Friday, March 03, 2006

What was that about no evidence?

WND has the latest on the mercury-autism link:

A new study shows a direct relationship between mercury in children's vaccines and autism, contradicting government claims there is no proven relationship between the two.

Published in the March 10 issue of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, the data show since mercury was removed from childhood vaccines, the increase in reported rates of autism and other neurological disorders in children not only stopped, but actually dropped sharply – by as much as 35 percent.

Using the government's own databases, independent researchers analyzed reports of childhood neurological disorders, including autism, before and after removal of mercury-based preservatives.

According to a statement from the Association of American Physicians & Surgeons, or AAPS, the numbers from California show that reported autism rates hit a high of 800 in May 2003. If that trend had continued, the reports would have risen to more than 1,000 by the beginning of 2006. But the number actually went down to 620, a real decrease of 22 percent, and a decrease from the projection of 35 percent.

Stated the AAPS: "This analysis directly contradicts 2004 recommendations of the Institute of Medicine, which examined vaccine safety data from the National Immunization Program of the CDC. While not willing to either rule out or to corroborate a relationship between mercury and autism, the IOM soft-pedaled its findings and decided no more studies were needed."

Of course, the proper scientific thing to do would be to conduct a large-scale blind study and shoot 10,000 kids full of mercury-laden vaccines, shoot another 10,000 full of non-mercury vaccines and leave a third group of 10,000 alone. Why would this be unethical, considering that all three options either have been done or are being done now without anything being considered except doctors' opinions based on the information they are provided by the vaccine makers?

Occam's Razor suggests that both the vaccine makers and the doctors know that vaccines, especially the mercury-laden ones, have been causing harm, so they are desperate to keep the waters muddied and avoid any conclusive proof from being established once and for all. Otherwise, why object to allowing the proven methodology of science to settle the matter?

I suppose they will argue that there were too many false diagnoses of autism taking place, which coincidentally happened to stop at precisely the time that thimerosal was removed from many of the vaccines. It's possible, of course, but color me, as always, skeptical.


Post a Comment

Rules of the blog

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts