Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You really need to step off this psychological treadmill .... this dynamo of circular argument.
How many children, if any, who might have hypothetically underwent the same detox but did not get better is irrelevant to any meaningful point. Such a situation would prove nothing other than the obvious ... that said treatment did not correct their condition. This would have no bearing on the success or failure experienced by others, nor would it disprove the suspect cause. You could have irreversible neurological damage that was indeed caused by heavy metal intoxification that removal of these neurotoxins couldn't correct.
In my nephew's case, he was diagnosed by mainstream specialists as having autism, and none of their efforts over the course of two years provided any relief or improvement of his symptoms. After exhausting those avenues, he was taken to an alternative medical practitioner who diagnosed heavy metal intoxification, and placed him on an intense set of detox protocols. In just a short time, improvements were noticed. Then, after several months, dramatic changes were experienced. A year of treatments resulted in an almost total restoration. He continued the treatments for another year, at which time he was absolutely symptom free, and totally restored to normal.
His story is by far, not unique. There are many such success stories that are virtually identical, or very similar. Some of these cases experienced the same total restoration of health, while others experienced significant improvements. Due to the differences in individuals, and in the relative degrees of damage suffered, you would expect there to be variance in results.
As to your question regarding why every person with autism hasn't been cured .... you know the answer to that as well as I do. The widespread revelation of autism being cured by heavy metal detoxification would directly implicate vaccines as the vector.
Obviously, mainstream medicine does not recognize autism as a result of neurotoxic exposure for that very reason, therefore the vast majority of sufferers will not receive detox therapies. In fact, conventional medicine flatly rejects the mere suggestion, just as you do. The unfortunate result of this dogmatic and irresponsible defense of vaccination programs demands that no link between autism and exposure to neurotoxins can ever be admitted. This is why so many will never even know that effective alternative treatments even exist.
Am I claiming that the mainstream medical establishment would deliberately withhold information about effective treatments to protect the vaccine industry? That's exactly what I'm saying, and it's the damned ugly, unvarnished truth!
So your nephew is the only one ever cured by this "detox" program? Has a case report been published?
Why, when parents became afraid of vaccines and stopped using them, did autism rates not go down? Why do kids who have never been vaccinated have autism? Why aren't all vaccinated kids autistic?
And, yes, the number of kids who do not respond to "detox" is vitally important. If 100 children with autism undergo "detox" and only one gets better, the conclusion should be that perhaps the one who got better did not have autism. Heavy metal poisoning and autism are not the same thing.
The reason "detox" is not a mainstream treatment for autism is because it does not work. If it worked, it would be used, just as it is used to treat lead poisoning.
Unless janelle's parents had a poor sense of humor or really liked the song "a boy named sue", I doubt she's engaging a war on women.
But the point you make is true insofar as BC being a minor factor compared to so many other sources. Yet, it is the combination of all sources that do contribute to the big picture, so dismissing one source in favor of another is like saying we can't waste time worrying about heart disease with all of the cancer problems we have.
We need to eliminate or mitigate all sources of health harming substances, not just the most prominent ones. But if it's a contest, Soy would win hands down in it's contribution of estrogenic affects upon the public health, yet that's where you will find a lot of Soy products ... in the "health food" section of the supermarket!
1 - if the data supports reduction, than reduce to acceptable levels
2 - based on the data. . have to prioritize. The risk to society (i.e. lack of birth control options) would put birth control LAST on the list
I don't think we have enough data to target woman birth control, especially based on the low levels.
My only question if it is vaccines then why only "some" kids affected and not "all".........I had a girlfriend we both had our children within 4 years. She had twins and I had 2 boys. All of the babies received vaccines at the same hospital her twins by age 3 showed signs of autism, my boys are fine.
I tend to lean toward vaccines given to military people or possibly exposure to something civilians are not exposed to. I would like to see how many military people face autism in their children vs civilian babies born. My girlfriend's husband served from 1979-1984........the girls born in 1991. I know of others that have served in the military and their children are mild to severe autism. Also, seems autism is our only label for "special needs" when in reality there are many forms of mental retardation to the brain.
That is one of the most common questions .. if vaccines cause autism in some, why not all. This is of course a pretty bad question, really. Why do some people suffer hay fever and others don't? Why are some people lactose intolerant and others not? Why are some people allergic to certain medications, while others are not.
