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.
Actually, the concentration in the liver would be expected to be higher, not lower, but, again, don't let facts get in your way.
Hahaha .. don't let facts get in my way? Don't let the truth get in yours.
That simple claim has merrit, to a point. Again, details.
There have been numerous testing of animal parts relative to toxins, and while the liver processes toxins, and would naturally be expected to retain more in it's tissues, and this is true, but only to insignificnt amounts comparef to other organs and muscle tissue ...it would depend on what part of the liver tissue is tested. The outer layer could be expected to show much lower levels than internal portions, primarily because it is designed to contain, metabolize and send toxins to the gut and kidneys for elimination. It wouldn't be doing it's job very well if it allowed those toxins to leak through to the surface, and out into the body.
Lungs are like that too ... which is why you can cut open a person who has smoked for 50 Years, and their lungs will be a brite pink as a non smoker ... contrary to those propaganda pictures from the American Lung Association, showing blackened lungs.
Be that as it may ... I shall not let you divert from the main points to which your deceptions have been exposed.
1) The FDA banned arsenic use ..... false.
2) The chickens have been tested and deemed safe ... false ... the body of the chickens were never tested .. only the liver
3) dairy cows do not receive growth hormones .... false.
4) there is no evidence linking vaccines to autism ..... false ... ignoring evidence, and claiming there is none has been the standard method from day one. But pretending something isn't there doesn't make it disappear.
Possibly........or it could be a link to many issues that humans face. Who knows what's in those pills.....after all, it makes women feel all different ways and some side effects are not exactly what women are looking for.
Weight gain for one! Yet, some doctors will tell their patient they have no will-power, so they get a pill to lose weight.
Some things turn genes on, while other things leave them off, or turn them off.
And, each gene has multiple capabilities, and multiple effects.
The rationale employed for this alleged genetic link is steeped in two dimensional thinking.
They see odd genetic expressions unique to autistic persons, and immediately jump to the conclusion that the anomaly is causing the autism, rather than the autism causing the anomaly. Why? Because they either want to, or their brains are comprised of bovine excrement.
The reality is, there is no rational basis for suspecting a population wide genetic mutation has occurred to wit the astounding increases in autism rates can be attributed. From that standpoint alone, the hypothesis falls flat on it's face,
But we do know that toxins can affect genes, just as they can affect the rest of the body, and neurology..
Dairy milk is not tested per cow in the big CAFO operations.
It's tested in bulk tank and the US government set the limit at 750,000 cells per ml.
So yes, pus is in the milk but under the government limit.
That is one of the key reasons the milk is pasteurized.
Other countries have a much lower standard.
Small farmers that sell raw milk directly do test each cow monthly.
Fresh milk from a cow should have a reading of less than 1000.
From the article I read, it seems the purchasers want much lower counts than the 750,00 cell limit, though.
The rationale employed for this alleged genetic link is steeped in two dimensional thinking.
They see odd genetic expressions unique to autistic persons, and immediately jump to the conclusion that the anomaly is causing the autism, rather than the autism causing the anomaly. Why? Because they either want to, or their brains are comprised of bovine excrement.
The reality is, there is no rational basis for suspecting a population wide genetic mutation has occurred to wit the astounding increases in autism rates can be attributed. From that standpoint alone, the hypothesis falls flat on it's face,
But we do know that toxins can affect genes, just as they can affect the rest of the body, and neurology..
You are born with your genes. There is no way being autistic could cause the genetic patterns found. It is not a single gene phenomenon. Multiple genes are involved, and, yes, some are new mutations. Like I said, since you are convinced that your family member's autism was caused by vaccines, you are not willing to accept any evidence that contradicts what you think. The problem is there is no evidence to support the vaccine theory.
It is 2014 and some people still think that vaccines cause autism? This is silly and has been debunked time and time and time again. The horse has been dead for years and now people are just slamming its bones into the dirt.
Some of the increase is due to changes in diagnosis. I personally know several old people who definitely have high functioning autism (and several of their grandchildren are indeed today diagnosed with the disorder) but were never given the diagnosis because of medical practice at the time. It has now been proven that autism has a strong genetic component.
But I do believe that there has been an actual increase in this condition as well. Over the past few generations we have seen a lot of health changes in humans today. Allergies for instance were unheard of a 100 years ago. Today, almost everyone is allergic to something. Asthma is found in 15 percent of American children but almost zero percent of children in the developing world have it. These things are strange and they may all be connected.
I would like to see research move in the direction of bacteria exposure. I think the trend during the late 20th century was to kill and avoid as much bacteria as possible. Now we are discovering that bacteria is actually crucial to our health and perhaps the lack of bacteria exposure to our young children is causing them to not develop correctly.
You are born with your genes. There is no way being autistic could cause the genetic patterns found. It is not a single gene phenomenon. Multiple genes are involved, and, yes, some are new mutations. Like I said, since you are convinced that your family member's autism was caused by vaccines, you are not willing to accept any evidence that contradicts what you think. The problem is there is no evidence to support the vaccine theory.
If neurotoxins didn't cause his autism symptoms, but were caused by genetic abnormalities, then detoxification could not have cured him! This is really simple and straight forward logic.
The only other option is that coincidental to the detox, he experienced a miraculous spontaneous genetic self correction. Are there any other examples known to meical science in which damaged genes restored themselves to normal?
One would think this would be of utmost interest to genetic science.
If neurotoxins didn't cause his autism symptoms, but were caused by genetic abnormalities, then detoxification could not have cured him! This is really simple and straight forward logic.
The only other option is that coincidental to the detox, he experienced a miraculous spontaneous genetic self correction. Are there any other examples known to meical science in which damaged genes restored themselves to normal?
One would think this would be of utmost interest to genetic science.
What we need to know is how many children with autism underwent the same "detox" and did not get better. Do you have that information? If the "detox" your family used actually works, why hasn't every person with autism been cured?
Have you considered that perhaps he did not actually have autism?
It is 2014 and some people still think that vaccines cause autism? This is silly and has been debunked time and time and time again. The horse has been dead for years and now people are just slamming its bones into the dirt.
So you believe that it is silly to think that neurotoxins might be responsible for neurological malfunction?
Please grace us with a non-silly explanation for why you'd think such a silly thing? That's what neurotoxins do .. they damage and kill neurons. Kill or damage enough neurons, and the result is neurological disorder.
And please don't say "because it has been debunked". That's not an explanation, but only a confession that you don't understand the issues, but have chosen to believe what someone else convinced you to believe.
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.
