Accepting Autism is Like a Traffic Jam

Post Reply New Topic

They're not toxic in therapeutic quantities.

Besides, none of those "natural" cures are proven to work.

Toxic in ANY quantities. You don't seem to understand what bioaccumulative chemicals are, and the effects they can have. Like a chisel, tap-tap-tapping away at a block of stone until suddenly a huge crack appears, and the rest disintegrates. Too late to sort it out when you get to that point; your precious drugs won't do anything.

Aren't they? I'm sure the thousands upon thousands of people who've been cured by them will tell you otherwise.

Isn't the proof in the proverbial pudding anyway?

If they work they work, 'proof' is irrelevent. And we all know you won't get any proof because Big Pharma can't patent nature. They can pull it apart, take some little piece of it, and then patent that, selling it as a drug (as the majority are), but they always miss the point: it's the WHOLE thing that cures, not some tiny little piece. Holistic healing is what they body understands.

I've been cured of things doctors couldn't sort out plenty of times, as I detailed below. Plus more on top of that.

And what would you say to an osteopath? Should I say, Doctor of Osteopathy, who has gone through 5-7 years of training to gain a masters degree in an extremely specialised and brilliant area of medicine?

I know about the difference between asprin, alcohol and heavy metals. I know what dose response curves are. I also know that our mercury exposure now is TINY compared to what it has been for different individuals over the centuries/millenia and in different places.

If people were significantly harmed by small amounts of lead and mercury we'd all be dead. Our bodies CAN deal with it and though there are disorders where people accumulate too much iron or copper, there is no disorder that has ever been identified where a person can not manage mercury.

We can live without mercury, sure, but reasonable amounts have no effect on us as an organism. Yes, you can make a point about a particular protein being changed because one molecule of mercury has attached to it. But get real.

We can deal with even significant amounts of mercury. There was a baby that got a massive, massive dose of thimerosal in an injection into it's thigh. The injection had been mixed up improperly (years ago) with like a thousand times too much thimerosal in it (the phrarmacist in a hospital substituted gram for milligram or something). This batch of antibiotic (that had the added thimerosal) killed a few kids... 2 or 3 if I remember but the baby survived, probably because she only had one or two injections of the stuff.

A large chunk of her thigh died. That's how strong this stuff was.

But ... and here's the good part.... she recovered nicely and ... did....not... become... autistic!! !!

Amazing!! ! I'm not saying you think mercury causes autism. But it is NOT deadly dangerous or seriously harmful at all doses in all forms. it is stupid to treat it like it is extremely dangerous because there are people who are putting it on themselves daily now. And mercury and lead in fairly high doses is still available in "natural" or "traditional" medicines in India and China. It's also in skin lightening creams all over the Southern Hemisphere and I think in China, too.

The stuff crosses the border into the states from Mexico and that stuff (the skin lightener has potentially toxic levels of mercury in it).

Is it smart to take a Chinese or Ayurvedic herb capsule containing heavy metals? Of course not!! ! Is it smart to use mercury containing skin lightener? Of course not!! !

Is it smart to get a vaccine even if it is preserved with thimerosal? DARN STRAIGHT it is. Unless by taking a vaccine you deprive someone of it who needs it more (in a shortage situation) or unless you have another reason not to take the vaccine (you have advanced AIDS and can't take a vaccine with a live virus in it because you have no immune system to deal with even a weakened vaccine).

Life is about risk vs. benefit. There is no risk from the thimerosal in vaccines compared to the risk of facing the wild type germ that the vaccine covers.

Wild type germs can pump us full of loads of toxins. Yes, toxins. As in toxic stuff. Really really toxic stuff that kills. So you can ask your body to deal with micrograms of thimerosal or you can tell your body to take it's chances with wild viruses and bacteria who don't play by FDA rules. They kill. They kill adults they kill unborn babies... They maim. They put people out of work and can make them homeless, etc.

It's foolish to focus on the "toxins" in vaccines while pretending that the germs in this world are all our friends and that some of them wouldn't kill us without a thought.

It's dangerous to others to frighten them off vaccines with word games about how untrustworthy big pharma is or how mother nature loves us. Big pharma does not love us like our mommiss do. No doubt, but not everything they make is coming straight from the Illuminati, sent to kill us all, neither is "mother nature" all wonderful. Herbs kill people, too. So do traditional medicines containing loads of heavy metals. And sitting in an "all natural" hot springs pool containing mercury breathing mercury fumes and drinking the "all natural" mineral water may or may not be that good for you...