The simple answer is, everyone is different. That's the first, and most obvious point.
As for vaccines, we know they contain neurotoxic substances. That is not debatable .. nor even denied. They are listed in the ingredients ... so that point is settled. The claim is, these neurotoxins that are there are in insufficient quantity to cause harm. That is the position of the medical establishment experts. But this alone implies two rather fraudulent assumptions are being made ...
1) that it is even possible to declare a safe amount of neurotoxins to begin with. Those that understand the nature and behavior and effect of neurotoxins should immediately recognize the fault in such a position, since neurotoxins are bioacumulative, and it is impossible for anyone to predict the levels of exposure an individual may experience from other sources. This position is grossly flawed, and nothing more than double talk.
2) this position also assumes that everyone will react to specified "safe" amounts of neurotoxins equally, which is even more grossly flawed, as anyone remotely familiar with human physiology readily understands that the ability to cope with toxins vary from individual to individual.
Another very important point that few people seem to know about is the fact that the neurotoxic elements in multi dose vaccine vials have a tendency to settle ...and if the person administering the vaccine fails to remix by shaking vigorously, the potential exists for one recipient to receive little or no neurotoxin in their dose, whileanother may receive several times the quantified safe amount. This is a glaring disaster waiting to happen, and impossible to predict or prevent. Human error must be anticipated.
Another problem which is very disturbing is the irrationality of vaccine proponents, such as one of the more prominent and often quoted proponents of vaccine safety, Dr. Paul Offit who stated that infants were theoretically capable of tolerating up to 10,000 vaccines at one time. This ludicrous and absurd statement illustrates why nothing coming out of the mouths of these supposed experts" can be trusted at all. Aside the assault and insult to common sense, a grade school child thoroughly destroyed this doctor's claim with simple math, calculating the blood volume of infants, with the volume of material that would represent 10,000 injections at one time, showing that even plain sterile water would cause great harm if not death if such volumes were injected into infants.
Keep this at the forefront of your mind when considering whether or not to accept the assurances of safety coming from the "experts". If ever there was cause for questioning expert opinion, you'd be hard pressed to find a better reason than Doctor Offit and his asinine blatherings.
1 - if the data supports reduction, than reduce to acceptable levels
2 - based on the data. . have to prioritize. The risk to society (i.e. lack of birth control options) would put birth control LAST on the list
I don't think we have enough data to target woman birth control, especially based on the low levels.
I've already suggested that there are much bigger sharks in the swimming pool, and relative to the main topic at hand, I agree ... birth control pills are a side issue having little to no weight in this debate.
The sentiment is the cumulative effect of all contamination, so in that respect, drugs being recycled into the drinking water is a legitimate concern for general health reasons, autism, not so much.
Why do vaccines protect some people but not all?
Why does smoking cause ( or at least is said to cause) cancer/emphysema in some and not all?
Why does ragweed affect some people and not all?
Why do some people suffer the published side effects of medications and not all?
Etc, etc, etc
That is one of the most common questions .. if vaccines cause autism in some, why not all. This is of course a pretty bad question, really. Why do some people suffer hay fever and others don't? Why are some people lactose intolerant and others not? Why are some people allergic to certain medications, while others are not.
The simple answer is, everyone is different. That's the first, and most obvious point.
Yet, this one seems to be different in how it retards the brain. The other things you and old cold gave as examples most of those just give side effects, not altering the brain and body.
By the way the only stupid question is "the one" not asked!
"Once the facilities are prepared to provide these activities, BARDA may place task orders for provision of CIADM vaccine surge capacity, core services, or training, and BARDA, through the task orders, would provide additional payments to obtain these services. The FFMN is to supplement CIADMs' pandemic influenza surge capacity, packaging up to 117 million doses of pandemic influenza vaccine in 12 weeks, if needed, and can also provide core services as CIADM subcontractors."
"Once the facilities are prepared to provide these activities, BARDA may place task orders for provision of CIADM vaccine surge capacity, core services, or training, and BARDA, through the task orders, would provide additional payments to obtain these services. The FFMN is to supplement CIADMs' pandemic influenza surge capacity, packaging up to 117 million doses of pandemic influenza vaccine in 12 weeks, if needed, and can also provide core services as CIADM subcontractors."
The 1918 flu pandemic killed about 50 million people worldwide.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Get ready.
