Flu Shot

[Ellen]

Are your kids going to student health services to get a flu shot? The first (and only) time my son got the flu shot, he ended up with a low grade fever and body aches for the weekend. He has since refused to get one but I'd like him to get it.

[OSUMom]

Dean came home a week ago for 24 hours to buy a used xbox 360 from a friend and Halo 3. :rolleyes: I called all the pharmacies around trying to get him in to get a flu shot (no appointments available) - turns out his family doctor squeezed him in for the shot. I was thrilled (simple things really excite me :p) as I wasn't sure how for him to get it at OSU exactly.

So, yes, Dean has gotten his - no side effects, and he got one last year also.

We're headed to Ohio State this weekend for family weekend. We didn't do this last year. Can't wait! :D

[susanH]

the flu shot has always been a weird issue to me. when my son was preschool/toddler, the endo would suggest he get one. i would have a hard time convincing our PCP to give him this shot---their argument being he is too young for it? i probably got him the shot 3 times as a child and every year he had it, he would get sick....coincidence maybe. but twice we were in the ER for hydration due to flu; and those were flu shot years. so, i figured why bother????:confused: never got him the shot again, even at the urging of his endo. no way.

he had perfect attendance in school for years -- probably 8 straight years -- hospitalized once for pump install. no shot, no flu. :confused:

hope i didn't just jinx him.;)

[LantusFiend]

I'm getting one at the endo's office whenever I next see him (probably in the next two weeks).

[Karen L.]

I work in a student health center at a major university. I would definitely suggest flu shots. It is a shame to see a student get the flu and miss a week of school when it could be prevented (most of the time, the flu shot is not a guarantee). My son who is a freshman at the same university. He was diagnosed with type one in 2006, pumping since this summer. He always gets one. Side effects are generally minimal.

[rickst29]

Read that number again. :eek: It's about the same as all motor vehicle accidents combined. It's about 9x as big as all the Iraq USA Servicemen casualties (since the beginning, not just this year).

Yeah, most of them are old. (Like me.) But flu isn't anything like a cold, it's extremely dangerous. Especially for us diabetics on insulin-- when your body tries fighting flu, your caloric needs go up-- but your might develop severe nauseau, and not be able to hold down any food. bG files all over the place, DKA is a real risk. If those complications occur, you need to go in-patient quickly- because flu isn't just unpleasant, it kills.

I don't like getting my shot in a sloppy "assembly line", but I get one every single year. (One way or another: this year's was at my Endo's, last year was one of those supermarket "Assembly Line" HMO-sponsored thingies...). I do it for myself, my insurance (which shouldn't be paying for unnecessary, avoidable, in-patient stays), and my community, which benefits by having a high proportion of "flu-proof" residents.

[My_Dana]

Well, if you are considering a flu shot here are a few things to think about. (Of that 36,000 deaths I wonder how many of those got a flu shot. I know of at least one).

Direct from the CDC -
" The flu shot: The viruses in the flu shot are killed (inactivated), so you cannot get the flu from a flu shot. Some minor side effects are..."

Well, the first time I got one I was down for a week with a super fever and chills. And as some of you mentioned, you got very sick after getting a shot. No question in your mind it was from the shot.

So that begs the question - Why?
How can killed viruses cause such a reaction?
Somebody is lying.

The typical argument is "why not get one...". Well, notice no one ever talks about what is in a flu vaccine. Getting one is not without a price. Typical ingredients are mercury, aluminum, formaldehyde, components of anti-freeze. These substances are obviously not good in any quantity and do accumulate in the body.

Another reason you will still get the flu even with a flu shot -
The flu viruses used in the vaccine are A and B strains. That's fine.
Except these viruses happen to be the ones that mutate the most of any such viruses. So that means in a typical flu season, there can be 100s of different strains of flu viruses floating around (one year had an estimated 864 strains). The odds of you encountering only the two in the vaccine is very slim. Result..you'll probably get the flu anyway.

