[911]

Sweden Bans Mandatory Vaccinations Over 'Serious Heath Concerns'

Sweden has banned mandatory vaccinations, citing “serious health concerns” and the fact they violate a citizen’s constitutional rights to choose their own healthcare.

The Swedish Riksdag (parliament) rejected seven motions on May 10 that would have enshrined forced vaccinations into law, stating “It would violate our [Swedish Constitution] if we introduced compulsory vaccinations, or mandatory vaccinations.”

Noting also the “massive resistance (by Swedes) to all forms of coercion with regard to vaccinations“, the Riksdag also made reference to “frequent serious adverse reactions” in children who receive vaccinations.

“NHF Sweden sent a letter to the Committee and explained that it would violate our Constitution if we introduced compulsory vaccinations, or mandatory vaccinations as was submitted in Arkelsten’s motion. Many others have also submitted correspondence and many citizens have called up Parliament and politicians. Parliamentary politicians has surely noticed that there’s a massive resistance to all forms of coercion with regard to vaccinations.

“NHF Sweden also shows how frequent serious adverse reactions according to the rate at which FASS specifies in the package leaflet of the MMR vaccine, when you vaccinate an entire year group. In addition, one must take into account that each age group will receive the MMR vaccine twice, so the side effects are doubled. We must not forget that, in addition, similar adverse reaction lists apply for other vaccines.

“In the letter, we have even included an extensive list of the additives found in vaccines – substances which are not health foods and certainly do not belong in babies or children. We also included for lawmakers a daunting list of studies that demonstrate vaccination is a bad idea.”

The full report can be accessed here.

The Swedish Riksdag’s sensible decision flies in the face of what is happening in the United States and other western countries right now. Big Pharma has lawmakers in a choke hold, dictating policy and using the corrupt media to silence dissenters.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. recently appeared on the Tucker Carlson Show and bravely exposed the “lawless mafia state” that is Big Pharma and their “extremely lucrative” vaccines scam.

“The pharmaceutical industry is so powerful,” RFK Jr explained. “They give $5.4 billion a year to the media. They’ve gotten rid of the lawyers, so there is no legal interest in those cases. They have really been able to control the debate and silence people like me.”

Asked how things could get this bad, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. explained that Congress granted Big Pharma “blanket legal immunity” when it comes to vaccines.

Big Pharma became a law unto themselves after President Regan signed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act. They can put toxic ingredients in your vaccines, they can seriously injure your child – but you cannot sue them.

“What you have to understand is that the vaccine regimen changed dramatically around 1989. The reason it changed, Tucker, is that Congress, drowning in pharmaceutical industry money, did something they have never done for any other industry – they gave blanket legal immunity to all the vaccine companies.

“So that no matter how sloppy the line protocols, no matter how absent the quality control, no matter how toxic the ingredients, or egregious the injury to your child, you cannot sue them.

“So there’s no depositions, there’s no discovery, there’s no class action suits. All of a sudden vaccines became enormously profitable.”

The enormous profits in the unregulated industry meant Big Pharma companies raced each other to produce new and unnecessary vaccines to pump into newborn children – often dozens at a time.

“It became a gold rush for the pharmaceutical industry to add new vaccines to the spectrum.”

But at what cost? The vaccine industry, operating under their own rules – or rather, complete absence of rules – is making it impossible for us to find out the facts. President Trump has long called for an independent inquiry into vaccine safety. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is calling for the same.

“I got three vaccines and I was fully compliant. I’m 63 years old. My children got 69 doses of 16 vaccines to be compliant. And a lot of these vaccines aren’t even for communicable diseases. Like Hepatitis B, which comes from unprotected sex, or using or sharing needles – why do we give that to a child on the first day of their life? And it was loaded with mercury.”

Tucker asked, “We do give that to children?“

“We continue to give it to them. The mercury has been taken out of three vaccines, but it remains in the flu vaccine, and it is still in vaccines all over the world. And it is the most potent neurotoxin known to man that is not radioactive.”

“How can we inject that into a child?”

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. tried to put the outrageous situation into context.

“If you take that vaccine vial and break it, you have to dispose of that as hazardous waste. You have to evacuate the building. Why would you take that and inject it into a child?”

[TheWhiteWolf]

Well I used to believe that vaccines cause autism. I’ve since moved on to assume and the whole movement is about mothers who had their kids too late and now are trying to shift the blame on to someone other themselves

[911]

Wrong. This has been addressed earlier, but let me recap. Age is a very easy factor to isolate. You just compare autism rates of kids born from young mothers today with those of kids born from mothers of the same age before the 1980s. Those rates are many times higher than in the past. Mothers age is a minor fact according to the data.

Watch this, it's an hour long but a great lecture from Kennedy Jr, and a panel, very instructive:

One of Trump's great policy moves is to appoint RFK Jr as his vaccine tzar, they're taking on the big pharma/medical industrial complex lobby and the deep state.

