Would you trust the h1n1 shot after this...

[Blue_bumpkin]

I have yet to see anyone provide a link to a credible, published scientific paper in support of not vaccinating

I haven't found any concrete evidence that suggests that vaccines would be a benefit to my family. So I think the more important concern is can you provide a link to a truely credible, published scientific paper in support of vaccinating. One that is not funded by the vaccine industry or large pharmacutical companies or the CDC because the stuff they produce is manipulated to support vaccines.

I already have and there are several more on pubmed

 

[Blue_bumpkin]

From what I understand Dr Tenpenny gathers her research directly from the CDC, vaccine studies and medical journals. You could contact her directly for references and I'm sure she would be happy to share them with you.

Then why doesn't she share them on her website?

Here- https://drtenpenny.com/more.aspx Maybe you just weren't looking in the right place before.

And I'm sure she would welcome your personal questions for more information.

None of them are published medical research papers, that i can see anyway.

 

[bubble123]

I have yet to see anyone provide a link to a credible, published scientific paper in support of not vaccinating

I haven't found any concrete evidence that suggests that vaccines would be a benefit to my family. So I think the more important concern is can you provide a link to a truely credible, published scientific paper in support of vaccinating. One that is not funded by the vaccine industry or large pharmacutical companies or the CDC because the stuff they produce is manipulated to support vaccines.

I already have and there are several more on pubmed

In the disclaimer of PubMed it explains that these writings are the views and opinions of authors expressed on NCBI's Web sites. Besides several of the studies you posted were already discussed and shown to be inconclusive.

 

[bubble123]

I feel this is a good time to post this article-

https://www.medicalvoices.org/vacci...ry-pro-vaccine-advocate-and-their-claims.html

9 Questions That Stump Every Pro-Vaccine Advocate and Their Claims
| Print | .David Mihalovic, ND

October 28, 2009

Since the flu pandemic was declared, there have been several so-called "vaccine experts" coming out of the wood work attempting to justify the effectiveness of vaccines. All of them parrot the same ridiculous historical and pseudoscientific perspectives of vaccinations which are easily squelched with the following 9 questions.

Claim: The study of vaccines, their historical record of achievements, effectiveness, safety and mechanism in humans are well understood and proven in scientific and medical circles.
Fact: The claim is completely false.

1. What to ask: Could you please provide one double-blind, placebo-controlled study that can prove the safety and effectiveness of vaccines?

2. What to ask: Could you please provide scientific evidence on ANY study which can confirm the long-term safety and effectiveness of vaccines?

3. What to ask: Could you please provide scientific evidence which can prove that disease reduction in any part of the world, at any point in history was attributable to inoculation of populations?

4. What to ask: Could you please explain how the safety and mechanism of vaccines in the human body are scientifically proven if their pharmacokinetics (the study of bodily absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion of ingredients) are never examined or analyzed in any vaccine study?

One of the most critical elements which defines the toxicity potential of any vaccine are its pharmacokinetic properties. Drug companies and health agencies refuse to consider the study, analysis or evaluation of the pharmacokinetic properties of any vaccine.

There is not one double-blind, placebo-controlled study in the history of vaccine development that has ever proven their safety, effectiveness or achievements (unless those achievements have underlined their damage to human health).

There are also no controlled studies completed in any country which have objectively proven that vaccines have had any direct or consequential effect on the reduction of any type of disease in any part of the world.

Every single study that has ever attempted to validate the safety and effectiveness of vaccines has conclusively established carcinogenic, mutagenic, neurotoxic or fertility impairments, but they won't address those.

Claim: Preservatives and chemical additives used in the manufacture of vaccines are safe and no studies have been linked or proven them unsafe for use in humans.
Fact: The claim is completely false.

5. What to ask: Could you please provide scientific justification as to how injecting a human being with a confirmed neurotoxin is beneficial to human health and prevents disease?

6. What to ask: Can you provide a risk/benefit profile on how the benefits of injecting a known neurotoxin exceeds its risks to human health for the intended goal of preventing disease?