If you're gonna get it, get naturally -
If you get any flu naturally, you now have permanent life-long immunity to that particular strain. The more people that get it, the more you won't get it. It's referred to as natural herd immunity. It's is how diseases are naturally wiped out. Not vaccines. Can't say that for any flu shot.

There is usually a reason things are pushed heavily onto the public, and I do not believe it's in our best interest.

Oh yes, ask your doctor if he and his family gets a flu shot every year.

Take care.

[PattyR]

My daughter got hers at her endo appt. in November. He always advises her to have one. So far no problems.

[rickst29]

So that begs the question - Why?
How can killed viruses cause such a reaction?
Somebody is lying.

Nobody is lying. The killed viruses still have a bunch of antigens which your body will recognize as "foreign" and mount an attack against. That's how all vaccines work. Polio, Tetanus, Flu, Whooping Cough, Rubella, .... all of them.

By giving your body a chance to see the antigen and create antibodies against it, your body will be able to restart the same response much faster and more strongly than the first time. (That's also why, if you develop a reaction on your FIRST exposure to a penicillin or similar drug, your SECOND exposure is the one which quickly becomes life-threatening.)

Some people, such as my wife, react so fast and so strong that even the initial shot (of killed virus) makes for a pretty bad illness. For these people, taking only a tiny bit of vaccine would be much better-- but your Dr. and Clinic have to give the full dose, for liability reasons. So, like you, she doesn't take it. But almost anyone who has only the kind of reaction which "normal" people have (a little soreness, maybe a bit of fever), should get it.

I agree with you about excessive mercury used (as preservative) in vaccine production-- but for anybody who doesn't react like my wife, the benefit outweighs the risk. Also note that people like you and my wife are "freeloaders", depending on people like ME (who did get our shots), to prevent a Pandemic if a strain like 1918 comes around again. She (and maybe you) need to be selfish because of the side effects for you, but it is a bit greedy and selfish to enjoy the benefit of reduced "outbreaks" in your community while not doing your share to help create that community resistance to flu.


If you get any flu naturally, you now have permanent life-long immunity to that particular strain. The more people that get it, the more you won't get it. It's referred to as natural herd immunity. It's is how diseases are naturally wiped out. Not vaccines. Can't say that for any flu shot.

That's total BS. Polio has been wiped out, by the vaccine. And smallpox has been wiped out, by the vaccine. Can you name a single specific disease which has been wiped out by this so-called "herd immunity" in historical times? (No, of course you can't.) And as you correctly pointed out, flu changes every year. So even if you and a lot of other people get the full-blown disease of this year's version, it will NOT protect you from next year's flu much better than this years shot will protect you from next year's version. Shame on you for lying here. (BTW, I'll happily remove that "Shame on you" if you apologize for this portion of your post.)

[rickst29]

It is a shame to see a student get the flu and miss a week of school when it could be prevented (most of the time, the flu shot is not a guarantee).
Right. The shot won't guarantee that you will not get the flu- when they create the vaccine, they're guessing at the characteristics of the upcoming prevalent strains.

But, even if you do get the flu, it's nearly 100% certain that the illness and it's symptoms will be less severe than you would experience if you hadn't taken the shot. Many of the antigens will be a close match, and will interfere with virus's ability to spread and reproduce within your body.

And remember, everyone: These college students are fully grown, young, and strong. Pre-teen children and 50+ adults are a lot less capable of fighting flu, and usually have it a lot worse than the average college student.

[Tamara Gamble]

The preservative almost killed our friends child who received this shot. The response from the maker is that if they recall the vaccine it would create pandemonium. Her eighteen month old is blind, can't walk, is contorted, being fed out of a stomach tube. Doesn't sound like the benefit outweighs the risk to me. If you have paid attention to the new flu comercials they no longer recomend infants and children get it.

Personally, I'd rather get the flu.

