1 in 166 American kids have Autism.
1 in 15,000 Amish kids have Autism.What's the difference?
Friday, June 12, 2009
A Plantation Negro IQ Test
1 in 166 American kids have Autism.1 in 15,000 Amish kids have Autism.What's the difference?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 comments:
A quick review of the literature will show that not only do the Amish vaccinate their children, but they also have children with Autism. Come on DV, stop beating the vaccination drum.
The Amish community is not monolithic, but in some studies done a percentage of them admit to vaccinating their kids. Yet DV your point is well taken. So they vaccinate their kids but have a much much lower incidence of autism. What gives?
It must be their environment, what they ingest and so forth. Their level of exercise far surpasses many average Americans' and their diet consists usually of home grown veggies and home grown meat. So diet, exercise as well as beliefs likely affect ones ability to heal and or combat disease. But I thought this was all common sense.
Yeah DV, DMG is right.
All the zillions of problems with kids can't be due to injecting them with ammonium sulfate, thimerosal, and chemically defined yeast-based medium at birth...
then injecting them with formaldehyde, aluminum phosphate, ammonium sulfate, and thimerosal at two months old...
then injecting them with aluminum phosphate, ammonium sulfate, soy protein and yeast at three months old...
then all of the same stuff at four months old...
then all of it again at 6 months old...
again at 9 months...
and if that doesn't do anything, the creme de la creme comes at one year old, where the lucky child will get the MMR shot, which includes monosodium L-glutamate (MSG), potassium chloride, potassium phosphate monobasic, potassium phosphate dibasic, sodium bicarbonate, sodium phosphate dibasic, sorbitol, bovine serum, hydrolized gelatin (another form of MSG), and sucrose.
DV, I don't know what your issue is. You're just a conspiracy theorist. All this sounds perfectly healthy to me. ;-)
As you are making the charge, the burden of proof is on you. I say prove it or move along.
I've already taken you by the hand and walked you through formaldehyde metabolism. And nary a peep out of you about that. Not even a "but wait you are forgetting about this".
If you were really interested in this subject you'd take a critical look at how all of these claims you are supporting. If there is a really serious connection do you think shouting to the known crazies, nutjobs and ignoramuses in the blogosphere the right approach?
All you are doing is scaring folks, whose last contact with science was in the 10th grade, with terms they don't understand...like "hydrolized", sorbitol, and monobasic. As we know most people spent more time passing notes than paying attention in chemistry class. So II, you do the heavy lifting and walk us through the chemistry. Tell me how it all works, and I'll shut up. And, while you are at it tell me how I'm wrong about formaldehyde metabolism. You can even phone a friend.
LOL, don't get so testy doc.
See, I already explained this in great detail in the post that DV took down and now I have to go through it again.
We can go in circles for days, but this really boils down to whether one has faith in the medical industry and I do not. You do.
There, we are at an impasse.
You think it is holy that a peer-reviewed journal has been properly vetted and I do not have such faith. Sorry, but I've worked with way too many "experts" and picked apart too many studies to know that any study and any "expert" can be bought and sold.
You priests can keep your religion. I'll remain a skeptic.
I don't need a study or a discussion of chemical reactions to know that breastmilk is better than formula. Do you?
Presumably you don't, which is why you want to nitpick about formaldehyde (an aside I mentioned in a much broader discussion) while saying nothing about the medical industry's bamboozle of women to feed their children formula over breastmilk.
It's a credibility issue.
You want to nitpick about a chemical reaction while ignoring the business interets of medical journals that defended the tobacco industry from "quacks" who claimed cigarettes caused cancer.
It's a credibility issue.
You want to run us in circles over this and that chemical reaction - which is entirely incidental to the discussion, whole avoiding the elephant in the room - the fact that improvements in sanitation, water cleanliness and food quality did more to eradicate disease than any toxic cocktails being peddled as sacraments.
It's a credibility issue.
The heads of the medical industry have proven time and time again that they are more concerned with the financial health of formula makers, tobacco and Big Pharma than they are with the physical health of patients.
I worked in a medical malpractice as my first law school internship. The lengths to which we had to go to obfuscate the general stupidy and criminal incompetence of "well-respected" doctors was an enlightening look into the realities of the medical industry.
It's a credibility issue Doc.
Let me quote CNulan -
[T]here is enough history and well-documented malfeasant behavior by members of the medical profession in the 20th century - driven by ideology and the profit motive - to warrant a fairly high degree of suspicion on the part of consumers of medical industrial products and professional services.
That sums it up quite nicely.
