The Amish Don't Get Autism ...

[KokiFurihata]

Poor diet and bad health habits is known to contribute towards cancer. The amish are hard working and eat simpler foods.

[1714236338]

1714236338

[pungopete468]

I'm not against vaccinations, but I wouldn't call them harmless either... I'd be surprised if vaccinations didn't cause anomalies in the mental development of children since the human brain is at its most rapid stage of development during the time most vaccinations are administered...

http://healthimpactnews.com/2015/march-2015-settlements-in-vaccine-court-117-vaccine-injuries-and-deaths/

In 2014 Dr. William Thompson, a senior epidemiologist at the CDC who co-authored and published research on the MMR vaccine for the CDC back in 2004, made the decision to become a whistleblower and reveal data that was concealed by the CDC linking the MMR vaccine to autism among African American boys. In addition, Merck has been involved in a long federal lawsuit with allegations of fraud over the mumps portion of the MMR vaccine, in a case filed back in 2010 by two whistleblowers, virologists who worked for Merck. Merck has apparently tried hard to get this case thrown out of court, and keep this news out of the media, but late in 2014 a federal judge finally ruled that the case is to move forward.

Vaccine Court Awards Millions to Two Children With Autism:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/post2468343_b_2468343.html

Timeline of Events in the #CDCwhistleblower Scandal:
http://www.canaryparty.org/the-news

[erre]

Just to be clear: i'm a medic, i'm a psychiatrist, my thesis was about the possible causes of autism (including vaccines), and my post-graduate thesis about the diagnosis problem in psychiatry.

I think that vaccines have no connection to autism, there are stronger -but still very weak- data about food, and that the autism prevalence is increasing because people are more prone to take their childrens to a medic and medics are more prone to diagnosticate it. Also, what we define autism today is totally different by what was considered autism in the past, and with the coming of asd (autism spectrum disorder) this fake problem will for sure get worse.

I would also consider me pretty open-minded, not brainwashed and totally not corrupted by any pharma corporation, and I am very critical about litirature and expecially sponsorized research.

I have my ideas about chemotherapy too, and I come here just to share them. Regarding autism I can say more than one word if needed, my knowledge about oncology is only scholastic, but... when I read about patients who died because they was convinced to treath breast cancer (a really curable cancer) with bicarbonate alone (by a really famous naturopatist, a radiated medic who still exercitate today) I get horrified.

And, belive me, as a psychiatrist I can assure you it's full of psychotic medics or researchers who can acritically stick to an absurd and unproven idea, even professors or other apical figures. Even judges.

That's why you need to work out your knowledge by avoiding both the mainstream news and the crazy freelancers. Good luck with it but, when it comes to cancer, I suggest a reputable oncologist.

[BADecker]

Just to be clear: i'm a medic, i'm a psychiatrist, my thesis was about the possible causes of autism (including vaccines), and my post-graduate thesis about the diagnosis problem in psychiatry.

I think that vaccines have no connection to autism, there are stronger -but still very weak- data about food, and that the autism prevalence is increasing because people are more prone to take their childrens to a medic and medics are more prone to diagnosticate it. Also, what we define autism today is totally different by what was considered autism in the past, and with the coming of asd (autism spectrum disorder) this fake problem will for sure get worse.

I would also consider me pretty open-minded, not brainwashed and totally not corrupted by any pharma corporation, and I am very critical about litirature and expecially sponsorized research.

I have my ideas about chemotherapy too, and I come here just to share them. Regarding autism I can say more than one word if needed, my knowledge about oncology is only scholastic, but... when I read about patients who died because they was convinced to treath breast cancer (a really curable cancer) with bicarbonate alone (by a really famous naturopatist, a radiated medic who still exercitate today) I get horrified.

And, belive me, as a psychiatrist I can assure you it's full of psychotic medics or researchers who can acritically stick to an absurd and unproven idea, even professors or other apical figures. Even judges.

That's why you need to work out your knowledge by avoiding both the mainstream news and the crazy freelancers. Good luck with it but, when it comes to cancer, I suggest a reputable oncologist.

A couple points...

1. If your researched for your thesis is the writings of others rather than through detailed experimentation, then you have simply restated what others have written, in a different way, through your thesis.