This issue is no longer even open to debate. It is a scientifically established fact in literally hundreds of studies that the preservatives and chemical additives in vaccines damage cells. Neurotoxicity, immune suppression, immune-mediated chronic inflammation and carcinogenic proliferation are just a few of several effects that have been observed on the human body. See a list of chemicals in vaccines

Fortunately, the drug companies still tell us the damage vaccines have on the human body. People just don't read them. All you have to do is look at the insert for any vaccine, and it will detail the exact ingredients, alerts and potentially lethal effects.

See my latest analysis of the Arepanrix H1N1 vaccine for an example.

Any medical professional who believes that it is justified to inject any type of neurotoxin into any person to prevent any disease is completely misguided, misinformed, deluded and ignorant of any logic regarding human health.

Claim: Once an individual is injected with the foreign antigen in the vaccine, that individual becomes immune to future infections.
Fact: The claim is completely false.

7. What to ask: Could you please provide scientific justification on how bypassing the respiratory tract (or mucous membrane) is advantageous and how directly injecting viruses into the bloodstream enhances immune functioning and prevents future infections?

8. What to ask: Could you please provide scientific justification on how a vaccine would prevent viruses from mutating?

9. What to ask: Could you please provide scientific justification as to how a vaccination can target a virus in an infected individual who does not have the exact viral configuration or strain the vaccine was developed for?

All promoters of vaccination fail to realize that the respiratory tract of humans (actually all mammals) contains antibodies which initiates natural immune responses within the respiratory tract mucosa. Bypassing this mucosal aspect of the immune system by directly injecting viruses into the bloodstream leads to a corruption in the immune system itself. As a result, the pathogenic viruses or bacteria cannot be eliminated by the immune system and remain in the body, where they will further grow and/or mutate as the individual is exposed to ever more antigens and toxins in the environment which continue to assault the immune system.

Despite the injection of any type of vaccine, viruses continue circulating through the body, mutating and transforming into other organisms. The ability of a vaccine manufacturer to target the exact viral strain without knowing its mutagenic properties is equivalent to shooting a gun at a fixed target that has already been moved from its location. You would be shooting at what was, not what is!

Flu viruses, may mutate, change or adapt several times over a period of one flu season, making the seasonal influenza vaccine 100% redundant and ineffective every single flu season. Ironically, the natural immune defenses of the human body can target these changes but the vaccines cannot.

I have never encountered one pro-vaccine advocate, whether medically or scientifically qualified, who could answer even 1 let alone all 9 of these questions. One or all of the following will happen when debating any of the above questions:

- They will concede defeat and admit they are stumped

- They will attempt to discredit unrelated issues that do not pertain to the question.

- They will formulate their response and rebuttal based on historical arguments and scientific studies which have been disproved over and over again. Not one pro-vaccine advocate will ever directly address these questions in an open mainstream venue.

www.preventdisease.com

_______________________

Dave Mihalovic is a naturopathic medical doctor who specializes in vaccine research, cancer prevention and a natural approach to treatment.

 

[bubble123]

Oh, wait. I think this article was already posted many pages back. Sorry for the duplicate.

 

[blutea]

Yeah, I posted that article a long time ago but I'm glad you posted it again. It's important to keep those questions in mind.

 

[Blue_bumpkin]

I have yet to see anyone provide a link to a credible, published scientific paper in support of not vaccinating

I haven't found any concrete evidence that suggests that vaccines would be a benefit to my family. So I think the more important concern is can you provide a link to a truely credible, published scientific paper in support of vaccinating. One that is not funded by the vaccine industry or large pharmacutical companies or the CDC because the stuff they produce is manipulated to support vaccines.

I already have and there are several more on pubmed

In the disclaimer of PubMed it explains that these writings are the views and opinions of authors expressed on NCBI's Web sites. Besides several of the studies you posts were already discussed and shown to be inconclusive.

The disclaimer is there for legal reasons. Pubmed itself did not carry out the research papers and does not own them hence why one if them is necessary. the papers are not inconclusive. this is why this argument will continue to go round and round in circles. As PB said if you're looking for definitive proof in science then you are never going to get it. nothing is certain. It does not mean by any stretch that the papers and experiments conducted are inconclusive and not reliable..

I dont know any other way to put my point across. And i dont think there is much point in me trying.

its like i said earlier, for me it was balancing the risks of vaccination and against vaccination. Whereas i accept that there are risks in vaccination, if ppl refuse to see the risks in not vaccinating its pointless discussing it really.