II,
How much credibility do you have talking about biomedical subjects when you try to claim hydrolYzed gelatin (a protein derived from collagen) is another form of MSG (a sodium salt glutamic acid)? And I still haven't heard anything other than your word that any of what you say is true. II, come on, don't make it so easy.
I asked you to provide proof of your statement. Your attempt to change the subject suggests you cannot.
I believe the saying goes something like this. Put up or...I suppose you can finish the sentence.
Doc, you're still missing the point.
I'm not talking about biomedical subjects. I'm talking about skepticism about a profession that has consistently lied to the public about true health.
I still haven't heard anything come out of your mouth to prove the value of vaccines.
Zero.
Nada.
Nothing to refute the corruption endemic in the medical industry.
Zero.
Nada.
Since you doctors know next to ZERO about nutrition, here's an explanation of the relationship of hydrolyzed proteins and MSG.
Here is a Q&A bir from the USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service -
Are MSG and hydrolyzed protein related?
Yes. MSG is the sodium salt of glutamic acid. Glutamic acid is an amino acid, one of the building blocks of protein. It is found in virtually all food and, in abundance, in food that is high in protein, including meat, poultry, cheeses, and fish.
Hydrolyzed proteins, used by the food industry to enhance flavor, are simply proteins that have been chemically broken apart into amino acids. The chemical breakdown of proteins may result in the formation of free glutamate that joins with free sodium to form MSG. In this case, the presence of MSG does not need to be disclosed on labeling. Labeling is required when MSG is added as a direct ingredient.
Let me know if you need any further information Doc. I'd be happy to send it your way.
Counselor II,
Did you or did you NOT in your most sarcastic writing tone, list several chemical compounds, then allude to said compounds responsibility in causing all sorts of nastiness including Autism?
Did you or did you not then contradict yourself in the very post above by stating "I'm not talking about biomedical subjects", when suggesting that a vaccine causes an unwanted disease is indeed squarely in the realm of a biomedical subject?
II, if you can't back up your claims just say so. You can't make a statement then attempt to change the subject when you've been called out. Anything else you said after is off topic.
The burden of proof isn't on me. I'm not the one making claims I can't back up. But, actually I've pointed to a rather large body of evidence in my prior posts, so your "nada" is actually a lie. Endemic corruption? Again, prove that corruption is endemic. I'd like some evidence that it is "endemic".
And you attempt to use THIS as an excuse for your ignorance:
"The chemical breakdown of proteins may result in the formation of free glutamate that joins with free sodium to form MSG."
Sure, that sounds reasonable. Protein's are comprised of amino acids. At least you spelled hydrolyzed correctly this time. But I think your statement was:
"hydrolized gelatin (another form of MSG)"
Hydrolyzed gelatin is NOT another form of amino acid as the gelatin contains quite a few different amino acids. Whereas monosodium glutamate is the sodium salt of glutamic acid (a non-essential amino acid--singular). That's like saying ANY protein (formed by many amino acids) containing glutamic acid is 'another form' of MSG. (You remember SAT Prep in high school "protein is to amino acid as...as train is to....")
This very basic error illustrates that you have no business speaking about this subject, and cannot do so with ANY authority. Would you like to hazard a guess as to which organ systems preferentially utilize glutamate? Or which use it as a neurotransmitter? By the way, you do which part of the animal know where gelatin comes from right?
Could you at least go to a science website to check your statements? At least skim wikipedia first. Hell, call your sister first. Do something. I'm starting to find it hard to believe you are a trial lawyer. I would have expected better formed arguments, and better researched evidence from you. I'm disappointed, really. But, I understand you are on vacation and are probably writing this stuff from the hip, so I'll try not to hold it against you.
If you want to have a conversation about the credibility of the medical profession versus say the legal profession (cough, cough ambulance chasers, late night commercials begging people to join class action lawsuits etc. cough) then let's get down. But instead you are trying to FRONT like the strung together science words exiting your finger tips is gospel. It sounds more like the gibberish one hears outside a late night COGIC service where everyone is speaking in tongues.
I can do this all day, everyday II. Let me know when you'd like me to stop embarrassing you, counselor...
You're starting to lose your cool Doc. The only person you are embarassing is yourself.
Out of everything you said, this tickled me the most -
If you want to have a conversation about the credibility of the medical profession versus say the legal profession (cough, cough ambulance chasers, late night commercials begging people to join class action lawsuits etc. cough) then let's get down.
When lawyers become the third leading cause of death in America, we'll get down.
Ha ha ha.
Lawyers and lawmakers (also overwhelmingly drawn from the legal guild) are up to their armpits in this, and just about any other phugged up quandry in which the U.S. presently finds itself.