[Samseau]

http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2017/10/04/m...vaccinate/

Oakland County Woman Ordered To Jail After Refusing To Vaccinate Her Son

Quote:

PONTIAC (WWJ) – An Oakland County woman has been sentenced to seven days in jail after refusing to comply with an order to vaccinate her 9-year-old son.

The order was handed down in Oakland County Circuit Court Wednesday, at which time Judge Karen McDonald also announced that the boy would be vaccinated today.

In explaining her decision, McDonald pointed out that Rebecca Breedow of Ferndale, together with her attorney, signed an order in November, 2016, agreeing that the child would be vaccinated. McDonald said that there was never an appeal of that order, and that Breedow never asked to have the order set aside.

The jail time apparently comes from the fact that she refused to an agreement, but even still, it seems totalitarian to send any parent to jail for something like this. Why not just hand over custody to the father and give the kid the vaccine? Regardless a disturbing story no matter what, always be careful when signing contracts in the courtroom or hospital.

[RoastBeefCurtains4Me]

(05-16-2017 03:33 PM)911 Wrote:  

I think this was mentioned above, but I'll just add this visual in:



A pilot study of 666 homeschooled six to 12-year-olds from four American states published on April 27th in the Journal of Translational Sciences, compared 261 unvaccinated children with 405 partially or fully vaccinated children, and assessed their overall health based on their mothers' reports of vaccinations and physician-diagnosed illnesses. What it found about increases in immune-mediated diseases like allergies and neurodevelopmental diseases including autism

http://info.cmsri.org/the-driven-researc...-is-sicker

What the heck is going on here? A few seconds ago, I noticed there were 666 threads in the Politics and War forum, then I come here and see a study with 666 children?

[911]

Let me take a week off to ponder on this, Curtains, you'll have an answer on Friday the 13th.

[911]

Back on topic: some info on Gardasil, Merck's wildly profitable HPV vaccine that's being administered to young girls in most countries now, with adverse effects, and doubtful benefits.

tl;dr: Mother talks about her daughter who died from this vaccine. In the second part, doctor Dianne Harper (who IIRC was a lead in its development) states in this video that its effects are limited because (1) most girls get the virus by age 11 through means other than sexual contact, (2) the protection provided only last 5 years, assuming it actually works (not a sure thing given independent research), (3) it only works on some HPV strains (if at all) and (4) new pap smears are highly efficient at spotting early cervical cancers and those cancers are 99%+ curable early.

This cancer doesn't affect males in the same rates as HPV-caused cervical cancers, except for fags and anal cancers. It does hit men who are really into cunnilingus, like Michael Douglas, who got throat cancer from going down too often.

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/ju...sex-cancer

TV2 Denmark Documentary on HPV Vaccine Shows Lives of Young Women Ruined:

Quote:

TV2 Denmark has done something no mainstream media network in the United States will dare to do: look into the controversial HPV vaccine that many have claimed has ruined the lives of so many young women, and publish an investigative report.

In December of 2013 Katie Couric did a show on the HPV Gardasil Vaccine where she dared to interview the mother of a young woman who died shortly after receiving the vaccine. Couric’s program was hardly pro-vaccine, as she gave both sides of the controversy, with a huge emphasis on the pharmaceutical side claiming the vaccine was safe, but she was viciously attacked by the mainstream media anyway and forced to apologize for even asking questions about the possible risks of the HPV vaccine.

With such censorship so obvious in the U.S. mainstream media, it is refreshing to see the Danish media make this documentary available with English subtitles for the rest of the world to watch. Families and doctors are interviewed, and the tough questions are not censored. Similar to the U.S., these vaccine-damaged girls can find no help from their government since the vaccine injuries are vigorously denied by their government, leaving them and their parents feeling “betrayed.”


The documentary on HPV vaccines entitled, The Vaccinated Girls – Sick and Betrayed focused on the condition of 3 girls suffering from serious new medical conditions after being vaccinated against HPV with Gardasil. The one thing they have in common with thousands of other girls around the world is they were healthy before they got the vaccine – now, they are seriously ill.

All three girls have been examined from head to toe with no conclusive diagnosis and no help with their symptoms, much like the girls in other countries where HPV vaccines are being used.

During the documentary, two Danish doctors from Frederiksberg Hospital said they have never seen anything similar to this during their entire careers.

https://healthimpactnews.com/2015/tv2-de...en-ruined/

1 in 25 girls has reported severe health effects from the vaccine, and this figure is probably underreported. And this is to prevent cervical cancer, which has a rate of 12.1 cases per 100,000, so 1 in 8,000 roughly, and even then, those cancers are among the most easily curable if detected early, and we have the means to detect them early.

My 12yo niece in Canada got the vaccine a few years ago before I warned her parents, she experienced some fatigue in the months following her shot.

[The Beast1]

Since Zel was having a good time hijacking my Umami post:

(01-28-2018 03:57 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

(01-28-2018 03:50 PM)The Beast1 Wrote:  

(01-28-2018 03:43 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

< You are entitled to your thoughts buster.

I did not "unmask" or anything - I was a big proponent of orthomolecular medicine and anti-vaccines right from the start. I just don't push that in every nook and cranny.

