
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 74 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbbyGrant View Post

Perhaps there should be a spin off in a more appropriate forum to continue the more general "what causes autism" discussion.


I already did this last year, and I don't think it went well.....
Does anybody else want to tackle this one? I'm too hotheaded to do it, and I always say something inappropriate. My ideas are usually frowned upon, even by those who don't vaccinate.

 
 
 "Medical propaganda ops are, in the long run, the most dangerous. They appear to be neutral. They wave no political banners. They claim to be science. For these reasons, they can accomplish the goals of overt fascism without arousing suspicion.” — Jon Rappoport
 
 
 
beckybird is online now  
Old 04-17-2012, 09:42 PM
 
AbbyGrant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 738
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

       Quote:

Originally Posted by BeckyBird View Post

I already did this last year, and I don't think it went well.....

 

I have to go to bed, so I've only read the first couple of pages, but so far I think it's pretty fascinating.  smile.gif
 

 

AbbyGrant is offline  
 
User Tag List

Thread Tools


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off