Many in Congress Hold Stakes in Health Industry
As President Obama and Congress intensify the push to overhaul health care in the coming week, the political and economic force of that industry is well represented in the financial holdings of many lawmakers and others with a say on the legislation, according to new disclosure forms.
The personal financial reports, due late last week from members of Congress, show that many lawmakers hold investments in insurance, pharmaceutical and prescription-benefit companies and in hospital interests, all of which would be affected by the administration’s overhaul of health care.
The lawmakers’ stakes are impossible to quantify because the reports ask for ranges of value for each asset, and because many officials’ holdings are in stock index and mutual funds. The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, for example, has interests in a stock index fund for the health care sector of more than $50,000 and up to $100,000.
Representative Dave Camp of Michigan, the senior Republican on the Ways and Means Committee, one of three panels in the House with jurisdiction over health care, reported at least tens of thousands of dollars in health-related interests, including the medical technology giant Medtronic, the drug maker Wyeth and the insurance company Aetna.
DMG
I will definitely say you're doing a good job holding down your end of the debate. Of all the questions/ contradictions/ unsupported claims you've presented to "Intellectual" Insurgent she has not addressed one of them. Then again she is trained at being a lawyer.
If you haven't noticed already "Intellectual" Insurgent does not argue facts only with unsustainable opinions much like the author of this blog.
Damn Craig, that is hilarious!!!
And a damn good point.
If the death rate of the legal profession is tallied according to the acts of legislators, then the legal profession has been the leading cause of death in America since...pretty much...day one. LOL!!
You got me on that one. Doc, thank Craig for making a good point for you.
From now on, it's not just the doctors who peddle bullshit about vaccines who should be blamed. It's the lawyers who write the laws mandating their use who must be taken to task as well.
Fair. Fair. Fair.
LOL!! I'm ROFLMEAO.
So here's the thing smart people, both of whom I love like play cousins..,
Y'all gotta quit knocking heads over trivial pursuits, i.e., ego mortification via ceaseless circular argumentation via Internet alias.
It's too many URDUMMHEIT muhphuggahs messing it up for everybody else with their insistence on authoritarian imposition of primeval stupidity for two highly intelligent people such as yourselves to get caught up in the rhetorical violence.
II,
It's simple. Put up or shut up.
I realize this is difficult for you, but this really is simple. I have no faith in your religion. Get over it and get over yourself.
This started as a pleasant exchange, but you've taken this too personally and it's not enjoyable anymore.
II,
When I was a kid we lived by "don't start nothing, and there won't be nothing". You can't just walk into MY house start talking out of the side of your neck and NOT expect to be checked. Again, anytime you'd like to back up your claims with evidence rather than conjecture, give me a holler. By the way, there is nothing personal about biomedical science. There is only evidence.
Honestly, I have no idea what you are worked up about. No one was talking out the side of her neck and no one got checked. You need to pump your brakes.
You're like a little kid at a basketball court, alone after dark, challenging the wind to play a game, pounding your chest about no one wanting to play you because your the best player on the court. Everyone went home. Lights are out.
To plagiarize DV's wise father, fighting is the flip-side of f$$king. I know I'm beautiful and all, but I'm married and there is only one man who gets to engage me.
I suggest you go offer some of that pent up faux aggression to your wife.
II,
You can't seriously think that old tactic is going to work do you?
How many times have black men heard "angry" or "worked-up" or "aggressive"? Please, I don't think you really want to go here.
Is it aggressive to ask a person to provide proof for their statements? And I'll ask you politely not to ever mention my wife or family members again, with such disrespect. I've mentioned your sister only with respect. I expect you to do the same. Have some decorum counselor.
Unless you want to get back to the main point of this thread, I think we are finished here.
No tactics Doc. Our exchange started off quite politely and I have been nothing but polite to you, even as you have grown increasingly aggressive.
Unless you are prepared to discuss the main point of this thread with maturity, we are of course finished. I think we were finished a while ago.
II,
Aggressive? Actually I've spent most of my time grinning while reading your posts. But, if you think I've been aggressive, you've read my posts with the wrong tone, which is an understandable flaw with this particular medium.
II, I've been doing nothing other than discussing the main point of this thread, but if by "maturity" you mean letting you be loose with facts, details and evidence, or allowing outright lies to pass, no deal. You see, in my profession we like to deal with facts and evidence, because wild guesses and treatments not rooted in science tend to kill people. I thought you being a lawyer would appreciate that.
But hey, I'm more than happy to discuss anything you want...as long as you 1.) stay on point and 2.) back up what you say. If you can't do that, there is no point in discussing anything.
Interesting discussion.
Post a Comment