 

[blutea]

I have not heard that those who are catching whooping cough in my area were already vaccinated. Haven't heard a PEEP to that effect... where do you get your data from? I'd be interested in seeing it.

It is rarely stated when a vaccinated individual contracts the same illness they are vaccinated for. It is usually just blamed on the unvaccinated individuals.

My fiance had whooping cough as a newborn, before his immunisations.

I'm glad to know he got through it and is healthy. I was vaccinated for whooping cough several times as a child but I still contracted it and I recovered just fine.

 

[KandyKinz]

Okay.... well I've been looking and looking for that primate and or neonatal reflex article with no luck at all.... I did however find this studies in the process which I found interesting.... For those interested below are the references.... (for those scientific folks... please don't grade my poor citing techniques... I just copy and pasted... then I just quoted a bit of the study/results for interest for those who can't get access).


A Case Series of Children with Apparent Mercury Toxic Encephalopathies Manifesting with Clinical Symptoms of Regressive Autistic Disorders * Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A: Current Issues, 1087-2620, Volume 70, Issue 10, 2007, Pages 837 – 851. Authors: David A. Geiera; Mark R. Geierb --- "Results: Impairments in social relatedness and communication, repetitive behaviors, and stereotypic abnormal movement patterns characterize autism spectrum disorders (ASDs). It is clear that while genetic factors are important to the pathogenesis of ASDs, mercury exposure can induce immune, sensory, neurological, motor, and behavioral dysfunctions similar to traits defining or associated with ASDs)...the study looked at children's exposure to vaccines with thimerosal in it as well as fetal exposure to Rhogam which also contains thimerosal.


An Evaluation of the Effects of Thimerosal on Neurodevelopmental Disorders Reported Following DTP and Hib Vaccines in Comparison to DTPH Vaccine in the United States
David A. Geier; Mark R. Geier
Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A: Current Issues, 1087-2620, Volume 69, Issue 15, 2006, Pages 1481 – 1495
"Significantly increased odds ratios for autism, speech disorders, mental ******ation, infantile spasms, and thinking abnormalities reported to VAERS were found following DTP vaccines in comparison to DTPH vaccines with minimal bias or systematic error." The DTP consisted of 50 μg mercury and the DTPH vaccine had only 25 μg mercury.


Hepatitis B triple series vaccine and developmental disability in US children aged 1–9 years
Carolyn Gallagher; Melody Goodman
Toxicological & Environmental Chemistry, 1029-0486, Volume 90, Issue 5, 2008, Pages 997 – 1008 "This study found statistically significant evidence to suggest that boys in United States who were vaccinated with the triple series Hepatitis B vaccine, during the time period in which vaccines were manufactured with thimerosal, were more susceptible to developmental disability than were unvaccinated boys."

 

[blutea]

I have yet to see anyone provide a link to a credible, published scientific paper in support of not vaccinating

I haven't found any concrete evidence that suggests that vaccines would be a benefit to my family. So I think the more important concern is can you provide a link to a truely credible, published scientific paper in support of vaccinating. One that is not funded by the vaccine industry or large pharmacutical companies or the CDC because the stuff they produce is manipulated to support vaccines.

I already have and there are several more on pubmed

In the disclaimer of PubMed it explains that these writings are the views and opinions of authors expressed on NCBI's Web sites. Besides several of the studies you posts were already discussed and shown to be inconclusive.

The disclaimer is there for legal reasons. Pubmed itself did not carry out the research papers and does not own them hence why one if them is necessary. the papers are not inconclusive. this is why this argument will continue to go round and round in circles. As PB said if you're looking for definitive proof in science then you are never going to get it. nothing is certain. It does not mean by any stretch that the papers and experiments conducted are inconclusive and not reliable..

I dont know any other way to put my point across. And i dont think there is much point in me trying.

its like i said earlier, for me it was balancing the risks of vaccination and against vaccination. Whereas i accept that there are risks in vaccination, if ppl refuse to see the risks in not vaccinating its pointless discussing it really.

I am fully aware of the risks of vaccinating and of not vaccinateding. I am fully aware of the risks of disease. I think most individuals who do not vaccinate are aware. However, individuals who do vaccinate are not usually fully aware. I'm not saying that you or several other ladies on here are not aware. Just that the vaccinating population at large are not aware.