Oh, and "by the way," there still is mercury in vaccines. Me and my ASD kid got our flu shots with the "classic" level of thimerosal this year (gasp) it's something like 60 micrograms a shot....and ask the mercury malicia, they will tell you that many vaccines still contain a "trace" of mercury that is used in the processing of it... it's just that most of the thimerosal is chelated out before it's packaged.

There aren't many folks out there who know the whole thimerosal story front to back as well as I do.

The whole terror was started by a stupid choice to use an extremely low EPA level for daily exposure of a different and more dangerous form of mercury as the rule for bolus exposures of thimerosal in vaccines.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arthur-al ... 66514.html


The Senate HELP committee report is available online if you want to find what they said about the whole thimerosal debacle. It came out in September of this year.

The FDA is under Big Pharma's thumb.

This is, remember, the same FDA who'll happily tell you aspartame is safe, as is saccharin and 'splenda', that MSG is absolutely fine, that various food dyes and flavours are safe as houses (till the evidence is too much and they pull them), that you need all that fluoride in your water and toothpaste, that sugar is great in big doses (low fat diet anyone?), that GMOs are brilliant.... get the picture yet?


I've yet to see a traditional medicine from a qualified practioner with anything other than what they say is in it. If they put heavy metals in they'd get arrested.

Mother nature has poisons, yes, but there's always a cure to be found close by. The stinging nettle and the dock leaf being a good example... get stung? You'll be sure to have a dock leaf nearby to fix it. Nature is clever.


It isn't dangerous to scare people off big pharma. You seem reasonably well-educated; surely you aren't naive enough to believe that an industry that makes trillions a year out of you being sick actually wants to make you better?!

I don't know what mineral water you've been drinking, or what mineral pools you've been sitting in, but they sounds pretty dreadful to me. You're the only one I've seen mentioning the illuminati, by the way. I don't personally buy into all that.


Again, why would I put that crap into my body? What good is it going to do me? How will it help my immune system to be overloaded with toxic substances the body doesn't need but that bioaccumulate and lead to other horrible diseases later on?

Keep your poisons to yourself, thanks.

This is by far one of the worst threads ive ever read in my life

The OP is the biggest dolt ive ever come across online and refuses to use any logical evidence to backup any bogus claims whatsoever in his posts

I award you zero points and may God have mercy on your soul.

I just realized that this is confused... confusing

Vaccines with live attenuated viruses in them aren't preserved by thimerosal... a better example would have been "Don't avoid the flu shot because it has thimerosal, but do avoid it if you are allergic to chicken or eggs (assuming that flu vaccine germ was grown in an egg).

There's more reason to fear the wild-germs if you are a certain age and/or in a certain place than there is to fear vaccines. Risk vs. Benefit.

There's no point in vaccinating a population in the Amazon for the flu because the flu doesn't go epidemic in the tropics.... the germ likes cold dry air. It might make sense to vaccinate an individual who lives in the tropics if he's going to travel to a cold climate or something like that.

Antivaccinism is old. Some people are always going freak about having anything urged on them by the gov't. People cry over motorcycle helmet laws that are shown to save lives. People cried over restricting smoking on airplanes... it's not FAIR! There are whole batches of loonies who are sure that fluoride is only put in water to poison the populace... see "Dr. Strangelove." We don't have to give them credence just because they are so insistent that the Illuminati are out to get us.


http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id ... 506&size=m

They're idiots, then. These natural remedies are no better than placebo in most cases.

Oh and this whole "big pharma" crap. Most idiotic theory I've ever heard. There's a known quack named Kevin Trudeau who promotes this crazy idea and he's not well-regarded in ANY circle.

Is anyone else up for seeing this topic locked? I think the Art Bell Coast-to-Coast AM stuff is probably better for the Philosophy, Religion, and Politics folder anyway.

I'm always interested in this whole concept of acceptance having supposedly started in 1999. I got involved in the autistic community around then and that viewpoint was already being heavily supported by many autistic people, it was just almost nobody had heard of the autistic community at that stage. Don't Mourn For Us was the classic article about that, which was written in... let's see... 1993, which is a fair bit before 1999. And I doubt Jim was the first to think of it either.

I also don't understand when acceptance became the opposition to biomed, doesn't even make sense. It's like some of the people in the whole biomed set of ideas really believe they're the first people to ever encounter adult autistic people who don't agree with everything they believe in (even if said autistic people believe in biomed stuff, which some do). But then I've seen this before. A few times. With different treatment fads. It's really odd.

Irrelevant - lead levels were higher among the ancient Greeks; that doesn't mean that ethyl lead from gasoline or white lead paint did not impair cognitive development in modern kids.



Nonsense. That's like saying that if second hand smoke was really dangerous, we would all be dead.

