The Supposed CDC Controversy, and the CDC Whistle Blowers.

Post Reply New Topic

I'd like to begin that there is enough proof on the cdc website that there is no cause of autism in the mmr vaccines or vaccines in general. Link Though after realize that my attempts to try and disprove this theory didn't work simply because I never noticed the responed to my evidence that autism is not cause by vaccines with a question that was environmental cause not that. No Matter how much I call out autism speaks and the fact that they never helped or the fact that they don't make any sense. The CDC whistle blowers Always come to evendince. Like saying What makes you speak for everyone with autism. I'm not I'm showing you facts and theories that you can take or leave with. I'm not saying EVERY AUTISTIC PERSON ON THE UNIVERSE THINKS this. It's ridiculous, They can't understand. It is impossible even when prestening them with Evidence other than cdc evidence like wrong planet members that haven't recevied the vaccines yet are the ones.. :facepalm: Despite many Attempts it's like bowser it necer can seem to die.

Pulling up a search for "CDC Whistle-Blowers" yielded some interesting dialogue/seminars on You-Tube.

Since autism existed long before vaccines did its a difficult argument to sustain. Which is not to say that there may not be multiple routes to the same endpoint.
I never had a vaccine until I was in elementary school and I have never had an MMR vaccine.
I was definitely displaying signs long before entering school.

P.S. blue ink is very hard to read.

[color=#00b2FF] On the P.S. Which are you talking to their both blue?

Both. That shade of blue makes posts and signatures difficult to read and distracts from their meanings. Because of this, I do not know what you were trying to say in this thread's first post.

They do not believe autism existed before vaccines. They often sarcasticsally ask "Where are all the 50 something autistics?" or say "when I was growing up there were no autistics".

Both sides of this debate are missing the obvious: Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) are quite common. Among ADRs, many diseases and disorders can be induced or mimicked (not "caused," per se) to such a degree that clinicians can be convinced that they are seeing real diseases and disorders which appear to need diagnosis, and recommend treatment accordingly. A quick Internet search of the terms "adverse drugs reactions" "induce" "mimic" "diseases" and "disorders" show many examples of this phenomenon. Why, then, should autism be the only disease or disorder that isn't able to be induced of mimicked? Of course, the fact is that it isn't; and it probably enjoys the same rate of occurrence as many other ADRs.

The trouble with the vaccine-autism debate is that both sides are speaking in extreme terms by suggesting simultaneously that there is proof (or no proof) of the causation of autism when they should be recognizing the third possibility.

I like the blue.

What I'm trying to say is something that looks like autism, and autism are too different things. What I'm saying is that Even if it could happen, It could not account for every Autism case, which is what they're trying to argue, What I'm saying is they accused me as speaking for the autistic population not for myself as a autistic individual which had nothing, to do with the entire thing.

I think we wrote the same idea into two descriptions! At least, I believe so.

First and foremost, Autism Speaks is a political organisation. Everything it says and does stems from its political agendas.
Everything that it funds or supports stems from those same political agendas. It would never fund research in disciplines like the sociology of autism that directed people to look at the bigger picture, nor the ethnology of ASDs. People notice the research that it funds, yet are strangely blind to the gaps, the kinds of research it doesn't fund (anything inconsistent with its goals). It not only controls the perpetuation of stigma/epidemic/crisis etc, it controls the research narrative to a very great degree in the USA too, by using its funding power to support its own political goals.

It also looks for a "cure" which is a VERY Politucal boon to funding. But honestly I don't think there can be one in the way they are referring. Neurological hiccups caused by head injuries, alzheimers and stroke either are static and can be worked around or progressive in deterioration. But can't be totally reversed/cured. How much harder then with classical autism that has a genetic link underlying its cause/expression?

I believe vaccines can cause "autism" but are not 'THE' cause. I do believe it is triggered by negative autoimmune responses to environment and each individual will have different resistance if they are in the "lucky" part of population with the condition within their genetic makeup.