 

[Blue_bumpkin]

I feel this is a good time to post this article-

https://www.medicalvoices.org/vacci...ry-pro-vaccine-advocate-and-their-claims.html

9 Questions That Stump Every Pro-Vaccine Advocate and Their Claims
| Print | .David Mihalovic, ND

October 28, 2009

Since the flu pandemic was declared, there have been several so-called "vaccine experts" coming out of the wood work attempting to justify the effectiveness of vaccines. All of them parrot the same ridiculous historical and pseudoscientific perspectives of vaccinations which are easily squelched with the following 9 questions.

Claim: The study of vaccines, their historical record of achievements, effectiveness, safety and mechanism in humans are well understood and proven in scientific and medical circles.
Fact: The claim is completely false.

1. What to ask: Could you please provide one double-blind, placebo-controlled study that can prove the safety and effectiveness of vaccines?

2. What to ask: Could you please provide scientific evidence on ANY study which can confirm the long-term safety and effectiveness of vaccines?

3. What to ask: Could you please provide scientific evidence which can prove that disease reduction in any part of the world, at any point in history was attributable to inoculation of populations?

4. What to ask: Could you please explain how the safety and mechanism of vaccines in the human body are scientifically proven if their pharmacokinetics (the study of bodily absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion of ingredients) are never examined or analyzed in any vaccine study?

One of the most critical elements which defines the toxicity potential of any vaccine are its pharmacokinetic properties. Drug companies and health agencies refuse to consider the study, analysis or evaluation of the pharmacokinetic properties of any vaccine.

There is not one double-blind, placebo-controlled study in the history of vaccine development that has ever proven their safety, effectiveness or achievements (unless those achievements have underlined their damage to human health).

There are also no controlled studies completed in any country which have objectively proven that vaccines have had any direct or consequential effect on the reduction of any type of disease in any part of the world.

Every single study that has ever attempted to validate the safety and effectiveness of vaccines has conclusively established carcinogenic, mutagenic, neurotoxic or fertility impairments, but they won't address those.

Claim: Preservatives and chemical additives used in the manufacture of vaccines are safe and no studies have been linked or proven them unsafe for use in humans.
Fact: The claim is completely false.

5. What to ask: Could you please provide scientific justification as to how injecting a human being with a confirmed neurotoxin is beneficial to human health and prevents disease?

6. What to ask: Can you provide a risk/benefit profile on how the benefits of injecting a known neurotoxin exceeds its risks to human health for the intended goal of preventing disease?

This issue is no longer even open to debate. It is a scientifically established fact in literally hundreds of studies that the preservatives and chemical additives in vaccines damage cells. Neurotoxicity, immune suppression, immune-mediated chronic inflammation and carcinogenic proliferation are just a few of several effects that have been observed on the human body. See a list of chemicals in vaccines

Fortunately, the drug companies still tell us the damage vaccines have on the human body. People just don't read them. All you have to do is look at the insert for any vaccine, and it will detail the exact ingredients, alerts and potentially lethal effects.

See my latest analysis of the Arepanrix H1N1 vaccine for an example.

Any medical professional who believes that it is justified to inject any type of neurotoxin into any person to prevent any disease is completely misguided, misinformed, deluded and ignorant of any logic regarding human health.

Claim: Once an individual is injected with the foreign antigen in the vaccine, that individual becomes immune to future infections.
Fact: The claim is completely false.

7. What to ask: Could you please provide scientific justification on how bypassing the respiratory tract (or mucous membrane) is advantageous and how directly injecting viruses into the bloodstream enhances immune functioning and prevents future infections?

8. What to ask: Could you please provide scientific justification on how a vaccine would prevent viruses from mutating?

9. What to ask: Could you please provide scientific justification as to how a vaccination can target a virus in an infected individual who does not have the exact viral configuration or strain the vaccine was developed for?

All promoters of vaccination fail to realize that the respiratory tract of humans (actually all mammals) contains antibodies which initiates natural immune responses within the respiratory tract mucosa. Bypassing this mucosal aspect of the immune system by directly injecting viruses into the bloodstream leads to a corruption in the immune system itself. As a result, the pathogenic viruses or bacteria cannot be eliminated by the immune system and remain in the body, where they will further grow and/or mutate as the individual is exposed to ever more antigens and toxins in the environment which continue to assault the immune system.

