Another article sensationalizing autism

Post Reply New Topic

And if you feel so inclined post a comment to this article on the link provided.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kir ... 33444.html

This is somewhat off the topic of the article, but related nonetheless. Besides, I don't feel like registering at Huffington Post and losing my mind in response to the comments made. Many of them are quite infuriating.

For once, I'd like to see an actual autistic respond to these articles, rather than their parents...you know, since many can type and whatnot. I'm tired of hearing about parents. What about the actual "victims?" So much emphasis is placed on parents rather than the children, which kind of dehumanizes the children, don't you think?

I do not mean any offense to parents. I'm sure every parent on this website needs support of some form or another. It's not easy raising little Aspies and autistics. I'm sure you try to do right by your children, try to help them in any way possible. I just don't think it's fair to adult autistics that they have next to no resources. For that, this website is a blessing.

The article in principle is fine. Yes, as much research should be done on autism as possible, even environmental research; toxins are bound to do something, though I'm not sure what exactly. The responses are what infuriate me.

The actual article is full of it - Mr Kirby has no right what-so-ever to claim that he speaks for parents of children on the spectrum (like everyone agrees with him) or to make his claims about autism as being factual. This stuff is peddled by the same ones who want to Combat Autism who are upset that their very questionable legislation has not been passed yet.

I can understand about not wanting to register - it is completely annoying and intrusive - that is why I said for those who are so inclined.

I didn't take the time to read the article in depth... Sometimes one gets a certain aura of bull**** from things. I skipped to the comments hoping to find some criticism from potential mercury "flushees." I found very little criticism at all. While I am pro-research, I am anti-cure. Of course, many don't see the point in researching something that one doesn't intend to fix.

David Kirby (from link above) wrote:

"After all, it was GOP leaders who inserted a secret rider into the Homeland Security Bill to dismiss lawsuits against companies that use mercury in vaccines."

Jesus wept. There is absolutely no reason for the GOP or anyone else to pull a stunt like that if they don't feel that there is merit to the lawsuits. Either way, this kind of dismissal of lawsuits is a criminal kind of act and should be beneath them. It is one of the lowest of low acts that I have ever seen. Why does anyone think that people get sick of "society"? The people who've got money, who pretend to be moral standards and pillars of the community, they pull low tricks like that.

Actually, there was a provision written into the Patriot Act which essentially let drug companies off the hook for any unfortunate results due to vaccines in past, present, or future.

But, meh, I don't trust the government OR the drug companies.

I'm definitely no pro-mercury curbie. If there's anything with the vaccinations, it's immune responses to the viral DNA, itself. And even still I don't think those immune responses cause or trigger autism. Probably immunological abnormalities are just genetically linked with our other characteristics. At most, they may worsen ASD symptoms by causing brain damage on top of an ASD.

How do I explain that imputing a link or no link is just using the reader? I became convinced that there was a possibility when I learned that mercury binds sulfur, so eagerly that it extracts it from organic compouns, and that the brain needs sulfur. I'm a lot more concerned about mercury in fillings in teeth but I can't see the mercury in vaccines as being good for anyone. They must by now have better preservatives. It's really suspicious when they outlaw or attempt to outlaw the lawsuits.

When they say "link" it does not mean anything at all. Even a strong correlation is not the same as causation, and a "link" can be found with a weak or a strong correlation. It's a link if only 1 percent of the cases are of people who were exposed to mercury, but a good case could be made that lack of mercury was the problem, if that was the case. It's still a link. They use this kind of language to confuse us.

There is a clear cause and effect type chain of events that can lead to brain damage and swelling, from the mercury or from the viral DNA. Several cases of "shaken baby syndrome" have been shown to have actually been caused by bad reactions to vaccines. Mercury can be an allergen rather than a poison, can be a poison, can be an aggravating factor in combination with other toxicities or deficiencies.