Tami

[OSUMom]

So I'm confused. I really respect the opinion of most people on this board. What I'm reading is that I should not send my son every winter to get the flu shot (too late this year I have and it was fine). :confused: I know disclaimer-wise "follow the advice of your physician" and probably ultimately I will after I discuss what I'm reading...., but wow, I'm shocked at what I'm reading here - don't have my 20 year old son with diabetes who attends college the flu shot like I have the last 2 years since diagnosis.

Adding --- I don't want to start more of an argument here. Let me just say I'm surprised by some responses, and I will talk to our endocrinologist team about specifics I've read and make an informed decision next year (or help my son make HIS informed decision). I'm just very surprised by the responses in this thread and will absorb all the information. Thanks everyone.

[funnygrl]

Laurie, I definitely think you are doing the right thing asking your son to get the shot. There really is NO proof that any vaccines are harmful overall to adults.

[rickst29]

The preservative almost killed our friends child who received this shot. The response from the maker is that if they recall the vaccine it would create pandemonium. Her eighteen month old is blind, can't walk, is contorted, being fed out of a stomach tube. Doesn't sound like the benefit outweighs the risk to me. If you have paid attention to the new flu comercials they no longer recommend infants and children get it.
Flu shot at only 18 months? I strongly agree with you- don't do it! The excessive (IMO) mercury seems to be extremely dangerous for newborns and infants. Their brains, nervous systems, and other major organs are undergoing MAJOR development, and they're more sensitive to poisons such as mercury and lead.

I would NOT do a flu shot in a child who is younger than school age (4-5 years). Just my opinion, and I'm not a medical professional. If your younger child is getting exposed at a pre-school, try to keep them home until it stops going around. (Although I know this can be very hard to arrange. :o)

[My_Dana]

Hello Rickst29 -

I suppose I should rebuttal since I am health "free loader".
You bring up some good information. I used to think like you. However, I began to find that some things just didn't add up.

The main issue I see with the flu vaccine is a "one size fits all" approach. The fact that the virus can and will mutate as it spreads from city to city and state to state known as gene amplification. Even Dr. Michael Decker, MD of Adventis, the flu vaccine inventor says "By the time you know what's the right strain, you can't do anything about it." Doesn't give me the warm fuzzies. However, I am reasonably confident that once you naturally develop antibodies to "a strain", should it come around again you would be immune.

Talking about flu vaccine effectiveness, one witness to the 1918 flu epidemic (don't have her name handy) wrote an entire book documenting how the deaths occurred more from the vaccines and injections than from any actual virus-borne disease. She observed that it was the unvaccinated who remained healthy during the entire two year period of the epidemic. Back then it's easy for most to see that the vaccine was probably quite contaminated. Strange that part never comes up when the "great 1918 flu pandemic" is talked about. BTW - I have not had a flu shot in over eight years, and not had the flu in 8 years. I do see people around me getting quite sick, however. Not sure where the freeloading is.

Doing a little detective work I find un-vacccinated children are more generally more healthy. How can this be? Specifically, a journalist reported that the Amish in PA had virtually no autism. They don't vaccinate. Well, they did have 4 cases. Three had been vaccinated, one was apparently exposed to mercury.

So the past two years has really led my down a new path.

I didn't really want to get into a vaccine argument, but I guess I asked for it.
Let me try to reinforce my position. You obviously know what I am talking about here, but I think you may need to do a bit more research.
What is "common knowledge" and what the numbers/data show are a bit different.

Firstly, let's talk about natural immunity. Have you ever had the measles, mumps, chicken pox, and the like? If you did, you will never get the it again. No argument there. Your body has built a proper antibody. I am referring to the natural way to acquired it. Not the "false" immunity you get from a vaccine. This is not necessarily the flu vaccine but helps make a point. Let's have a look at the mfg of the vaccine, Page 1098 of the Merck Manual (Centennial Edition, 1999) we find that for the measles, "...people born before 1956 are are considered immune by virtue of prior infection."...natural immunity. And, if a pregnant mother should get infected she can pass her antibodies on to the fetus. The child now has lifelong immunity - natural herd immunity. So you can see nature's elegant ways to handle disease is far better than we'll ever do. With the actual disease, the organism has to pass through many of the body's natural defense systems before it ever gets into the bloodstream. It's likely that the organism triggers many unknown biological event, essential in building true natural immunity and very specific antibody, before ever getting to the bloodstream.

