Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated Children and Autism: Why no Studies?

[Reg Griswold]

Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated Children and Autism: Why no Studies?

http://healthimpactnews.com/2012/vaccinated-vs-unvaccinated-children-and-autism-why-no-studies/



"The Centers for Disease Control issued an alarming report: 1 in 88 US
children are afflicted with autism–an increase of 25% between
2006-2008.

On March 29, 2012, the US Centers for Disease Control reported
startling evidence: the number of children diagnosed with autism in
the United States increased 25% between 2006 and 2008. The autism rate
jumped from 1 in 100 (2006) to 1 in 88 children (2008). The autism
rate is even higher for boys: one in 54 compared to girls, one in 252.


With so many millions of children affected by autism–and the spiraling
increase in that number–shouldn’t scientists take seriously the eye
witness reports by thousands of parents who blame vaccines for
triggering autistic spectrum in their previously healthy children?"

--------------

So IOW, establishment science wants any and all alternative remedies
to be subject to the rigours of science and be put through trials that
cost millions of dollars for each company that sells that product, but
when it comes to those of big pharma they are just assumed to be safe
and efficacious.

Is this some sort of double standard?



Reg

"Trust us, we're experts!"

"If people let the government decide what foods they eat and what
medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as
are the souls who live under tyranny." - Thomas Jefferson

[Ernie]

On 9/3/2013 6:44 PM, Reg Griswold aka sock of carole hubbard wrote:

<snip>

Oh no, more nonsense from carole hubbard.

[george152]

Post by Ernie
<snip>
Oh no, more nonsense from carole hubbard.

As well as the nonsense from her other sock.
A very slow learner

[Bob Officer]

On Wed, 04 Sep 2013 08:44:37 +1000, in misc.health.alternative, Reg

Post by Reg Griswold
Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated Children and Autism: Why no Studies?
http://healthimpactnews.com/2012/vaccinated-vs-unvaccinated-children-and-autism-why-no-studies/
"The Centers for Disease Control issued an alarming report: 1 in 88 US
children are afflicted with autism–an increase of 25% between
2006-2008.
On March 29, 2012, the US Centers for Disease Control reported
startling evidence: the number of children diagnosed with autism in
the United States increased 25% between 2006 and 2008. The autism rate
jumped from 1 in 100 (2006) to 1 in 88 children (2008). The autism
rate is even higher for boys: one in 54 compared to girls, one in 252.

Wait until the stats come out this next year. The rate will drop by
about 33% because everyone with Asperger's will no longer be classed
as having ASD.

<snip>

[Sylvia Else]

Post by Reg Griswold
Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated Children and Autism: Why no Studies?
http://healthimpactnews.com/2012/vaccinated-vs-unvaccinated-children-and-autism-why-no-studies/
"The Centers for Disease Control issued an alarming report: 1 in 88 US
children are afflicted with autism–an increase of 25% between
2006-2008.
On March 29, 2012, the US Centers for Disease Control reported
startling evidence: the number of children diagnosed with autism in
the United States increased 25% between 2006 and 2008. The autism rate
jumped from 1 in 100 (2006) to 1 in 88 children (2008). The autism
rate is even higher for boys: one in 54 compared to girls, one in 252.
With so many millions of children affected by autism–and the spiraling
increase in that number–shouldn’t scientists take seriously the eye
witness reports by thousands of parents who blame vaccines for
triggering autistic spectrum in their previously healthy children?"
--------------
So IOW, establishment science wants any and all alternative remedies
to be subject to the rigours of science and be put through trials that
cost millions of dollars for each company that sells that product, but
when it comes to those of big pharma they are just assumed to be safe
and efficacious.
Is this some sort of double standard?

The products produced by big pharma are the subject of significant (and
costly) trials to demonstrate both effectiveness and adequate safety
(the latter has to be taken in the context of the disease being
treated). All that's being asked is that alternative remedies be subject
to the same scrutiny. If one is found that really works and is
sufficiently safe, it will become part of mainstream medicine. If it
doesn't, or isn't, then it shouldn't be sold at all, or should be sold
with the clear warning that tests show that it doesn't work, and/or is
toxic, as applicable.