Good luck with believing everything CNN is telling you - or mainstream fields in every one. Gender is a social concept too according to "science".

There is little need to discuss things when you literally claim to know more about medicine than Nobel price laureates.

Save yourself your sanctimonious talk of "you so crazy".

Whatever floats your boat Zel.

Read at least this article by The Ecologist from 2004:

http://www.vaclib.org/basic/polio/polio1.pdf

But no - all humbug.

I for one was a believer in vaccines for most of my life. Only when I looked at the evidence from the other side was it clear for me that this made much more sense.

The same about Red Pill - been a Blue Piller most of my life, Red Pill made much more sense at explaining everything.

Rebutting this age-old article with this:
Koike S, Taya C, Kurata T, et al. (1991). "Transgenic mice susceptible to poliovirus". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 88 (3): 951–5. doi:10.1073/pnas.88.3.951. PMC 50932 Freely accessible. PMID 1846972

Quoting from the medical journal:

Quote:

Although humans are the only known natural hosts of poliovirus, monkeys can be experimentally infected and they have long been used to study poliovirus. In 1990–91, a small animal model of poliomyelitis was developed by two laboratories. Mice were engineered to express a human receptor to poliovirus (hPVR).[49][50]

Unlike normal mice, transgenic poliovirus receptor (TgPVR) mice are susceptible to poliovirus injected intravenously or intramuscularly, and when injected directly into the spinal cord or the brain.[51] Upon infection, TgPVR mice show signs of paralysis that resemble those of poliomyelitis in humans and monkeys, and the central nervous systems of paralyzed mice are histocytochemically similar to those of humans and monkeys. This mouse model of human poliovirus infection has proven to be an invaluable tool in understanding poliovirus biology and pathogenicity.[52]

So it's possible to infect mice with the polio virus if they have a gene flipped to enable it. There goes that entire booklet you made me read. Did Jeanine Roberts ever bother to read this research back in 2004? Ironically, I can't seem to find this article anywhere on the internet except from your VacLib site. Free your mind from the vaccines lies, oh boy.

Next up, let's discuss autism. This "alarming" increase in autism has been caused by nothing more than better reporting and education.

More children are appearing on the spectrum because educators, parents, and doctors are more aware of what it looks like instead of pegging the child as odd or ill-mannered.

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/autism-...-20-years/

Quote:

The epidemiology of autism and autism spectrum disorder (ASD) has never supported the conclusion that there is an autism epidemic. There is no doubt that the number of autism diagnoses has increased in the last two decades, but the evidence strongly suggests this increase in an artifact of how autism diagnoses are made, and not representative of a true increase.

Adding to this data, a newly published study looks at autism and ASD prevalence worldwide: “The epidemiology and global burden of autism spectrum disorders“. They found:

In 2010 there were an estimated 52 million cases of ASDs, equating to a prevalence of 7.6 per 1000 or one in 132 persons. After accounting for methodological variations, there was no clear evidence of a change in prevalence for autistic disorder or other ASDs between 1990 and 2010. Worldwide, there was little regional variation in the prevalence of ASDs.

In 1990, according to this study, the prevalence was 7.5 per 1000 – not significantly different than 7.6 in 2010. How do we square this data with those from the CDC and other sources that imply an increase in the measured prevalence (whether real or artifact)? The CDC, for example, reports the US prevalence of ASD in 2000 as 1 in 150, and in 2010 as 1 in 68. The authors of the new study explain that using administrative data, such as reporting and special education needs, is highly problematic:

Our study aimed to overcome these limitations by capturing prevalence data from a range of sources that used comprehensive case-finding strategies and by using covariates to adjust for sources of systematic bias. After adjusting for variable study methodology, our models show that the prevalence of ASDs seems to have remained relatively stable over the past 20 years.

It’s always better to have rigorous and consistent study methodology up front, rather than correcting for such limitations with statistical adjustments at the back end. Every adjustment potentially adds a degree of freedom that itself can bias the outcome. However, when the study methods are variable you have no choice. I am not a statistician, so I cannot directly evaluate the methods used in this study. I leave that to other statisticians. So far, it has passed peer-review, and we’ll see how it holds up going forward.

No one study is ever definitive, but the results conform to other studies that have looked at autism prevalence or incidence and attempted to control for differences in methods of capturing diagnoses. A 2006 review by Taylor, for example, found:

The recorded prevalence of autism has increased considerably in recent years. This reflects greater recognition, with changes in diagnostic practice associated with more trained diagnosticians; broadening of diagnostic criteria to include a spectrum of disorder; a greater willingness by parents and educationalists to accept the label (in part because of entitlement to services); and better recording systems, among other factors.

In other words, several studies have found that there is increased surveillance for autism, a broadening of the diagnostic criteria, and an increased willingness to seek out and accept the diagnosis by parents and educators. Further, when you control for these variables, the adjusted autism prevalence is stable over time.