2. Seems to me - without loads of research or experimentation - that a reasonable number of autism cases (and other diseases, including swine flu) have been reported to have appeared immediately following the administration of vaccine. Maybe this is a coincidence. Maybe it's all lies, based on peoples' desires and paranoia. Maybe there is a much higher instance of nothing happening after vaccination. Maybe most of the people would have contracted the diseases or maladies anyway. Maybe the diseases or maladies would have been worse. It is very difficult to factually trace and pinpoint the exact cause of any disease or malady, except in entirely controlled lab experimentation.

Have there been any studies where large numbers of people have been vaccinated, and then followed up with detailed, complex examinations into vaccine/disease connections? Have any of these studies been done with autism?

Google and Youtube search on "autism vaccine connection" for all kinds of views on this. Many of the views are from doctors that believe that vaccines do cause autism.

[tvbcof]

...

That's why you need to work out your knowledge by avoiding both the mainstream news and the crazy freelancers. Good luck with it but, when it comes to cancer, I suggest a reputable oncologist.

I consider the mainstream news to be fully controlled by about 6 corporations who's owners also have holdings in most other large corporate concerns.  Their messages on important subjects are crafted and coordinated to leave the public with a specific message.

I consider the alternate media (aka, 'crazy freelancers') to be even less reliable.  The difference is that there are nuggets of pure truth contained within.  It's simply labor intensive to pick these out, but the pay-off is that one can formulate a more accurate understanding of reality.

The metric I use in understanding the world is when a hypothesis explains many observations without a lot of strain.  When I don't prejudiced my hypothesis selection by writing off 'crime-think' ideas, certain of these mesh nicely with observations.

I am constantly reminded of Jacobi's advice "Invert, always invert."  When certain things are inverted to what is widely considered a ridiculous state, it is common for a lot of observations to fall into place.  An example of this would be the childhood immunization schedule.  It is widely understood that the purpose of this is to create a healthy population.  The inversion would be that the purpose is to create a profitable population, and a population who had certain health problems fits the model.

An unhealthy population is not only profitable from the perspective of the pharma industry, but is also much more dependent on support making them a controllable population as well.

The Pavlovian response to such an outrageous suggestion is that it is so evil as to be absurd.  Based on a read of history up to and including recent times, I don't personally feel that the idea is especially outrageous or even out-of-character.

If people are considered to be a threat insofar as they create overpopulation problems, then it is easy to invert the idea that 'the powers that be' want healthy and strong people to one where they are not entirely disappointed if policies result in fewer people.  The suggestion also serves to enlist the support and participation of people who are focus on, for instance, the natural environment (aka 'eco-fundamentalists'.)  They can disseminate certain ideas through their information channels, and can feed support back up these channels.

edits: slight

[BADecker]

...

That's why you need to work out your knowledge by avoiding both the mainstream news and the crazy freelancers. Good luck with it but, when it comes to cancer, I suggest a reputable oncologist.

I consider the mainstream news to be fully controlled by about 6 corporations who's owners also have holdings in most other large corporate concerns.  Their messages on important subjects are crafted and coordinated to leave the public with a specific message.

I consider the alternate media (aka, 'crazy freelancers') to be even less reliable.  The difference is that there are nuggets of pure truth contained within.  It's simply labor intensive to pick these out, but the pay-off is that one can formulate a more accurate understanding of reality.

The metric I use in understanding the world is when a hypothesis explains many observations without a lot of strain.  When I don't prejudiced my hypothesis selection by writing off 'crime-think' ideas, certain of these mesh nicely with observations.

I am constantly reminded of Jacobi's advice "Invert, always invert."  When certain things are inverted to what is widely considered a ridiculous state, it is common for a lot of observations to fall into place.  An example of this would be the childhood immunization schedule.  It is widely understood that the purpose of this is to create a healthy population.  The inversion would be that the purpose is to create a profitable population, and a population who had certain health problems fits the model.

An unhealthy population is not only profitable from the perspective of the pharma industry, but is also much more dependent on support making them a controllable population as well.

The Pavlovian response to such an outrageous suggestion is that it is so evil as to be absurd.  Based on a read of history up to and including recent times, I don't personally feel that the idea is especially outrageous or even out-of-character.