Despite the injection of any type of vaccine, viruses continue circulating through the body, mutating and transforming into other organisms. The ability of a vaccine manufacturer to target the exact viral strain without knowing its mutagenic properties is equivalent to shooting a gun at a fixed target that has already been moved from its location. You would be shooting at what was, not what is!

Flu viruses, may mutate, change or adapt several times over a period of one flu season, making the seasonal influenza vaccine 100% redundant and ineffective every single flu season. Ironically, the natural immune defenses of the human body can target these changes but the vaccines cannot.

I have never encountered one pro-vaccine advocate, whether medically or scientifically qualified, who could answer even 1 let alone all 9 of these questions. One or all of the following will happen when debating any of the above questions:

- They will concede defeat and admit they are stumped

- They will attempt to discredit unrelated issues that do not pertain to the question.

- They will formulate their response and rebuttal based on historical arguments and scientific studies which have been disproved over and over again. Not one pro-vaccine advocate will ever directly address these questions in an open mainstream venue.

www.preventdisease.com

_______________________

Dave Mihalovic is a naturopathic medical doctor who specializes in vaccine research, cancer prevention and a natural approach to treatment.

i havent had a chance to read this thoroughly tonight but will say this:

1. vaccines cannot stop a strain from mutating. the swine flu vaccine which contained the adjuvant will however contribute some protection towards mutated strains, it will not become obselete
2. It will be near impossible to provide evidence that vaccines alone eradicated the spread of diseases in some countries as there are variables beyond our control that we have to account for (hence why no scientific study can be 100% definitive)
3. the preservatives and additives are at a level which is not considered toxic to the human body. Mercury can be found in higher doses in a tin of tuna!

The bit i bolded is inaccurate to say the least. our innate immunity is not isolated to our respiratory tract. It has key mechanisms active all over our body. Epithelial cells is one for a start. the vaccine is injected into our bloodstream as our immune system is largely made up of white blood cells and so direct infection aids a faster immune response. our cells develope immunological memory to those pathogens it has encountered before so by injecting us with a dead virus (which by the way cannot continue to grow and mutate) we are gearing our immune system up if you like for proper infection. We are preparing our bodies.

I have a teething baby on my hands at the mo so may not be entirely coherrant but will get back to this.

 

[Blue_bumpkin]

I have yet to see anyone provide a link to a credible, published scientific paper in support of not vaccinating

I haven't found any concrete evidence that suggests that vaccines would be a benefit to my family. So I think the more important concern is can you provide a link to a truely credible, published scientific paper in support of vaccinating. One that is not funded by the vaccine industry or large pharmacutical companies or the CDC because the stuff they produce is manipulated to support vaccines.

I already have and there are several more on pubmed

In the disclaimer of PubMed it explains that these writings are the views and opinions of authors expressed on NCBI's Web sites. Besides several of the studies you posts were already discussed and shown to be inconclusive.

The disclaimer is there for legal reasons. Pubmed itself did not carry out the research papers and does not own them hence why one if them is necessary. the papers are not inconclusive. this is why this argument will continue to go round and round in circles. As PB said if you're looking for definitive proof in science then you are never going to get it. nothing is certain. It does not mean by any stretch that the papers and experiments conducted are inconclusive and not reliable..

I dont know any other way to put my point across. And i dont think there is much point in me trying.

its like i said earlier, for me it was balancing the risks of vaccination and against vaccination. Whereas i accept that there are risks in vaccination, if ppl refuse to see the risks in not vaccinating its pointless discussing it really.

I am fully aware of the risks of vaccinating and of not vaccinateding. I am fully aware of the risks of disease. I think most individuals who do not vaccinate are aware. However, individuals who do vaccinate are not usually fully aware. I'm not saying that you or several other ladies on here are not aware. Just that the vaccinating population at large are not aware.

I actually agree with that to an extent. When I was researching what to do, my sister said she had never heard of not vaccinating. She assumed 100% safety and also that they were compulsory.

more information should be widely available to people from the beginning.

 

[lisaf]

Again, Dr. Tenpenny's links are NOT to any published studies that I could find and some of them went to sites I found to be very biased or deliberately playing to emotions.
The very first link is the the company she owns... you cannot cite yourself as a reference.