A 2013 study looked at patterns of autism diagnosis in California. They found that autism diagnosis tends to cluster in neighborhoods with increased diagnostic resources:

We identify birth and diagnostic clusters of autism in California that are independent of individual-level autism risk factors. Our findings implicate a causal relationship between neighborhood-level diagnostic resources and spatial patterns of autism incidence but do not rule out the possibility that environmental toxicants have also contributed to autism risk.

Such epidemiological studies are often appropriately cautious in their conclusions, stating that they cannot rule out other factors, such as environment or a real increase in the number of autism cases. Such studies, however, do not provide evidence for either a real increase or any environmental factors. Rather, autism diagnoses seem to correlate best with awareness of autism and resources for diagnosis and services.

This and other studies have also found that the increase in diagnoses occurs mainly among children who are higher functioning, meaning they have more subtle signs of autism, and not very much among lower functioning children with autism. This makes sense in the context of increased surveillance and broadened diagnostic criteria.

A relatively stable prevalence of autism also is consistent with independent lines of evidence, including recent evidence suggesting that the brain changes seen in autism occur within the womb. A prenatal onset of autism would eliminate any postnatal environmental factors. This is also consistent with the many studies that demonstrate that autism is dominantly a genetic disorder.

Finally, despite many premature claims and attempts to link autism to specific environmental factors (most notoriously vaccines), the evidence ultimately does not support any connection. It is easy to find spurious correlations when sifting through large data sets, as the graph below humorously illustrates. Most such correlations, however, do not pan out when looked at critically.



Conclusion
This latest study showing a stable autism prevalence between 1990 and 2010 is in line with a consilience of scientific evidence showing that autism is mostly genetic, has its onset prenataly, and that the apparent increase in prevalence is largely due to diagnostic substitution, increased surveillance, greater acceptance, and broadening of the diagnostic criteria.

Given all of this it is still possible that there is a real increase hiding in the data, although it must be small. It is further possible that there are environmental risk factors that affect the development of autism. Increasing parental age has been suggested as a factor, and this deserves further study. At present, however, there is no data clearly pointing to any specific environmental factor.

I like that last graph. There's a correlation between autism rates and eating organic foods

In other words, better reporting, better education, and better means of catching kids early on is the reason why we see higher rates of autism.

[911]

(01-28-2018 04:36 PM)The Beast1 Wrote:  

Since Zel was having a good time hijacking my Umami post:

(01-28-2018 03:57 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

(01-28-2018 03:50 PM)The Beast1 Wrote:  

(01-28-2018 03:43 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

< You are entitled to your thoughts buster.

I did not "unmask" or anything - I was a big proponent of orthomolecular medicine and anti-vaccines right from the start. I just don't push that in every nook and cranny.

Good luck with believing everything CNN is telling you - or mainstream fields in every one. Gender is a social concept too according to "science".

There is little need to discuss things when you literally claim to know more about medicine than Nobel price laureates.

Save yourself your sanctimonious talk of "you so crazy".

Whatever floats your boat Zel.

Read at least this article by The Ecologist from 2004:

http://www.vaclib.org/basic/polio/polio1.pdf

But no - all humbug.

I for one was a believer in vaccines for most of my life. Only when I looked at the evidence from the other side was it clear for me that this made much more sense.

The same about Red Pill - been a Blue Piller most of my life, Red Pill made much more sense at explaining everything.

Rebutting this age-old article with this:
Koike S, Taya C, Kurata T, et al. (1991). "Transgenic mice susceptible to poliovirus". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 88 (3): 951–5. doi:10.1073/pnas.88.3.951. PMC 50932 Freely accessible. PMID 1846972

Quoting from the medical journal:

Quote:

Although humans are the only known natural hosts of poliovirus, monkeys can be experimentally infected and they have long been used to study poliovirus. In 1990–91, a small animal model of poliomyelitis was developed by two laboratories. Mice were engineered to express a human receptor to poliovirus (hPVR).[49][50]

Unlike normal mice, transgenic poliovirus receptor (TgPVR) mice are susceptible to poliovirus injected intravenously or intramuscularly, and when injected directly into the spinal cord or the brain.[51] Upon infection, TgPVR mice show signs of paralysis that resemble those of poliomyelitis in humans and monkeys, and the central nervous systems of paralyzed mice are histocytochemically similar to those of humans and monkeys. This mouse model of human poliovirus infection has proven to be an invaluable tool in understanding poliovirus biology and pathogenicity.[52]

So it's possible to infect mice with the polio virus if they have a gene flipped to enable it. There goes that entire booklet you made me read. Did Jeanine Roberts ever bother to read this research back in 2004? Ironically, I can't seem to find this article anywhere on the internet except from your VacLib site. Free your mind from the vaccines lies, oh boy.

Next up, let's discuss autism. This "alarming" increase in autism has been caused by nothing more than better reporting and education.

More children are appearing on the spectrum because educators, parents, and doctors are more aware of what it looks like instead of pegging the child as odd or ill-mannered.

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/autism-...-20-years/

Quote:

The epidemiology of autism and autism spectrum disorder (ASD) has never supported the conclusion that there is an autism epidemic. There is no doubt that the number of autism diagnoses has increased in the last two decades, but the evidence strongly suggests this increase in an artifact of how autism diagnoses are made, and not representative of a true increase.