The only reason they are complaining about this though is because a Republican Congressman is standing in the way of their Combating Autism bill. The rider was no secret - it was politics as usual. There are alerts all the time on some of the parent groups to email everyone to not vote for these bills because of the provisions. So much for standards. There have been plenty of freedoms taken away and both parties are to blame - I don't support either one.

Agree. And mercury itself is no good but it has been eliminated to trace levels if not entirely in most vaccines and apparently autism continues to rise (supposedly) so if other vacs had more mercury and didn't produce kids with autism than why would ones with trace amounts if there was not some other factor involved. I don't think denying lawsuits are fair either but there have been restrictions in way more than just vaccine cases.

It's a little bit more than "politics as usual" when legislators introduce a bill like that. A bill to dismiss lawsuits? That's pretty much a bill of attainder.

Autism can still be on the rise because mercury is but one of a host of chemical agents that can cause injury to the brain. There are other heavy metals, insecticides in the food, preservatives, and sick buildings, just to name a few. The media can demonize one substance then "prove" that it doesn't do what we thought it did, then we perceive the question as having been answered for all suspect substances.

Autism "ravages" 1 in 133? Huh. Weird that I, the autistic person, never really felt "ravaged".

I guess it must be a delusion caused by my "profound disability".

I actually responded to a similar article in the La Crosse Tribune (La Crosse Wisconsin). They have a section where readers can make comments. One reader in response to me said that Cheliton(sp?) therapy was removing quite a bit of heavy metals and how dare I suggest that vaccines are not responsible. I was almost besides myself (but then WI is the state where a pastor killed an 8 year old autistic boy in a exorcism to remove the evil spirits and is still appealing his jail time stating that he never should have been tried for the death)

ljbouchard, it's also WI. I've been there, I know what is said about the people there is true. They're of little brain. (No offense to anyone here from WI)

"1-in-166 American children, meaning that 1-in-83 parents are also affected." - uh, doesn't that require the assumption that each child has two parents?

I immediately doubt this man's sincerity and intelligence, and I'm only on the first sentence of the article!

Considering what I think of politics those tactics fall under "politics as usual". I don't condone any of it - I am just not too surprised by it. There is also at least one state where you can not sue for any reason due to a drug approved by the FDA. That was mentioned during all the attention the Vioxx trials received. So if more areas start to adapt that then there will really be no difference because vaccines are FDA approved also. My husband was in critical condition a few years ago following a medical mistake and he could get no compensation from it despite being off work for a long time because of restrictions. So this really is just politics as usual.

What convinced you that mercury in vaccines did not contribute? Do you know the methodology used in the alleged definitive study? Always be wary of studies that say that they lay a question to rest. Get a load of what happened with the studies on obesity: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medical ... wsid=23210

Science doesn't actually have any closed questions. Do not uncritically accept either the mercury theory or the people who dismiss it. The California dental board once was very bad about mistreating dentists for saying that mercury caused problems. It actually got shut down over the dispute because it was behaving badly. This involved willful disobedience of California law against their gag rule against talking about the subject:

http://www.mercurypoisoned.com/Crusador%20eAlerts.htm

http://www.mercurypoisoned.com/FDA_hear ... afety.html

There is of course the evidence for autism being caused by mercury:

http://www.safeminds.org/

Oh sure, misconduct by the powers that be does not prove the opposite case, but it sure makes their case suspicious as hell and definitely INCONCLUSIVE. If we have one side that finds more and more evidence to support their case and another side that keeps playing shell games, intimidating and actually attacking people, and making themselves generally unbelievable, if I have to draw a tentative conclusion, I will draw it on the side of the ones that simply use the evidence and don't play games.

There are two things that a person can buy that will give them protection from mercury, if they know about it. That's vitamin C and MSM, both of which can be found at Walmart and Walgreens, for cheap. Very likely, in my unprofessional opinion, these nutrients will clear the system of any mercury from low-level exposure that we can't seem to get rid of.

There is no good reason to use vaccines that contain mercury either.