In article , Mike Coslo writes:

N2EY wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote in message
...

William wrote:

(N2EY) wrote in message
...

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

There is also a lot of bad science out there involving immunizations.
For
example, there are still folks trying to sell the idea that
immunizations
are
somehow a cause of autism, even though repeated scientific studies have
shown
no causality. There *is* a sort of correlation in that the first
definitive
signs of autism are usually observed about the age of many common
immunizations.

The very success of immunizations has been a big part of the
controversy sround their continued use. "After all, no one gets these
diseases anymore, so why should we immunize for them?"


TAFKA, Mike, my youngest son is autistic. He was immunizised. Can
you tell me what caused it?

Was it all the crap they pumped into me before I went to Somalia? Was
it his own immunizations?

Do you know?

No I don't, and I'm sorry to hear that, Brian.


I don't know either, and I'm also sorry to read that. I have some
slight layman's experience with such disorders.

From what I have read, seen, and heard, I doubt it is chemicals put
into *you*. Most of that stuff is not good for you, though. And the rise
in autism doesn't correlate too well with immunizations IMO.

Here is my take on why a lot of children have developmental problems
that seem to be on the increase, per capita wise:

I think think there is a chemical problem in general. I think that
possibly a combination of food additives and chemicals that are making
people ill and interfering with proper development.


That's certainly a very logical theory. Here are some other factors:

1) Certain chemicals and other environmental factors, by themselves,
may not cause measurable problems. But in combination the total
effects may be quite pronounced. Most product testing is
single-factor.

I have personal experience in the multiple chemical area. It is
recognized as a big problem by environment workers.

Then you know exactly what I'm talking about - and then some!

2) A product that is "safe" in its original state may break down in
the environment into waste products that are not.

3) Individuals have varying levels of genetic predisposition. Almost
everyone has, and remembers, an "Uncle Charlie" who worked with toxic
materials all his life, smoked 3 packs of Dromedaries a day, drank a
quart of John Daniels and died at the age of 95 in a freak
hang-gliding accident while on vacation with his 30 year old wife. But
there's also "Aunt Ethel" who died of a rare malady at the age of 32
even though she never drank, smoked, or was knowingly exposed to
anything more toxic than Ivory soap.

4) Health care professionals are getting better at diagnosis. Years
ago, many developmental disorders (such as autism) were not
differentiated from mental retardation.

Here's an interesting link:

http://www.nontoxic.com/nontoxic/injured.html

lots of chemicals that we are using on a daily basis are not good for us
at all.

and

http://www.edelsoncenter.com/aut_chem.htm

yet another link dealing with premature puberty:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/479363.stm

http://www.emagazine.com/november-de...gl_health.html

The last links are here because kids are being exposed to these
chemicals that mimic hormones and mess with their proper development.

snippage

There are so many chemicals that we are putting in our bodies, from the

preservatives in vaccinations, to the carcinogens that we clean our
carpets with, and then put our babies down on those same carpets
thinking that they now have a clean healthy place to play in. We seal
our houses tightly to save money on fuel, and then breathe formaldehyde
contaminated air from the carpets, insulation, and paneling. We eat
meat that has been raised with hormones and antibiotics so that it grows
quicker. When I was a coach, an amazing amount of the kids playing on my
teams had to use inhalers for their asthma. These are supposedly healthy
kids - they are not.

How on earth do we know which chemical or combination of chemicals is
doing what?


We don't. But if we protest, we are derided as "luddites" and
"anti-progress".

Uh-huh. And then when it is proven beyond a doubt that there IS a
problem, the same people will talk about "We just didn't know that it
was dangerous then!".

And they're telling the truth. They didn't see the problem because they looked
at "Uncle Charlie" rather than "Aunt Ethel".

What is going to happen to these children as they age? Are the asthma
cases going to worsen? Probably will. These children going through
premature puberty will probably age more rapidly - but who knows? But
something is wrong, and I think it is a whole lot of different chemicals.

I agree, Mike. At the very least, the testing done on chemical
products is woefully inadequate.

At the same time, it's important to focus on solid scientific
information.

Absolutely! I have worked with some dangerous stuff over the years. But
what is needed is knowledge about what you are working with, and honesty
in it's effects.

That honesty can cost big money, though.

Repeated tests have shown no causal link between the
tested immunizations and autism. Then there's the "facilitated
communications" fiasco of some years back.

That was one of the sickest chapters in psycho-land. If you look at how
it was done, Facilitated communications is almost like the old Ouija
board.

Yep. What I find most amazing is how widespread it got before serious testing
was done. As I recall, the testing that disproved it was done by people trying
to prove that it worked. The tests were elegantly simple and completely
damning.

It mainly shows the mental state of the person that is "helping".
And lots of them were pretty sick...

Yep. And some people lost custody of their children and were accused of abuse
based on "testimony" obtained through FC.

73 de Jim, N2EY