Adding to this data, a newly published study looks at autism and ASD prevalence worldwide: “The epidemiology and global burden of autism spectrum disorders“. They found:

In 2010 there were an estimated 52 million cases of ASDs, equating to a prevalence of 7.6 per 1000 or one in 132 persons. After accounting for methodological variations, there was no clear evidence of a change in prevalence for autistic disorder or other ASDs between 1990 and 2010. Worldwide, there was little regional variation in the prevalence of ASDs.

In 1990, according to this study, the prevalence was 7.5 per 1000 – not significantly different than 7.6 in 2010. How do we square this data with those from the CDC and other sources that imply an increase in the measured prevalence (whether real or artifact)? The CDC, for example, reports the US prevalence of ASD in 2000 as 1 in 150, and in 2010 as 1 in 68. The authors of the new study explain that using administrative data, such as reporting and special education needs, is highly problematic:

Our study aimed to overcome these limitations by capturing prevalence data from a range of sources that used comprehensive case-finding strategies and by using covariates to adjust for sources of systematic bias. After adjusting for variable study methodology, our models show that the prevalence of ASDs seems to have remained relatively stable over the past 20 years.

It’s always better to have rigorous and consistent study methodology up front, rather than correcting for such limitations with statistical adjustments at the back end. Every adjustment potentially adds a degree of freedom that itself can bias the outcome. However, when the study methods are variable you have no choice. I am not a statistician, so I cannot directly evaluate the methods used in this study. I leave that to other statisticians. So far, it has passed peer-review, and we’ll see how it holds up going forward.

No one study is ever definitive, but the results conform to other studies that have looked at autism prevalence or incidence and attempted to control for differences in methods of capturing diagnoses. A 2006 review by Taylor, for example, found:

The recorded prevalence of autism has increased considerably in recent years. This reflects greater recognition, with changes in diagnostic practice associated with more trained diagnosticians; broadening of diagnostic criteria to include a spectrum of disorder; a greater willingness by parents and educationalists to accept the label (in part because of entitlement to services); and better recording systems, among other factors.

In other words, several studies have found that there is increased surveillance for autism, a broadening of the diagnostic criteria, and an increased willingness to seek out and accept the diagnosis by parents and educators. Further, when you control for these variables, the adjusted autism prevalence is stable over time.

A 2013 study looked at patterns of autism diagnosis in California. They found that autism diagnosis tends to cluster in neighborhoods with increased diagnostic resources:

We identify birth and diagnostic clusters of autism in California that are independent of individual-level autism risk factors. Our findings implicate a causal relationship between neighborhood-level diagnostic resources and spatial patterns of autism incidence but do not rule out the possibility that environmental toxicants have also contributed to autism risk.

Such epidemiological studies are often appropriately cautious in their conclusions, stating that they cannot rule out other factors, such as environment or a real increase in the number of autism cases. Such studies, however, do not provide evidence for either a real increase or any environmental factors. Rather, autism diagnoses seem to correlate best with awareness of autism and resources for diagnosis and services.

This and other studies have also found that the increase in diagnoses occurs mainly among children who are higher functioning, meaning they have more subtle signs of autism, and not very much among lower functioning children with autism. This makes sense in the context of increased surveillance and broadened diagnostic criteria.

A relatively stable prevalence of autism also is consistent with independent lines of evidence, including recent evidence suggesting that the brain changes seen in autism occur within the womb. A prenatal onset of autism would eliminate any postnatal environmental factors. This is also consistent with the many studies that demonstrate that autism is dominantly a genetic disorder.

Finally, despite many premature claims and attempts to link autism to specific environmental factors (most notoriously vaccines), the evidence ultimately does not support any connection. It is easy to find spurious correlations when sifting through large data sets, as the graph below humorously illustrates. Most such correlations, however, do not pan out when looked at critically.



Conclusion
This latest study showing a stable autism prevalence between 1990 and 2010 is in line with a consilience of scientific evidence showing that autism is mostly genetic, has its onset prenataly, and that the apparent increase in prevalence is largely due to diagnostic substitution, increased surveillance, greater acceptance, and broadening of the diagnostic criteria.

Given all of this it is still possible that there is a real increase hiding in the data, although it must be small. It is further possible that there are environmental risk factors that affect the development of autism. Increasing parental age has been suggested as a factor, and this deserves further study. At present, however, there is no data clearly pointing to any specific environmental factor.

I like that last graph. There's a correlation between autism rates and eating organic foods

In other words, better reporting, better education, and better means of catching kids early on is the reason why we see higher rates of autism.

Come on Beast, don't fall for this cheap argument, there are at least three cognitive biases they're throwing at you here that I can spot: authority bias (blind trust in "scientism", that is the narrative presented as clear scientific evidence), confirmation bias, and framing bias.

Once again, look at the numbers: autism rates went from 1 in 5,000 to nearly 1 in 50 today. A 100-fold increase.



