The Mysteries Of Autism

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-22-2009
The Mysteries Of Autism
15
Sun, 02-22-2009 - 3:06pm

Thoughts Regarding Autism Spectrum Neurodevelopmental Disorders


Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-09-2008
Mon, 03-02-2009 - 11:39am
The problem is what they're tinkering with in labs (and universities - the multitudes of them) - add GE to the mix and you've got a recipe for disaster.
Photobucket Photobucket

Rands

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-20-2007
Sat, 02-28-2009 - 7:01am
TY for answering my question i did not think it would be hard to answer. :)
girls ttcamangelttc09 babydustmanPhotobucket
girls
iVillage Member
Registered: 12-14-2000
Sat, 02-28-2009 - 12:42am
It didn't.
 

redsoxlogo1.gif


iVillage Member
Registered: 04-28-2007
Fri, 02-27-2009 - 3:09pm

Female infants have always had a lower mortality rate than males. There's no real known reason why, it's just an empirical fact. Add to that how certain diseases/disorders are x or Y linked and perhaps there's a case for the genetic component of PDD being x linked afterall, (just a wild hypothesis here). After all, Fragile X is X linked and affects boys more than girls as girls have an extra X to bolster them against the worst symptoms.

Now, bring in a neurologically predisposed infant and attack his nervous system with one or multiple live viruses or an adjunct that this particular predisposition is prone to, or 25 mcg of thimerosol from a routine flu shot. If, the flaw is in the X lined gene then the poor child has effectively been clubbed over the head without any additional armour, (another X gene from Dad's side).

I think that a lot more research needs to be done to see if this is in fact an X linked predisposition. The 1 in 98 boys with autism would certainly justify it, at least I think so. However, do I believe it's all genetic....'course not; that doesn't explain the 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 150 in less than two decades (and that's taking into account how broad the spectrum has become in the eyes of the medical community).

Still, you have a dormant genetic volcano simmering away and then add in the recent advances in medicine, vaccines, increased use of heavy metals, toxic waste seeping into the water supply, people guzzling on tuna as it's great protein, (but high in mercury too).

To conclude, think of how high the rate of childhood thyroid cancer is in the Chernoble region of Russia, compare it to before the disaster and what has changed.....the environmental toxins present in the earth, air and water/food supply. 2 cases of cancer in 1986 but 131 cases by 1992. And still many children there never develop cancer. Coincidence, nope, just look of the genetic predisposition lottery.

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-17-2005
Fri, 02-27-2009 - 2:48pm

I know ;)

But I thought it may spur some thought among people...like how DID the plague just vanish without a vaccine???

It didn't vanish either though did it? Just renamed maybe?

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-09-2008
Fri, 02-27-2009 - 1:05pm

I was referring to measles.


Rands

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-20-2007
Thu, 02-26-2009 - 5:26pm

Forget i even asked.


girls
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-17-2005
Thu, 02-26-2009 - 3:47pm
The killer plague has been eradicated? Wow, you mean those kids in Australia got vaccines for the plague too? I mean, cause how else could the plague be eradicated if not by vaccine???
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-09-2008
Thu, 02-26-2009 - 3:26pm

Or, what's considered "eradication".

Rands

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-18-2007
Thu, 02-26-2009 - 3:19pm

]

This element needs has to be present, otherwise you wouldn't feel guilty for not vaccinating and "taking advantage" of modern convenience.

The premise that humans are so fragile and incapable of fighting infection without vaccination assistance is not supported by the scientific method. Comparing human children that are vaccinated a little bit against human children that are vaccinated a lot says absolutely nothing - except that all trial participants are vaccinated (or given a reactive placebo)... except when it's convenient to state that it's unethical to withhold vaccines (that way the vaccine defender is always right). If you mention a large scale epi study, they balk at that stating there is no way to randomize the sample - instant discredability.

When you mention that decline in disease occurred prior to the introduction of most vaccines, they'll tell you that VPD *mortality* is what decreased, not morbidity (disease incidence). Lest we all forget how accurate disease reporting is? Constant CDC alert bulletins, and propaganda of reintroduction of disease wouldn't be reinforcing a subliminal diagnosis, or be a variable would it? Course not, it's all in the name of public health which takes priority over the individual - correct facts (or statistics) are not necessary. And for sure all these vaccine defenders will be the first to issue you condolences when your child dies or suffers from vaccine injury, if you can get them to even admit it occurred - because you did your part for the health of the herd.

I'm exhausted just thinking about the spin.

Pages