If people are considered to be a threat insofar as they create overpopulation problems, then it is easy to invert the idea that 'the powers that be' want healthy and strong people to one where they are not entirely disappointed if policies result in fewer people.  The suggestion also serves to enlist the support and participation of people who are focus on, for instance, the natural environment (aka 'eco-fundamentalists'.)  They can disseminate certain ideas through their information channels, and can feed support back up these channels.

edits: slight

Good point ^^!   

[bryant.coleman]

Poor diet and bad health habits is known to contribute towards cancer. The amish are hard working and eat simpler foods.

It is not the poor diet and bad health habits which is causing cancer. Smoking is responsible for 20% to 25% of the cases. Most of the remaining is caused by the indiscriminate usage of pesticides and other chemicals. The Amish generally don't use pesticides for their crops, and that is the reason why they have such low rates of cancer.

[erre]

Just to be clear: i'm a medic, i'm a psychiatrist, my thesis was about the possible causes of autism (including vaccines), and my post-graduate thesis about the diagnosis problem in psychiatry.

I think that vaccines have no connection to autism, there are stronger -but still very weak- data about food, and that the autism prevalence is increasing because people are more prone to take their childrens to a medic and medics are more prone to diagnosticate it. Also, what we define autism today is totally different by what was considered autism in the past, and with the coming of asd (autism spectrum disorder) this fake problem will for sure get worse.

I would also consider me pretty open-minded, not brainwashed and totally not corrupted by any pharma corporation, and I am very critical about litirature and expecially sponsorized research.

I have my ideas about chemotherapy too, and I come here just to share them. Regarding autism I can say more than one word if needed, my knowledge about oncology is only scholastic, but... when I read about patients who died because they was convinced to treath breast cancer (a really curable cancer) with bicarbonate alone (by a really famous naturopatist, a radiated medic who still exercitate today) I get horrified.

And, belive me, as a psychiatrist I can assure you it's full of psychotic medics or researchers who can acritically stick to an absurd and unproven idea, even professors or other apical figures. Even judges.

That's why you need to work out your knowledge by avoiding both the mainstream news and the crazy freelancers. Good luck with it but, when it comes to cancer, I suggest a reputable oncologist.

A couple points...

1. If your researched for your thesis is the writings of others rather than through detailed experimentation, then you have simply restated what others have written, in a different way, through your thesis.

2. Seems to me - without loads of research or experimentation - that a reasonable number of autism cases (and other diseases, including swine flu) have been reported to have appeared immediately following the administration of vaccine. Maybe this is a coincidence. Maybe it's all lies, based on peoples' desires and paranoia. Maybe there is a much higher instance of nothing happening after vaccination. Maybe most of the people would have contracted the diseases or maladies anyway. Maybe the diseases or maladies would have been worse. It is very difficult to factually trace and pinpoint the exact cause of any disease or malady, except in entirely controlled lab experimentation.

Have there been any studies where large numbers of people have been vaccinated, and then followed up with detailed, complex examinations into vaccine/disease connections? Have any of these studies been done with autism?

Google and Youtube search on "autism vaccine connection" for all kinds of views on this. Many of the views are from doctors that believe that vaccines do cause autism.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2336894/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2908388/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12583844

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11700148

[tvbcof]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2336894/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2908388/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12583844

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11700148

Wow!  A body which is pretty much owned outright by the pharma industry cannot find 'sufficient evidence' to link a specific vaccine to a specific malady.  How very surprising!  Nothing to see here...move along.

Love your sample selection methods by the way.

I'll not stay up nights waiting for *.gov to do anything substantive regarding the blatant fraud that Merck engaged in vis-a-vis the mumps component in order to maintain their market share.  I'll also not be surprised to see more outbreaks of mumps in highly vaccinated groups, and to see the outbreaks shifted into the post-puberty age range and thus result in (even more) sterility in the male population.  Perhaps 'routine booster shots throughout life' will save the day (and pay Merck back 100x on whatever slap on the wrist they may get for their malfeasance.)

[erre]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/PubMed

[tvbcof]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/PubMed

Looks like PubMed and NIH is not entirely entirely bought and useless...or they had an oversight in their 'selection':  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21568886

[BADecker]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/PubMed

PubMed, Club Med. Club Med makes way more sense, and fun! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club_Med.    