Sylvia.

[Bob Officer]

On Wed, 04 Sep 2013 13:30:05 +1000, in misc.health.alternative,

Post by Sylvia Else

Post by Reg Griswold
Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated Children and Autism: Why no Studies?
http://healthimpactnews.com/2012/vaccinated-vs-unvaccinated-children-and-autism-why-no-studies/
"The Centers for Disease Control issued an alarming report: 1 in 88 US
children are afflicted with autism–an increase of 25% between
2006-2008.
On March 29, 2012, the US Centers for Disease Control reported
startling evidence: the number of children diagnosed with autism in
the United States increased 25% between 2006 and 2008. The autism rate
jumped from 1 in 100 (2006) to 1 in 88 children (2008). The autism
rate is even higher for boys: one in 54 compared to girls, one in 252.
With so many millions of children affected by autism–and the spiraling
increase in that number–shouldn’t scientists take seriously the eye
witness reports by thousands of parents who blame vaccines for
triggering autistic spectrum in their previously healthy children?"
--------------
So IOW, establishment science wants any and all alternative remedies
to be subject to the rigours of science and be put through trials that
cost millions of dollars for each company that sells that product, but
when it comes to those of big pharma they are just assumed to be safe
and efficacious.
Is this some sort of double standard?

The products produced by big pharma are the subject of significant (and
costly) trials to demonstrate both effectiveness and adequate safety
(the latter has to be taken in the context of the disease being
treated). All that's being asked is that alternative remedies be subject
to the same scrutiny. If one is found that really works and is
sufficiently safe, it will become part of mainstream medicine. If it
doesn't, or isn't, then it shouldn't be sold at all, or should be sold
with the clear warning that tests show that it doesn't work, and/or is
toxic, as applicable.
Sylvia.

agreed.

In cases where the treatment is deadly and/or the treatment preforms
worse than a placebo, the treatment should be banned.

[george152]

Post by Bob Officer
On Wed, 04 Sep 2013 13:30:05 +1000, in misc.health.alternative,

Post by Sylvia Else

Post by Reg Griswold
Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated Children and Autism: Why no Studies?
http://healthimpactnews.com/2012/vaccinated-vs-unvaccinated-children-and-autism-why-no-studies/
"The Centers for Disease Control issued an alarming report: 1 in 88 US
children are afflicted with autism–an increase of 25% between
2006-2008.
On March 29, 2012, the US Centers for Disease Control reported
startling evidence: the number of children diagnosed with autism in
the United States increased 25% between 2006 and 2008. The autism rate
jumped from 1 in 100 (2006) to 1 in 88 children (2008). The autism
rate is even higher for boys: one in 54 compared to girls, one in 252.
With so many millions of children affected by autism–and the spiraling
increase in that number–shouldn’t scientists take seriously the eye
witness reports by thousands of parents who blame vaccines for
triggering autistic spectrum in their previously healthy children?"
--------------
So IOW, establishment science wants any and all alternative remedies
to be subject to the rigours of science and be put through trials that
cost millions of dollars for each company that sells that product, but
when it comes to those of big pharma they are just assumed to be safe
and efficacious.
Is this some sort of double standard?

The products produced by big pharma are the subject of significant (and
costly) trials to demonstrate both effectiveness and adequate safety
(the latter has to be taken in the context of the disease being
treated). All that's being asked is that alternative remedies be subject
to the same scrutiny. If one is found that really works and is
sufficiently safe, it will become part of mainstream medicine. If it
doesn't, or isn't, then it shouldn't be sold at all, or should be sold
with the clear warning that tests show that it doesn't work, and/or is
toxic, as applicable.
Sylvia.

agreed.
In cases where the treatment is deadly and/or the treatment preforms
worse than a placebo, the treatment should be banned.

Not only banned but those advocating it should be taken to court and
onto prison for extended periods