Vaccinations by direct injection makes the unproven assumption that the mere artificial stimulation of antibody production by the sudden presence of a foreign agent in the bloodstream is the whole story of immunity. Obviously it isn't; the need for booster shots proves that. Many studies have shown low antibody counts in vaccinated people (Gunn, T. p19).

Like you, I used to think vaccines have been the savior of the modern world. Again, the number don't add up. Believe it or not, Edward Jenner back in the 1700s, the inventer of the smallpox vaccine (from cowpox, a completely different virus but that's another story), was a lay person. Not a doctor. Not a scientist. Never attended medical school. I would encourage you to investigate just how he came up with and tested the smallpox vaccine, how easily it was taken as truth. It'll floor you. He knew people.

I could go on, but in the interest of brevity, I'll conclude with data from our own government records. Feel free to verify (US Dept of Commerce - Historical Statistics of the US. Part 1, Bureau of the Census, 1975)

The pattern below is the same for diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, measles, and even the flu. Although the flu bounces around a lot.
It does appear to basically stay in check naturally. As you mentioned, Polio was eradicated by the famous vaccine of the 50s. But was it?

YEAR POLIO (# of deaths)
1901 48,839
1906 28,225
1911 20,225
1916 15,623
1921 7229
1926 6038
1931 4545
1936 3666
1941 3539
1946 3799
1951 3826
1956 1604
1961 1076
1966 928
1971-75 0

Notice anything interesting in the trend? The year in red is when the polio vaccine was introduced. So up until 1955, Polio looks like it was on it's way out without any help from a vaccine. How can that be? NATURAL HERD IMMUNITY. As an engineer, those numbers don't show me such an out-of-control "epidemic". As a marketer/politician (I am not), however, I see over 100,000 people died from polio and we must stop it before it is out of control! Same data, different presentation. Jonas Salk's polio vaccine only lasted 17 months because of all the deaths and paralysis it caused. It was replaced by Albert Sabin, MD, which has been used ever since. Here's what he had to say 30 years later - "Official data has shown the the large scale vaccinations undertaken in the US have failed to obtain any significant improvement of the diseases for which they were supposed to provide immunization. In essence it was and is a faliure." (Torino Italia, 8 Dec 1985). That's not me talking.

We sure got a different story from the CDC and medical community.
Wonder why? ($?)

I would make a suggestion you get this book - The Sanctity of Human Blood, Vaccination is not Immunization, Dr. Tom O'Shea. He has done more factual research on vaccines and than anyone I have seen. You can get some interesting excerpts from his site www.thedoctorwithin.com.

Have a look.
Then come back and let me know what you think.
I am just trying to get to the real truth. I don't think your typical Endo/Pedo will know.

I would entertain the idea that some vaccines may be beneficial. Your kids (if you have any) are mandated for 68 vaccines by 18. And that number is always growing. How much do they really need? I think we are protecting them to death. There are no studies that I have seen showing how all those vaccines interact. Can't be good. It's not likely we can improve on God's design.

It is very clear to me that vaccine importance is way overstated, and the actual facts (and problems!) are way understated.
It's a golden goose for any company and no one is going down without a fight.
Sort of makes you question everything you thought was "true", doesn't it...?

I know we can't change the past, but we certainly need to learn from it and make better informed decisions for our future.