The idea that we can all 'manage' mercury equally is not proven - in fact, there are studies that suggest the opposite.







A) I am not suggesting that mercury is "The Cause" of autism. It may be a contributing factor, but mercury alone does not explain autism. On the other hand, the idea that mercury is safe is not supported by the evidence.




Obviously, it is not DEADLY in lower doses. It merely lowers intelligence, increases the risk of autoimmune disease and certain cancers.

Would you say that smoking is not extremely dangerous because there are people who do that daily? The fact that heavy metals ares being used in cosmetics or 'traditional medicines' says little about the toxicology of those metals - it is a reflection of culture not being informed by science.




I agree that it is about risk vs. benefit. I get x-rays from time to time, and there are real benefits from the knowledge. But if we could get that information from a system that used less radiation, would we? If we could get that information with no increased radiation, would that be better? Of course.

That the benefits of medically indicated X-rays outweighs the risks is clear. It does not mean that the risk is neglible; in fact, for many routine radiological procedures, over time, the criteria have been adjusted in order to maintain a favorable benefit:risk ratio.

The same is true of vaccines. Mercury is a really good preservative because it is toxic. We have the technology to produce vaccines without mercury - it is slightly more expensive, and requires a change in the way business is done. But it can be done.



Not pretending that microbes are always our friends. They are selfish little buggers. I trained as a microbiologist and worked in pathology research lab for a while. I am quite aware of the power of microbes (I stand in awe of them).

I am not arguing that flu shots are a bad idea. I am arguing that societal exposure to mercury is too high, and that it could be reduced.

I am well aware of the effects of too much lead. I heard one of this country's leading experts talk about it at the MIND insitute's mini-DAN! conference (a situation with biomedical whack-jobs and snake oils salesmen trying to fit in with the real scientists and failing miserably)

I am glad that they removed lead from gasoline. Lead exposure to US citizens dropped dramatically when they did that.

But you are comparing camels and gnats here. If you get all freaked out about the amount of mercury in a vaccine (which is still in there! in many adult vaccines) and pretend that it is the exact equivalent of the mercury and PCB exposure in the Faroes and Seychelles (look, dude this paper you cite is OLD news to me) you make no sense.

Pregnant moms in the Seychelles have massively more mercury in their hair than a typical adult here in the US. They eat fish all the time. The Faroese eat bunches of pilot whale meat a few times a year and get a blast of not only mercury but also of PCBs. (which are supposed to be mega nasty to the developing brain) They do not have any more autistics there than anyone else has! (edited to add) You talk about "minimal exposure" and then bring up studies that show large exposure of a different and more toxic form of mercury! Good grief, get the dosages straight. Thimerosal doseage in a vaccine is like nothing compared to what the kids and pregnant and nursing moms get in the Faroes and Seychelles!

Sure it would be good if they had mercury free diets. I would tell all the pregnant women there not to eat the fish and the whale meat... if they could find something else...

There is NO reason to remove thimerosal from vaccines. NOT one reason. No reason. It's not harmful at such a miniscule dose and given so rarely.

If you attack thimerosal you attack what is keeping millions of kids alive in poor countries where they have no option but to use multidose vials. Even here there isn't the capability to deliver enough flu vax all in individual doses. The rubber meets the road when you need to store this stuff and move it out ot millions of people in a short period of time. There is NO reason not to use thimerosal as a presevative. The mercury freaks and chelationists out there have made it seem very dangerous when it is not.

If it works, it works. And if it works without the use of toxic drugs pushed by the biggest industry in the world today who make trillions a year from people being sick, then even better.

And there are THOUSANDS of people who 'promote' this idea; some will be 'quacks', many are not.

{quote="Autism Diva"]There are whole batches of loonies who are sure that fluoride is only put in water to poison the populace... see "Dr. Strangelove." We don't have to give them credence just because they are so insistent that the Illuminati are out to get us.[/quote]

Again, you're the only one mentioning the illuminati here.

Fluoride is a toxic by-product from the aluminium industry. It comes from aluminium smeltering plants. That which they put in water is NOT high-quality fluoride at pharmaceutical grade - it's toxic waste, more or less. It's all bioaccumulative (as in, accumulates in the body), a known neuro-toxin indicated in a good number of diseases such as Parkinsons, Osteoporosis, Alzheimers etc, and a probable carcinogen. It doesn't help teeth in any way unless they're totally dried, and then it is blasted onto them using a tool best described as a 'mini-sandblaster' by a dentist at a dentist's surgery. Any other use - in toothpaste or in water - is dangerous, irresponsible, and pointless.

And there are PLENTY of studies to prove this. Not a 'batch of loonies'.