Do you really think parents a few decades ago wouldn't have noticed if their children were emotionally and physically stunted by autism symptoms? 40% of autistic people never learn to speak, do you think a parent or a teacher in the 1970s or 80s would have needed a special new kind of training to notice that kind of a problem in their children or students???

Vaxxed on YT:

[Dulceácido]

Pretty sure the incidences of autism didn't increase, rather the incidences of it being diagnosed. No one understood what autism was in 1975 and the scope of the disease has broadened significantly since then.

I equate it to Attention Deficit Disorder. No one ever had until recently, now every other kid in the classroom has the shit. Look up the incidences of ADD in other countries. It's drastically different from the United States. Do you think Americans are genetically pre-disposed to have short attention spans or do you think it could be our medical professionals approach things incredibly different than those in other countries. When I was a kid, there wasn't even such thing as ADD. Kids were just "slow" or had "low intelligence." Now they have ADD.

[Leonard D Neubache]

Those rates of autism are meaningless unless broken down in to the grades presented.

It's feasible that many cases of mild autism slipped under the radar for a long time but when you're looking at a kid in a special chair that has to be fed with a pig-line, then no, there is obviously no "mistaking" that for anything other than a severe disability.

Women getting preganant much later in life will also increase the rates, but I still have trouble believing that diagnosis and late-life pregnancy account for such a dramatic rise. I've talked to old timers about this and they are adamant that retardation, autism, immune disorders and allergies were virtually non-existent when they were growing up. And this is in a place where everybody knew everybody, so it wasn't like the odd kids were just being hidden in a basement somewhere.

Whatever the case, given the mountain evidence of an overall conspiracy to keep the general population stupid via the enormous amount of blatant lies peddled by the media, why would anyone for a second believe that the considerably more shadowy medical sector would be any less compromised?

It's inescapable that we are not only being deliberately dumbed down by the education sector and the media but that we are also being kept sick by the medical and agricultural sectors which have been run entirely by corporate interests for more than half a century now. Why would we believe that the same corporations that try to warp our psychology would not also try to warp our biology?

[911]

(01-28-2018 06:44 PM)Dulceácido Wrote:  

Pretty sure the incidences of autism didn't increase, rather the incidences of it being diagnosed. No one understood what autism was in 1975 and the scope of the disease has broadened significantly since then.

I equate it to Attention Deficit Disorder. No one ever had until recently, now every other kid in the classroom has the shit. Look up the incidences of ADD in other countries. It's drastically different from the United States. Do you think Americans are genetically pre-disposed to have short attention spans or do you think it could be our medical professionals approach things incredibly different than those in other countries. When I was a kid, there wasn't even such thing as ADD. Kids were just "slow" or had "low intelligence." Now they have ADD.

The reason autism was not as well understood in 1975 is because it was a very rare form of mental affliction. Today, the rates are 1 in 50 children, and of those, 40%, or 1 in 125 children cannot even speak. That's nearly 1%.

Do you think that if 1 in 125 children in 1975 were so mentally impaired they couldn't even speak, and they were exhibiting similar cognitive impairment patterns, do you think that those kids wouldn't be studied by the medical and educational systems?!? 1 in 125 children under 12 in the US alone translates to a population of 500,000. Half a million autistic children with severe speech impairement... No way would that amount of kids have slipped through or gone undiagnosed given the severity of their condition.

Very rare diseases go undiagnosed, common ones do not, at least not when the symptoms are that debilitating and consistent. If autism was as common a few decades ago, it would have been diagnosed and addressed, given the considerable severity of that condition for those on the hard half of that spectrum.

[Repo]

The definition of autism has also expanded greatly throughout the years

"Autism didn’t make its debut in the DSM until 1980. In 1987, a new edition expanded the criteria by allowing a diagnosis even if symptoms became apparent after 30 months of age. To garner a diagnosis, a child needed to meet 8 of 16 criteria, rather than all 6 of the previous items. These changes may have caused the condition’s prevalence to tick above 1 in 1,400.

Then, in 1991, the U.S. Department of Education ruled that a diagnosis of autism qualifies a child for special education services. Before this time, many children with autism may instead have been listed as having intellectual disability. The change may have encouraged families to get a diagnosis of autism for their child. The number of children who have both a diagnosis of autism and intellectual disability has also risen steadily over the years.

In 1994, the fourth edition of the DSM broadened the definition of autism even further, by including Asperger syndrome on the milder end of the spectrum. The current version, the DSM-5, was released in 2013, and collapsed autism, Asperger syndrome and pervasive developmental disorder-not otherwise specified into a single diagnosis.

The most recent CDC estimate of autism prevalence is based on the fourth edition of the DSM. Future estimates will be based on DSM-5 criteria—which may lower autism rates.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/artic...n-the-u-s/

[Dulceácido]

Yup... That's exactly what I was saying.

[911]

If this was really just a case of misdiagnosis because standards or definitions weren't in place and the cases weren't properly tabulated, what you would have observed is large, discrete increases after the new definitions were put in place in 87, 91 and 94, then a flattening after that.