[Hollyb]

We have mostly mercury-free vaccines in Canada and I was surprised and disturbed to find out the flu shot does contain it, though we were able to get a "low" thimerosal version. Aaron got one the year he was diagnosed because "diabetics are supposed to get it." The second year he didn't -- by then I could see he's not especially prone to illness and I didn't think he really was at extra risk. And while I do support immunization for really catastrophic illnesses, I'm not sure I"m on board with the current "vaccinate against everything" trend -- the number of vaccines babies get now is just mind-boggling and I'm glad I didn't have to decide whether to vaccinate my kids for things like chicken pox.

That said, we all got one this year because John's parents are in a retirement home now and his dad is quite frail. I'd just hate to be the person who brought the flu into a whole community of vulnerable people.

[funnygrl]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/08/health/08autism.html?ex=1357448400&en=785cae9e14ba1f60&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

[My_Dana]

The NYT article sure sounds nice and reassuring.
But once again, it just doesn't add up...

There is obviously much more to the autism issue than just mercury.
See below from experts in the field that testified at the Senate hearing called by Dan Burton, whose grandson was rendered autistic shortly after the MMR shot. Most intriguing is the findings from Dr. John O'Leary. Oh yeah, Jenny McCarthy just had her son become autistic right after the MMR injection. This was recent. So much for the "all safe now" signal. Remember, these guys are not interested in finding the truth. It was painfully obvious at the senate hearings. The CDC dismissed the testimony below basically considered the issue closed.

So as an intelligent person, read the testimonials below. Would you conclude "there is nothing here", or "looks like something is not right and must be investigated further for the sake of our children". Stupid question. Well, the CDCs stance (and medical community for that matter) is "can't be the vaccines...they are safe. Let's look elsewhere".

Sorry. I know I am venting again here. But the sheer arrogance and one-sidedness of these people blows my mind on this whole issue.
It saddens and sickens me to think this is what our system has evolved to - deception for money.

Here's a novel study to try -
Calculate the % of autism in vaccinated children (A).
Calculate the % of autism in un-vaccinated children (B).

If A>B THEN SOMETHING IS NOT RIGHT

(Just a hunch, but I would bet the farm A is MUCH greater than B.)
Why haven't we seen this study?
Should put all fears to rest, right?


I got the info below from www.thedoctorwithin.com.


On April 6, 2000, Rep. Dan Burton convened the Congressional hearing in which parent after parent told very similar stories - how their normally developing babies had suddenly reversed their development soon after the MMR vaccination, or the DPT shots. The children spiraled downward into the vegetable-like existence of autistic behavior, a condition which is usually permanent. Happy, bright children suddenly can no longer learn or communicate, or recognize their parents.

Amazing testimony was given by experts in the field of autism:

Mary Megson MD explained how autism has gone from being an unknown in 1978, with an incidence of 1 in 10,000 at that time, to an epidemic in 2000 AD, in which the incidence is in the range of 1 case in every 300 - 500 in many areas! Megson's research has shown total deficiency of vitamin A in almost all autistic children. What depletes the body of vitamin A at 15 months? Right - the MMR vaccine. In addition, Megson found that pertussis toxin from the DPT shot disrupted a certain protein that is necessary for retinal formation. This would account for the prevalence of night blindness and loss of 3D vision so common among autistics.

John O'Leary, PhD a world class researcher and molecular biologist from Ireland, using state of the art sequencing technology, showed how he had found measles virus in the gut of 96% of autistic children, compared to 6.6% of normal children. This virus did not come from the natural disease; it came from the measles vaccine. In addition, Dr. O'Leary found measles virus present in 75% of children with Crohn's Disease. Crohn's has traditionally been an intestinal disease of adults, following years of dietary abuse. Its appearance in children is a new event, and Dr. O'Leary's work points to measles virus from vaccines as the likely cause.

V. Singh, MD, a specialist from Utah State who has studied over 400 cases of autism, found that these children had experienced an autoimmune episode, in which their own body has been made to attack the lining of the nervous system. Dr. Singh characterizes the epidemic as a "hyperimmune response to the measles virus." He stated that 55% of the families said that autism appeared soon after an MMR shot, and that 33% of families said it appeared soon after a DPT shot. Such neurologic damage is a well-established side effect of the mercury, aluminum, and formaldehyde used in these vaccines.