I saw a comment on the article about the primate study that said out of 18 children in their church that have not been vaccinated, none of them have autism... as if that proves anything.... out of the 18 children in my FAMILY alone, cousins etc, all have been vaccinated and none of them have autism.

Many people feel a restricted diet can help improve the symptoms of autism, I'm not saying thats true for all people, but if there is a dietary link and that some people seem to respond to that, then I think that shows that not every autism case may have any basis in vaccines.
As for 1 out of 160? How many of them are the milder versions that years back, we wouldn't have even recognized? Heck according to an online quiz, I might have some form of Asperger's Syndrome. I think that its great that we have widened the definition, but that doesn't mean that all people within the spectrum are debilitated by it at all.

Dyslexia is also underdiagnosed and more common then you'd think, but that doesn't mean it affects the lifestyle of people with mild versions (so mild they would never even think of getting tested).

ADHD is a diagnosis that is given too frequently... and sometimes it just means the kid is bored and needs a bit more physical activity because we are expecting kids to sit still for longer periods of time etc.

When are they going to come up with a disease that covers extreme shyness? That can be extremely limiting of a child's social life, but right now we don't consider that a disorder or syndrome... once we do label it that, we'll be outraged that children suffer from it.
And I'll say that if you ever read the definitions for mental disorders in the DSM IV, you'd swear you have a touch of almost half of them, lol.

Autism is a serious and scary condition to have, I'm not trying to disparage that... just that there are varying levels of severity, and having a VERY mild form of autism may be no more debilitating than being really bad at math. I do think I MIGHT rank somewhere on the autism spectrum, but I don't think it has been any huge detriment to my life. I also might be mildly dyslexic.. I flip numbers around a lot... I will perfectly recall the numbers in a phone number, but not the order they go in . I haven't bothered to get diagnosed for either of those things because they do not affect my life significantly. My brother and dad both have dyslexia too. My brother's was bad enough that he qualifies for the governement audio tape program.

https://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703422904575039351632663996.html
Very interesting article that looks at the autism rates to find out why some areas have higher rates than others in Los Angeles... I wish it linked to the actual studies though.

 

[KandyKinz]

As for 1 out of 160? How many of them are the milder versions that years back, we wouldn't have even recognized? Heck according to an online quiz, I might have some form of Asperger's Syndrome. I think that its great that we have widened the definition, but that doesn't mean that all people within the spectrum are debilitated by it at all.

Dyslexia is also underdiagnosed and more common then you'd think, but that doesn't mean it affects the lifestyle of people with mild versions (so mild they would never even think of getting tested).

Autism is a serious and scary condition to have, I'm not trying to disparage that... just that there are varying levels of severity, and having a VERY mild form of autism may be no more debilitating than being really bad at math. I do think I MIGHT rank somewhere on the autism spectrum, but I don't think it has been any huge detriment to my life. I also might be mildly dyslexic.. I flip numbers around a lot... I will perfectly recall the numbers in a phone number, but not the order they go in . I haven't bothered to get diagnosed for either of those things because they do not affect my life significantly. My brother and dad both have dyslexia too. My brother's was bad enough that he qualifies for the governement audio tape program.

The 1/160 does refer to the whole spectrum of autistic disorders. The incidence for the severe traditional type of autism is 1/500. Regardless, based on the individuals I know who have been diagnosed with high functioning autism or aspergers despite the mildness of their condition it has been very detrimental to their lives and my 25 year old cousin with "high functioning" autism is still unable to live on her own. It's definitly been no walk in the park for any of them. And quite honestly, I too feel that I have many characteristics specific to autism... but unlike you I do feel that those characteristics and issues HAVE been a HUGE detriment to my life....

I also believe that there are many many components of autism. It definitly tends to like my family and studies have been quite conclusive that there is some sort of genetic link... But I also believe there are other factors that likely sets it off including food allergies and potentially exposures to things like ultrasound and immunizations.... Anyways, I don't feel at this point I have reason to completely ban immunizations from my family based on current research (perhaps be selective as to which ones they receive and when they receive them... but not ban them completely) but I do feel that further investatigations and suspicians regarding immunizations and their potential dangers are warranted.