Nobody's arguing that illnesses are bad, that bacteria and viruses are nasty (except, of course, for the ones that live naturally in one's stomach and make you function properly in symbiosis). But the risks outweigh the benefits and I would much rather boost my kids' systems naturally, using proven natural immune boosting vitamins and plants, rather than inject them with that toxic muck.


Funny you bring up egg allergies too - we're pretty convinced my egg allergy is vaccine-induced thanks to a jab when I was younger that was cultured on eggs. The first one I had using egg protein; not long after my first reaction. Oooh.

Keeping your child's teeth healthy requires more than just daily brushing. During a routine well-child exam, you may be surprised to find the doctor examining your child's teeth and asking you about your water supply. That's because fluoride, a substance that's found naturally in water, plays an important role in healthy tooth development and cavity prevention.


What Is Fluoride?


Fluoride exists naturally in water sources and is derived from fluorine, the thirteenth most common element in the Earth's crust. It is well known that fluoride helps prevent and even reverse the early stages of tooth decay.

Tooth decay occurs when bacteria - found in the plaque that dentists try so hard to get rid of - break down sugars in food. This process produces damaging acids that dissolve the hard enamel surfaces of teeth. If the damage is not stopped or treated, the bacteria can penetrate through the enamel to the underlying tissues of the teeth, causing cavities (also called caries). Cavities weaken teeth and cause pain, tooth loss, or even widespread infection in the most severe cases.

Fluoride combats tooth decay in two ways. It strengthens tooth enamel, a hard and shiny substance that protects the teeth, so that it can better resist the acid formed by plaque. Fluoride also allows teeth damaged by acid to repair, or remineralize, themselves. Fluoride cannot repair cavities, but it can reverse low levels of tooth decay and thus prevent new cavities from forming.

Though fluoride benefits adults, it is especially critical to the health of developing teeth in children. And despite all the good news about dental health, tooth decay remains one of the most common diseases of childhood. According to 2000 statistics from the U.S. Surgeon General, more than half of children ages 5 to 9 years have had at least one cavity or filling, and tooth decay has affected 78% of 17-year-olds.

The Controversy Over Fluoride

You may have heard that the addition of fluoride to the water supply is dangerous and damaging. Some advocacy groups publish reports on the hazards of fluoridation, and they point to toxicity warnings on toothpaste, concluding that any substance needing such careful dosage must be dangerous.

In response to claims that water fluoridation is dangerous, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) reviewed research on dental cavities prevention and public policy, including fluoridation. It agreed with antifluoride activists that many studies in this area are of poor quality. However, the NIH panel concluded that the unevenness of research does not invalidate the clear benefits of fluoride. The NIH believes that the dramatic reductions in tooth decay in the past 30 years are due to fluoridation of the water supply, and parents and health professionals should continue to ensure that kids receive enough fluoride to prevent cavities.


This Fluoride thing is such a DEAD HORSE.

Tell that to Queensland here in Australia, Darwin! They finally fell into line with the other capital cities just the other week - and there was naysayers talking about all the old wives tails!

Oh by the way - in some late breaking news.....

Fore Sam's blog was removed from topautismsites.com!

Everybody......

Aw diddums!

Considering I suffer from painful tooth decay due to years of not brushing them (and recently had three left side molars removed), I'm just gonna say the benefits of flouride outweigh the risks tenfold.

I'm not saying don't brush your teeth - don't twist my words. Brush 'em, floss 'em, massage your gums, go the dentist once or twice a year, see a hygienist, and use a non-fluoride toothpaste. If you're silly enough to have not brushed your teeth for years then of course you're going to have problems - start brushing and flossing them properly, cut the crap diet full of acidic foods and additives, rinse WHILE eating with pure water (not tap water) to wash food acids away, and brush twice a day with a fluoride-free, natural toothpaste and you'll soon find them sorting themselves out (those that aren't decayed, that is).

Again, what I'm saying is the only way fluoride is of any benefit is if it's blasted onto them while they are DRY - as in, no water - using specialised equipment to coat the enamel. This isn't misplaced research; this is well-known, well-documented science published in various journals and verified to me by one of the top dentists in Australia. Fact.

Even the American Dental Association is beginning to admit it's harmful: http://www.sptimes.com/2007/06/04/Tampabay/Fluoride__a_longtime_.shtml

You may want to do some research (that isn't funded by the dental industry or by the aluminium industry, which is where the fluoride added to your water comes from) into the effects fluoride has on the body. Also into the rates of diabetes and other auto-immune diseases in cities with fluoridated water, compared to those without fluoridated water, and the way those rates start rising when fluoride is added.