Andrew Wakefield MD, a brilliant researcher from the UK, noted an almost 100% incidence of "lymphoid nodular hyperplasia" or swollen lumps throughout the intestinal tissue of autistics. Such a condition is rare in normal children. Intestinal pathology is characteristic of the autistic child, and the condition generally follows soon after the MMR shot. Dr. Wakefield explained that as the fragile, newborn intestine cannot function because of its swollen condition, undigested toxins from vaccines and drugs are allowed to get into the liver, which is also in a formative stage. Liver pathology is very common among autistics. Wakefield's hypothesis is that these same "undegraded toxins," having not been halted by the intestine or the liver, as normally happens, that these toxins are then free to attack the nervous system, and that autism may well be the result.

Kathy Pratt, PhD, director of the Indiana Center for Autism, stated that 1/400 children in Indiana were now autistic! With 500,000 cases now reported in the U.S., Dr Pratt stated that autism is now more common than Downs Syndrome. Dr. Pratt points out that autism presently may disqualify a person for medical coverage for other, unrelated conditions.

Michael Goldberg, MD, a California pediatrician and researcher, explained how it was impossible to have an epidemic based solely on genetics. That's the standard excuse the CDC and the NIH have been using to explain how autism has grown from 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 300 in just 22 years.

[My_Dana]

I Know this started as a flu shot thread, but had to add this new article as a followup to the last posts. Just trying to give a different perspective.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/01/09/autism.gene.ap/index.html

I find it very interesting of the timing of the NYT article and this new CNN one. It seems when activity is stirred and vaccines called into question, there is a media counter attack. Coincidence? I'm not so sure. I know most media outlets like CNN get billions in advertising money for drug ads.
Slight conflict of interest perhaps? I watched Jenny McCarthy on Larry King live they actually did mention, however briefly, the vaccine link to her son.
I also saw Jenny on ABC (20/20 I think) for the same story. Not a word about the vaccine. I'm sure the producers had a say in that.

Here's the headline -
"Study: Genetic glitch raises autism risk"

After I read it I would argue a more scientifically accurate headline might be -
Study adds only 1% tying autism to genetics. What else is going on?


But we can't get too scientifically accurate or that'll get people thinking. Can't have that. Basically, they are playing the genetics card again to put peoples mind at ease.
Now I don't doubt there is a genetic component at play here just like T1.
But even in the article, they say only about 10% of the autism cases are genetic and the new gene found adds 1%. So what about the other 89%?

Why has "research mainly been centered on genetic causes...".
The article is telling us only 11% is genetics!!??

When I read this stuff I always get back to this - A true unbiased researcher/scientist/engineer always thinks "anything is possible" and looks at ALL data.

"Research has mainly centered on genetic causes (see below), and on whether it could be caused by the mercury-based preservative once used in childhood vaccines, which has been repeatedly discounted."

I particularly find this above quote disturbing. What data are these people looking at to make such a positive claim?
Such conclusive data would clear the air pretty quick. Should be all over the place.

I guess not one talked to this Dr.

Michael Goldberg, MD, a California pediatrician and researcher, explained how it was impossible to have an epidemic based solely on genetics. That's the standard excuse the CDC and the NIH have been using to explain how autism has grown from 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 300 in just 22 years.

UPDATE -
This is from the same study in the Wall Street Journal.
Amazing, we've gone from 10% in the CNN article to 15% in the Wall Street Journal (a 50% increase!). That's a pretty significant error.
So which is it? Maybe it's 5%. But who's counting. I AM!

"About 15% of autism cases have a known genetic cause, says David Miller, a researcher at Children's Hospital in Boston and a co-author of one of the studies."