Or how about this http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/supressed_inventions/suppressed_inventions06.htm. It isn't the easiest read, but it shows a lot. Also, Google and Youtube search on "Ebola created by CIA" to see the reason why Ebola isn't the greatest threat, and why government and the medical are.

[zenitzz]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/PubMed

Looks like PubMed and NIH is not entirely entirely bought and useless...or they had an oversight in their 'selection':  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21568886

Not unless you consider a "placebo" to be a different vaccine, or aluminum, thimerosal, or everything in the vaccine except the antigen.

[BADecker]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/PubMed

Looks like PubMed and NIH is not entirely entirely bought and useless...or they had an oversight in their 'selection':  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21568886

Not unless you consider a "placebo" to be a different vaccine, or aluminum, thimerosal, or everything in the vaccine except the antigen.

And mercury at times.   

[tvbcof]

Looks like PubMed and NIH is not entirely entirely bought and useless...or they had an oversight in their 'selection':  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21568886

Not unless you consider a "placebo" to be a different vaccine, or aluminum, thimerosal, or everything in the vaccine except the antigen.

And mercury at times.   

Thimerosal is the mercury.  From what I read, it's a highly neuro-toxic compound which is used to keep anything undesirable from growing in the vaccine.  Going from recollection...

Back almost 100 years ago Lilly started using it as a preservative.  To test the safety, they found 20 people who were dying of encephalitis.  All 20 of the test subjects who were shot up with it died of encephalitis.  Thus it was deemed 'safe' and no further official safety studies have been performed.  That came out of congressional hearings a decade ago.  Thank Dan Burton and Bill Posey for their efforts here.  Other kinds of studies of the impacts have.  Here is some interesting footage of what mercury does to brain cells:

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHqVDMr9ivo

The processes by which vaccines are manufactured uses ethylmercury in various parts of the process in addition to using it as a primary preservative in the finished product.  After the big stink in congress, vaccine supplies which used thimerosal as the primary preservative were drawn down and not used any longer, but the multi-dose vaccine used in grocery stores still does.  Even the single dose vaccines shot into infants does have some remaining from parts of the manufacturing process as I understand things.  About 1/10th as much as before according to the last thing I read (I had thought it was less until then...the word 'trace' is typically used.)

It is important to note that the digestive system of animals is evolved to separate out a variety of things from the environment and not let them into the bloodstream.  Various processes in the gut (assisted by many bacteria that we host) break ingested material into smaller components.  The good stuff is absorbed and the bad stuff (like aluminum which is very common in soils) is left behind for the most part and flushed down the toilet.  'Mainlining' chemicals straight into the bloodstream short circuits this phase of protection.

Next, the 'blood brain barrier' serves as another ring of protection for the brain which is, obviously, very important to keep functioning well.  Modern vaccines contain detergents such as polysorbate-80.  The function of this is to break down the lipid layers which provide protection and allow the dose of God knows what that was just shot into the bloodstream to more easily penetrate this barrier.

I have a hypothesis that the 0.1% have gambled away people's social security (and kinda mis-calculated on how long people will live.)  These 'unfunded liabilities' cannot really ever be funded.  People who have been brain damaged will be less aware of how badly they are being fucked over and less able to do much about it.  That is why old folks are herded in for their 'flu shots' almost with a cattle prod these days.

Another hypothesis is that one of the ways people are trained is to time certain presentations on broadcast media (TV, radio, etc) with electro-magnetic signals which stimulate the brain in unnoticeable ways.  Having metals of various types infused throughout the brain tissue would make such techniques be more effective.  That hypothesis is a long-shot and I've never seen any compelling evidence for it.  It is simply something I thought up when trying to figure out why it is so important to TPTB that at least one shot (for hep-B which impacts druggies and those who engage in unprotected sex neither of which are risks for babies) on the day of birth.  After that, of course, an ever increasing number of vaccines are being forced upon people with ever increasing vigor.

[photon_coin]

perhaps lack of thermisol

[Pierre 2]

I always thought vaccines have bad side effects. I don't if autism is only one.
Some homeless people nearly never gets sick badly.