 

[lisaf]

Kandy - I totally agree about being selective and spacing out the timing of the vaccines. I plan to do something similar myself. I do think that more research would be helpful, but until they do a placebo study, I don't know that anyone will trust the data... and they won't do that and risk exposing children to diseases...
They've removed the thermosil from vaccines, which I think is reassuring... and the rates of autism have continued to climb so I feel that while there may be a link, its a bit of a witch hunt at the moment.

I'm not saying I'm not affected by certain aspects of my personality that maybe Aspberger-related... my personal and professional relationships may suffer as a result, but I do feel that people come in all shapes and sizes, and just because there may be a label for what I am, doesn't change my life at all, if that makes sense. Its not like my sleep disorder where there was something WRONG with me that I needed to fix in order to function. I function just fine... with perhaps a bit more friction in my life due to my abruptness etc...

Its like with the dyslexia in my family... my dad never reads books... never really understood why he didn't enjoy it. He was a very successful engineer and manager, and his employees actually saved some of the memos he used to send out because of the 'charm' to his bad English. I have friends who aren't on his Christmas card list who call me asking me to read the newsletter to them, because they enjoy his phrasing of stuff (though my stepmom helps him to make sure his atrocious spelling doesn't detract too much from the meaning of what he's saying). I hasn't hurt him much at all.
My brother did have trouble in school because they focus so much more on writing and reading comprehension now. He did do better once he got the extra time limits for tests and exams. I think his was worse than my dad's though and he grew up in a different country with different expecatations of our children.

The autism spectrum disorders are wide and varied... and most people wont bother getting diagnosed unless they ARE having trouble.
FYI.. my mom? Total candidate for an ASD, lol. It has really hurt her life, but ... its also just part of her life if that makes sense... we all have different struggles to overcome, some are harder than others... some people overcome them and some people constantly struggle. Anyone with severe enough autism or ANY disorder to have a significant impact on the daily quality of their life, isn't really part of what I'm talking about though.

Its just stuff like my cousin was diagnosed with ADHD... his parents refused to medicate him and it was a struggle, but he's totally fine now... actually a pretty subdued young adult.
and ME? I'm sure I have a touch of OCD... I don't class myself with those who are totally debilitated by their OCD... but there are varying degrees of everything and its not ALL the end of the world.

 

[lisaf]

Most inspirational person I have ever met is W. Mitchell... that guy has been through hell and back more than once and is the most positive person I've ever met.
He's shaped my outlook on a lot of this stuff where being disabled in some way doesn't have to mean anything to you.... his mantra is "its not what happens to you, its what you do about it'... or something along those lines.

 

[KandyKinz]

unfortunately Thimerosal is still in some vaccines like the H1N1 vaccine.

 

[lisaf]

They have thimerosal-free versions of them which might be harder to get, but for children and pregnant women I believe you get priority for them.

 

[KandyKinz]

They have thimerosal-free versions of them which might be harder to get, but for children and pregnant women I believe you get priority for them.

Unfortunatly, that's not the case in Canada. Thimerosal is in both the adjuvanted and unadjuvanted vaccines here... The unadjuvanted is what is recommended for pregnant women and contains 50ug of thimerosal. The adjuvanted thimerosal contains only 5ug.... But right now in Canada the adjuvanted has expired so the only thing available is the unadjuvanted stuff.

 

[Blue_bumpkin]

They have thimerosal-free versions of them which might be harder to get, but for children and pregnant women I believe you get priority for them.

Unfortunatly, that's not the case in Canada. Thimerosal is in both the adjuvanted and unadjuvanted vaccines here... The unadjuvanted is what is recommended for pregnant women and contains 50ug of thimerosal. The adjuvanted thimerosal contains only 5ug.... But right now in Canada the adjuvanted has expired so the only thing available is the unadjuvanted stuff.

I believe the recommendation was changed to the adjuvanted one (Pandemrix) for pregnant women as it offered faster and stronger immunity? (the adjuvant used is squalene). Or it was when the outbreak was rife. It perhaps is not as urgent as it was so the recommendation may again be the adjuvant free version (Celvapan over here). It is available in the UK if you have an egg allergy but you can also request it. I did but changed my mind upon further research. Thiomersal is not in the celvapan over here.