[rickst29]

First, I think you're absolutely correct: big media is owned by their corporate masters, and there's more 'Greenwashing" and 'Whitewashing' now than there was even in the days of Dan Rather and "60 Minutes" leaving that poor whistle-blower out to dry, sucking up to Big-Tobacckky. :mad::mad: And also, the newest Autism PSA ads on TV say 1:156, not 1:300.

Now, in this particular case: Michael Goldberg is 100% right. Just because certain GENES are linked with higher rates of Autism doesn't make them the CAUSE. The Genes have been around for 10s and hundreds of thousands of years, and Autism didn't start exploding until just a couple dozen years ago. The CAUSE is almost certainly the witch's brew of plastic additives (pthalates, etc.) and other organic chemicals which are making stuff "smell good" and "work better" all over the place-- billions and billions of pounds every year, in your water, in your air, and in your blood. None of these compounds existed more than 60 years ago, and nearly all of them are less than 30 years old.

The FDA is willing to require animal testing for these chemicals, but only-one-at-a-time. It's likely that combining many of these "new" chemicals at once makes them far more effective at wrecking people's bodies, but the FDA is never gonna find out, and will always assume that anything is safe until a smoking gun proves otherwise.

They serve their masters. :eek: 15% of cases have a LINK, but it's not the CAUSE. The Genetics almost certainly creates a lower level of defense against the real cause, and David Miller is confusing the two. This is a mistake which even a high-schooler should not make. I wonder, is he just a self-agrandizing Bozo ("On your knees before me, for I have found the answer!"), or do his study Sponsors benefit from this mis-characterization?

At some level, his study sponsors do benefit. The FDA's boss *is* the President, and you need look only at his campaign contributors to see who pulls his strings. Their investments have really paid off! (America's biggest Military Contractor, BTW, owns NBC Television. A lot of really dumb voters need to open their eyes a bit.)

[My_Dana]

First, I think you're absolutely correct: big media is owned by their corporate masters, and there's more 'Greenwashing" and 'Whitewashing' now than there was even in the days of Dan Rather and "60 Minutes" leaving that poor whistle-blower out to dry, sucking up to Big-Tobacckky. :mad::mad: And also, the newest Autsism PSA ads on TV say 1:156, not 1:300.

Now, in this particular case: Michael Goldberg is 100% right. Just because certain GENES are linked with higher rates of Autism doesn't make them the CAUSE. The Genes have been around for 10s and hundreds of thousands of years, and Autism didn't start exploding until just a couple dozen years ago. The CAUSE is almost certainly the witch's brew of plastic additives (pthalates, etc.) and other organic chemicals which are making stuff "smell good" and "work better" all over the place-- billions and billions of pounds every year, in your water, in your air, and in your blood. None of these compounds existed more than 60 years ago, and nearly all of them are less than 30 years old.

The FDA is willing to require animal testing for these chemicals, but only-one-at-a-time. It's likely that combining many of these "new" chemicals at once makes them far more effective at wrecking people's bodies, but the FDA is never gonna find out, and will always assume that anything is safe until a smoking gun proves otherwise.

They serve their masters. :eek: 15% of cases have a LINK, but it's not the CAUSE. The Genetics almost certainly creates a lower level of defense against the real cause, and David Miller is confusing the two. This is a mistake which even a high-schooler should not make. I wonder, is he just a self-agrandizing Bozo ("On your knees before me, for I have found the answer!"), or do his study Sponsors benefit from this mis-characterization?

At some level, his study sponsors do benefit. The FDA's boss *is* the President, and you need look only at his campaign contributors to see who pulls his strings. Their investments have really paid off! (America's biggest Military Contractor, BTW, owns NBC Television. A lot of really dumb voters need to open their eyes a bit.)


Hey Rickst29 -

I believe you and I are in the same book and on the same page!!

No question the media is slave to their sponsors. They can't upset the hand that feeds them.
Major policies and laws are lobbied by a small group of very big business (Food, Drug, Oil, Tobacco...)
That is what they get for their 100s of millions in contributions.


"We have the best government money can buy".