But that's not at all what's observed though, what we have instead is a steady, geometric explosive growth that keeps on building up and accelerating two decades after the definitions were reset in 1994. That Scientific American article actually debunks itself! Notice that they don't provide any curves, just a narrative that fulfills their readers' confirmation bias.


Here's a histogram representing the incidence of autism across many countries:



Do you really think that the medical establishment in countries like Germany, Holland, Norway, Finland etc are 8 times as bad as their American counterparts in diagnosing a condition as drastic as autism?

[Dulceácido]

Most diagnosis of autism are not nearly as catastrophic as you are making out.

[Kona]

Match up some of the autism rate increase charts with the charts that show the rate increase of motherhood obesity.

Just don't show the results to any autism mother's because they hate responsibility.

Aloha!

[911]

(01-29-2018 08:11 PM)Dulceácido Wrote:  

Most diagnosis of autism are not nearly as catastrophic as you are making out.

I guess it's just too bad for those 40% of autistic people who are so afflicted they cannot even learn to speak. That's nearly half a million speech-deprived kids in the US 10 years from now (see computation in my post above). No, not catastrophic at all...

There is a concerted effort to normalize this new explosion in autism cases, like this new TV drama, a piece of predictive programming, they fuck our kids over, then they brainwash the parents:

[911]

(01-29-2018 08:14 PM)Kona Wrote:  

Match up some of the autism rate increase charts with the charts that show the rate increase of motherhood obesity.

Just don't show the results to any autism mother's because they hate responsibility.

Aloha!

If autism rates were related to maternal obesity rates, you'd have seen a huge spike in countries like Mexico, and not much in Hong Kong or South Korea.

The relatively high rates in those Asia countries might be related to mercury poisoning due to their seafood diet (shark fin soup, tuna, swordfish etc), there are some similarities in the symptoms. Vaccines are high in mercury and aluminum content:

http://www.ageofautism.com/2016/12/new-s...utism.html

http://www.ageofautism.com/2017/11/journ...naril.html

[Truth Teller]

No. Anyone who tells you otherwise is either a crank or can't understand basic science.

Wakefield made his data up.

[Dulceácido]

Refutation and Retraction

In 1998, Andrew Wakefield and 12 of his colleagues[1] published a case series in the Lancet, which suggested that the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine may predispose to behavioral regression and pervasive developmental disorder in children. Despite the small sample size (n=12), the uncontrolled design, and the speculative nature of the conclusions, the paper received wide publicity, and MMR vaccination rates began to drop because parents were concerned about the risk of autism after vaccination.[2]

Almost immediately afterward, epidemiological studies were conducted and published, refuting the posited link between MMR vaccination and autism.[3,4] The logic that the MMR vaccine may trigger autism was also questioned because a temporal link between the two is almost predestined: both events, by design (MMR vaccine) or definition (autism), occur in early childhood.

The next episode in the saga was a short retraction of the interpretation of the original data by 10 of the 12 co-authors of the paper. According to the retraction, “no causal link was established between MMR vaccine and autism as the data were insufficient”.[5] This was accompanied by an admission by the Lancet that Wakefield et al.[1] had failed to disclose financial interests (e.g., Wakefield had been funded by lawyers who had been engaged by parents in lawsuits against vaccine-producing companies). However, the Lancet exonerated Wakefield and his colleagues from charges of ethical violations and scientific misconduct.[6]

The Lancet completely retracted the Wakefield et al.[1] paper in February 2010, admitting that several elements in the paper were incorrect, contrary to the findings of the earlier investigation.[7] Wakefield et al.[1] were held guilty of ethical violations (they had conducted invasive investigations on the children without obtaining the necessary ethical clearances) and scientific misrepresentation (they reported that their sampling was consecutive when, in fact, it was selective). This retraction was published as a small, anonymous paragraph in the journal, on behalf of the editors.[8]

The final episode in the saga is the revelation that Wakefield et al.[1] were guilty of deliberate fraud (they picked and chose data that suited their case; they falsified facts).[9] The British Medical Journal has published a series of articles on the exposure of the fraud, which appears to have taken place for financial gain.[10–13] It is a matter of concern that the exposé was a result of journalistic investigation, rather than academic vigilance followed by the institution of corrective measures. Readers may be interested to learn that the journalist on the Wakefield case, Brian Deer, had earlier reported on the false implication of thiomersal (in vaccines) in the etiology of autism.[14] However, Deer had not played an investigative role in that report.[14]

The systematic failures which permitted the Wakefield fraud were discussed by Opel et al.[15]

Go to:
IMPLICATIONS
Scientists and organizations across the world spent a great deal of time and money refuting the results of a minor paper in the Lancet and exposing the scientific fraud that formed the basis of the paper. Appallingly, parents across the world did not vaccinate their children out of fear of the risk of autism, thereby exposing their children to the risks of disease and the well-documented complications related thereto. Measles outbreaks in the UK in 2008 and 2009 as well as pockets of measles in the USA and Canada were attributed to the nonvaccination of children.[7] The Wakefield fraud is likely to go down as one of the most serious frauds in medical history.[9]

Scientists who publish their research have an ethical responsibility to ensure the highest standards of research design, data collection, data analysis, data reporting, and interpretation of findings; there can be no compromises because any error, any deceit, can result in harm to patients as well harm to the cause of science, as the Wakefield saga so aptly reveals. We sincerely hope that researchers will keep this ethical responsibility in mind when they submit their manuscripts to the Indian Journal of Psychiatry.

