Tuesday, April 22, 2014

It's that old Autism thing again. Now, the new and improved mindless drivel, with supporting numbers!!!!

There was this old old fifties movie version of Spartacus, where the hero was beaten down time after time, only to fight back again and again, only to eventually beat his tormentors and become top dog roman guy.  Well, that isn't me.  I'm no Spartacus, but I do lick my wounds, and write these little essays about what I want to.  And I do look up all the stuff before hand.  And yes, I do tend to look at scientific studies that have been done that are in agreement with some, (SOME) of my beliefs.  So, last evening I was blasted about my beliefs and how I don't reference my research nor back it up with actual numbers showing that any particular hypothesis has any validity in the REAL world.

I didn't think I had to do that.  I mean, look at the research, they spell it out for you and give lots of graphs and charts and tables with data.  Then they reach conclusions. And I just point it out to my readers.

But none the less, here again is my old list of nineteen PUBLISHED papers in PEER REVIEWED journals that basically all have determined that there is a STATISTICALLY significant probability that vaccines have some sort of role in the onset of autism.  (The Nineteen Papers)  I'm not going to bore anyone with long detailed charts and graphs of data, if you're interested, look them up.  Believe me, they are dry and boring.

So, now we come to what is perceived to be the actual cause of Autism, genetics.  Or so I was told.  As we look at research and just go to one site that summarizes research to date we see what role genetics plays.  (The real experts here on neurological stuff)  This site is from the NIH or the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.  I haven't figured out the acronym either, but maybe that's part of it all.  Anyway, these guys tell us that genetics plays a small part in onset of autism.  In studies with twins, when one is diagnosed, there is a 90% chance the second will be as well.  Hmmm, not 100% as we might imagine, but there are those environmental triggers I always talk about.  But when we see siblings, we see that if one is diagnosed, there is a 5% chance that other siblings will be diagnosed as well.  That's 1 in 20.  The national average right now for the general population is 1 in 50.  Here again, we do see that genetics probably has a small defining role in onset of autism.  As I have often stated, it is NOTTHE defining role.  There are NO scientists anywhere that will categorically state that any child diagnosed with autism was predisposed to be autistic from conception. 

Then again, there is that aging eggs and sperm syndrome that has been thrust at me that along with genetics, the two in combination are the only causative factors determining if a child will be diagnosed with autism.  (Real life Examples) Is the link to my search for info on this subject.  Yes, there is a statistically significant increase in autism diagnosis in first born children of older parents of both sexes.  It goes up quite a bit above the age of 35.  Curiously though, we see that the probability of second born and third born children (where the first born has autism) of older parents DO NOT have the higher rates of autism that the first born has.  Where is the link then to specificity of defining genetics and older parental age in determining that these factors are the cause of autism?  It doesn't exist at this time and with the studies done to date.

So, we can sort of go back to my premise, that vaccines might possibly be a trigger and that they, along with a whole host of environmental contaminates along with genetic predisposition (All right, I admit it CAN be a factor) are what brings about onset and diagnosis of autism.  The reasoning here is that vaccines contain things like methyl mercury, MSG, formaldehyde, aluminum salts and some even have sugar and artificial colors added.  These things are all, (well the first four) neurotoxins.  All that stuff is added so the vaccines can be warehoused for long periods of time.  Convenience for the manufacturers.  It's just that simple.  So, I was told that mercury is not toxic in small doses and therefore if vaccine contained them, the small amounts would not harm babies.  Wow, that is some rather convoluted thinking.  The wonderful FDA has told us that mercury is a cumulative neurotoxin and that we should not eat fish species at the top of the food chain for that very simple fact.  Let's repeat that for everyone MERCURY IS A CUMULATIVE NEUROTOXIN.  Not at all hard to believe.  And look at this, the FDA here in America has gone ahead and tested numerous samples of different fish and seafoods and they give us the amounts of Mercury present.  (FDA Mercury)  So, what this chart tells us is that if a person eats a 2 ounce portion of an average can of tuna, that person will in fact receive a dose of 5.9 micrograms of mercury.  That's a tiny amount indeed.  However, the FDA in fact recommends that pregnant women not eat canned tuna more than three times a month.  Why?  We know that methyl mercury as well as organic mercury pass right through the placenta and go right to the developing brains of unborn babies.  So, now let's look at this site, (CDC Excipient and Media Summary) it is a pdf file that shows the ingredients of most, well, many, of the common vaccines.  It was updated in September 2013.  Before that the 2012 edition showed a whole lot more of the common pediatric vaccines as containing Thimersol, the preservative that is 49% mercury by weight.  Public pressure has forced the manufacturers to try to find better alternatives to mercury, and they have (or they claim to have) removed it from many vaccines.  If we look at the amount of mercury that is present in the vaccines that still have mercury in them, (FDA Mercury in Vaccines List) we see that most of the standard dosages of the flu vaccines contained from 12.5 to 25 micrograms per dose.  I admit right now, I DO NOT KNOW WHAT THE AMOUNT OF MERCURY WAS IN VACCINES three or four years ago.  I can't find that on any legitimate website. (a few whacko ones list very high amounts) So I am at this time just estimating that from CURRENT manufacturers practices, the vaccines that were given to children from the early seventies up until four years ago when most of the mercury was removed; that most of the vaccines probably had similar amounts of mercury in them, or around 12.5 to 25 micrograms.  So, if we look at JUST the first SIX months of vaccines, that would involve direct injection of methyl mercury into a newborn's blood of between 237 and 475 micrograms of mercury.  That's like eating a two ounce piece of tuna twice a day for a month and a half to three months.  Is that a lot?  Remember the US government tells us that Mercury is cumulative, what gets injected into your baby at birth, at two months, at three months, at four, five and six months, remains in their brains.  Is it the cause of autism?  I don't have that answer.  Now that mercury is no longer an ingredient in most vaccines doesn't in any way diminish the fact that they still contain other neurotoxin that new born babies shouldn't have to process.

I will say it once again, every other industrialized country on this planet has a lower rate of autism than the US does, and each and every one of those countries mandates fewer vaccines in the first 2 to 4 years of a child's life.  Most of those same countries have far far lower rates of infant mortality.  Even Cuba has lower rates than the US.  Is this a coincidence?  There again, for those wanting to see the figures, (CDC on infant mortalityy)  These facts alone make me tell people that even thought they don't believe the whacko crazy people that preach about vaccines being the definitive cause of autism, that they should at least look at waiting until their baby is at least two years of age before giving them any vaccine.

No comments:

Post a Comment