Go to:
REFERENCES
1. Wakefield AJ, Murch SH, Anthony A, Linnell J, Casson DM, Malik M, et al. Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. Lancet. 1998;351:637–41. [PubMed]
2. DeStefano F, Chen RT. Negative association between MMR and autism. Lancet. 1999;353:1987–8. [PubMed]
3. Taylor B, Miller E, Farrington CP, Petropoulos MC, Favot-Mayaud I, Li J, et al. Autism and measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine: No epidemiologic evidence for a causal association. Lancet. 1999;353:2026–9. [PubMed]
4. Dales L, Hammer SJ, Smith NJ. Time trends in autism and in MMR immunization coverage in California. JAMA. 2001;285:1183–5. [PubMed]
5. Murch SH, Anthony A, Casson DH, Malik M, Berelowitz M, Dhillon AP, et al. Retraction of an interpretation. Lancet. 2004;363:750. [PubMed]
6. Horton R. A statement by the editors of The Lancet. Lancet. 2004;363:820–1. [PubMed]
7. Eggertson L. Lancet retracts 12-year-old article linking autism to MMR vaccines. CMAJ. 2010;182:E199–200. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
8. Anonymous. Retraction-Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, nonspecific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. Lancet. 2010;375:445. [PubMed]
9. Godlee F. The fraud behind the MMR scare. BMJ. 2011;342:d22.
10. Deer B. Wakefield's “autistic enterocolitis” under the microscope. BMJ. 2010;340:c1127. [PubMed]
11. Deer B. How the case against the MMR vaccine was fixed. BMJ. 2011;342:c5347. [PubMed]
12. Deer B. Secrets of the MMR scare.How the vaccine crisis was meant to make money. BMJ. 2011;342:c5258. [PubMed]
13. Deer B. Secrets of the MMR scare. The Lancet's two days to bury bad news. BMJ. 2011;342:c7001. [PubMed]
14. Deer B. Autism research: What makes an expert? BMJ. 2007;334:666–7. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
15. Opel DJ, Diekema DS, Marcuse EK. Assuring research integrity in the wake of Wakefield. BMJ. 2011;3422. [PubMed]

[Repo]

(01-29-2018 07:45 PM)911 Wrote:  

If this was really just a case of misdiagnosis because standards or definitions weren't in place and the cases weren't properly tabulated, what you would have observed is large, discrete increases after the new definitions were put in place in 87, 91 and 94, then a flattening after that.

That would only happen if every doctor/person who evaluates autism/whatever operated as robots and the moment a standard was changed everyone instantly adapted. I dunno maybe it does work like that, maybe someone in this field can clarify.

[Kona]

(01-29-2018 08:47 PM)911 Wrote:  

(01-29-2018 08:14 PM)Kona Wrote:  

Match up some of the autism rate increase charts with the charts that show the rate increase of motherhood obesity.

Just don't show the results to any autism mother's because they hate responsibility.

Aloha!

If autism rates were related to maternal obesity rates, you'd have seen a huge spike in countries like Mexico, and not much in Hong Kong or South Korea.

The relatively high rates in those Asia countries might be related to mercury poisoning due to their seafood diet (shark fin soup, tuna, swordfish etc), there are some similarities in the symptoms. Vaccines are high in mercury and aluminum content:

Oh man, I'll say my piece and I'm out of this one.

First off, Mexican doctors arent exactly reliable as doctors in other countries. Ask the bad tit job women.

Second, check out the obesity rates in the Asian countries.

Third, I'm in the fish biz, and have seen USDA, FDA, NMFS, Customs, US F&W, OSHA plus a ton of other state and union controlled mercury testing done. The amount of mercury actually in a fish will blow your mind. You really gotta eat a ton of fish, or ear sashimi from Lake Chernobyl for it to have any effect on you at all.

Google Jeremy Piven and mercury poisoning. The rat bastard ate sushi three meals a day for twenty dam years. That's the kind of fish eating it takes for mercury to have an effect. Everything you read about mercury if you look a little deeper you find some hidden agenda. Its all propaganda.

And to be clear, I have no idea if the is a lake Chernobyl. I was just trying to make a point.

Aloha!

[Mercenary]

Full on autism(not just asperger syndrome) in boys means they are mute and cannot speak.

Even the dumbest fucking doctor in the most shit poor country can diagnose that as not normal.

[911]

Kona, you and I could also drink a six pack every day for years
and not have any health problems, the issue here is the impact
it would have on pregnant and nursing moms, more specifically
on their children. For them, the EPA recommends avoiding high-
concentration fish altogether: