In the past two decades there was a tremendous increase in a condition which used to be uncommon: regressive autism. Regressive Autism describes a situation in which infant development was completely normal until a certain age (e.g. 12 months). Suddenly, the baby begins to exhibit a regression lasting several months, gradually losing language, eye contact, communication and play skills. The toddler is eventually diagnosed with a neurological disorder on the autistic spectrum.
Many parents of children who experienced regressive autism reported that their child's withdrawal followed their 1-one year vaccinations and in most cases was accompanied by illness such as a high fever, convulsions, diarrhea, vomiting, etc. Three such cases are documented in my blog, and searching the internet yields hundreds or even thousands of similar reports. Many of the parents are convinced that vaccines are responsible for their child's regression: whether it's the mercury load, the MMR vaccine, vaccines overload or some other reason - the fact is that the child was completely normal until his 1-year vaccinations.
Facing a significant number of similar parent stories , the vaccine industry (health authorities, pharmaceutical companies, doctors, researchers and media) is compelled to do some major wriggling to try and convince the public that vaccines do not cause regressive autism. The typical explanation from the governmental-industrial representatives goes along these lines:
"Autism just happens (or manifests itself) between the ages of one and two years at a time when vaccines are given, hence the (misguided) tendency to link it to vaccines."
Let's see some typical examples:
* "About 20 percent of children with autism will regress between their first and second birthday," says Offit. "So statistically, it will have to happen where some children will get a vaccine. They will have been fine. They will get the vaccine, and they will not be fine anymore. And I think parents can reasonably ask the question, 'Is it the vaccine that did this?'" Dr. Paul Offit, chief of infectious diseases at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania [here]
* "Regression usually appears between a child's 1st and 3rd birthdays, a period during which they get shots 4 separate times. Do the calculations and you quickly realize that, every year, over 600 children will spiral into autism during the four 1-week periods that follow these 4 shot visits... just by pure, utter, random chance." Dr. Harvey Karp, pediatrician and author [here]
Many parents of children who experienced regressive autism reported that their child's withdrawal followed their 1-one year vaccinations and in most cases was accompanied by illness such as a high fever, convulsions, diarrhea, vomiting, etc. Three such cases are documented in my blog, and searching the internet yields hundreds or even thousands of similar reports. Many of the parents are convinced that vaccines are responsible for their child's regression: whether it's the mercury load, the MMR vaccine, vaccines overload or some other reason - the fact is that the child was completely normal until his 1-year vaccinations.
Facing a significant number of similar parent stories , the vaccine industry (health authorities, pharmaceutical companies, doctors, researchers and media) is compelled to do some major wriggling to try and convince the public that vaccines do not cause regressive autism. The typical explanation from the governmental-industrial representatives goes along these lines:
"Autism just happens (or manifests itself) between the ages of one and two years at a time when vaccines are given, hence the (misguided) tendency to link it to vaccines."
Let's see some typical examples:
* "About 20 percent of children with autism will regress between their first and second birthday," says Offit. "So statistically, it will have to happen where some children will get a vaccine. They will have been fine. They will get the vaccine, and they will not be fine anymore. And I think parents can reasonably ask the question, 'Is it the vaccine that did this?'" Dr. Paul Offit, chief of infectious diseases at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania [here]
* "Regression usually appears between a child's 1st and 3rd birthdays, a period during which they get shots 4 separate times. Do the calculations and you quickly realize that, every year, over 600 children will spiral into autism during the four 1-week periods that follow these 4 shot visits... just by pure, utter, random chance." Dr. Harvey Karp, pediatrician and author [here]
* "...Children with the regressive form of autism (a type of autism that develops after a period of normal development) tend to start to show symptoms around the time the MMR vaccine is given. This is likely a coincidence due to the age of children at the time they receive this vaccine." "What is Autism" MedHelp web-site [here]
This argument is one of the less-successful deceptions of the vaccine industry, since while it seems reasonable at first glance, if you dig under the surface, you quickly find an ugly spin. I will deal with this argument in detail in another post, in this post I shall ask one specific question:
Where are all those infants regressing to autism one month before their 1-year vaccination?
Regressive autism, as noted above, is manifested through a regression of speech, communication and play skills, among others. Thus, a child may lose the few dozen words already possessed, eye contact with those around him disappears, and the ability to play turns into mechanically repetitive actions. At 12 months, when the multiple shots are given, many children had already acquired these capabilities, and a regression, if it occurs, is easily identifiable by the parents.
In many western countries babies are given multiple vaccines in their 1-year well-baby care visit.
In the US and Israel, they get ten vaccines on the same day, whereas in the UK they will receive six vaccines (two at one year and four more a month later).
Is this vaccine attack on the baby's body overwhelming for a growing number of children? Vaccine industry experts argue it isn't so: all those cases of regressive autism following vaccination, even if the child became severely-ill just a day after the vaccination, are simply the result of mere coincidence. After all, children receive their 1-year vaccinations at the same time when (regressive) autism is detected, so it is likely that some parents inadvertently tie the child's regression with the vaccine.
This claim – misleading and vile as it is, exempting health authorities of the responsibility for the suffering of children - comes to its end, here and now. Read on.
In those countries I mentioned (U.S., Israel and the UK) there is a break from vaccinations between the ages of 6 months and 1 year. During this period, according to the official vaccination time-table, babies do not receive any vaccines (UK recess even begins at the age of 4 months). Assuming that most babies follow the formal milestones, we are left with the question:
Where are all those infants regressing to autism one month before their 1-year vaccination?
At 11 months, there are many babies who have acquired words, communication and play skills. If autism was just "happening" to babies between the ages of one and two years, then certainly there will be those rapidly developing children aged 11 months (or ten, or nine months) whose 'chance' regression will be clearly noticed by their parents.
As we all know, there is substantial variation in infant development: there are those who walk at the age of 7 months and those who walk at 18 months. There are those who say their first word at age 8 months and others who at 14 months of age are yet to utter their first word. All of those are considered to be within the range of normal development.
By the same logic, if we accept the words of the experts who claim that autism 'just happens" between the ages of one and two years, we have no reason to conclude that regressive autism would not "just happen" to babies aged 11 months, before their 1-year vaccinations (and following a vaccination recess of several months). The incidence rate of regression in those babies is expected to be similar to that of children aged 12 and 13 months. (Note: some will contend the regression is just the manifestation of a condition which started much earlier. We fully agree that this may well be true for some children. However, in this case, we ask: why the clear and noticeable regression doesn't occur prior to vaccination?)
So where are all those cases? I hereby proclaim I have spent more than a thousand hours reading about vaccines on the Internet, and I have never seen a description of a regression of a child that began a month prior to his 1-year vaccinations (assuming a vaccine recess of 6-months or so). In all the descriptions I've read the regression began after the 1-year vaccinations. I'm not saying there are no such cases, of course, just that I still have not come across them.
Unsurprisingly, I also could not find a single study examining the infant's age at regression onset, affirming that those cases are evenly spread, regardless of vaccination timing. The vaccine industry has invested heavily in funding of dozens of statistical studies claiming to disprove the vaccine-autism link. These studies, typically focusing on a single vaccine (MMR) or a specific vaccine ingredient (Thimerosal), failed to clear the doubts over vaccines, which become heavier day by day. But in this multitude of studies - from Canada, Britain, Denmark, Japan and elsewhere - there was not even a single study which showed us:
Where are all those infants regressing to autism one month before their 1-year vaccination?
Such a study, if available, would have certainly provided strong support for the argument of absence of causality between vaccines and regressive autism. It is certainly plausible that the vaccine industry would have funded such a research if it could have shown the desired results.
But such a study was never published.
And until such a study is published, let us say it loud and clear: the argument stating that regressive autism "just happens" between the ages of one and two years is an insult to common sense, morality, and most of all – to the parents of children who regressed into autism.
[A big 'thank you' to Minority View for helping editing this post]
In the US and Israel, they get ten vaccines on the same day, whereas in the UK they will receive six vaccines (two at one year and four more a month later).
Is this vaccine attack on the baby's body overwhelming for a growing number of children? Vaccine industry experts argue it isn't so: all those cases of regressive autism following vaccination, even if the child became severely-ill just a day after the vaccination, are simply the result of mere coincidence. After all, children receive their 1-year vaccinations at the same time when (regressive) autism is detected, so it is likely that some parents inadvertently tie the child's regression with the vaccine.
This claim – misleading and vile as it is, exempting health authorities of the responsibility for the suffering of children - comes to its end, here and now. Read on.
In those countries I mentioned (U.S., Israel and the UK) there is a break from vaccinations between the ages of 6 months and 1 year. During this period, according to the official vaccination time-table, babies do not receive any vaccines (UK recess even begins at the age of 4 months). Assuming that most babies follow the formal milestones, we are left with the question:
Where are all those infants regressing to autism one month before their 1-year vaccination?
At 11 months, there are many babies who have acquired words, communication and play skills. If autism was just "happening" to babies between the ages of one and two years, then certainly there will be those rapidly developing children aged 11 months (or ten, or nine months) whose 'chance' regression will be clearly noticed by their parents.
As we all know, there is substantial variation in infant development: there are those who walk at the age of 7 months and those who walk at 18 months. There are those who say their first word at age 8 months and others who at 14 months of age are yet to utter their first word. All of those are considered to be within the range of normal development.
By the same logic, if we accept the words of the experts who claim that autism 'just happens" between the ages of one and two years, we have no reason to conclude that regressive autism would not "just happen" to babies aged 11 months, before their 1-year vaccinations (and following a vaccination recess of several months). The incidence rate of regression in those babies is expected to be similar to that of children aged 12 and 13 months. (Note: some will contend the regression is just the manifestation of a condition which started much earlier. We fully agree that this may well be true for some children. However, in this case, we ask: why the clear and noticeable regression doesn't occur prior to vaccination?)
So where are all those cases? I hereby proclaim I have spent more than a thousand hours reading about vaccines on the Internet, and I have never seen a description of a regression of a child that began a month prior to his 1-year vaccinations (assuming a vaccine recess of 6-months or so). In all the descriptions I've read the regression began after the 1-year vaccinations. I'm not saying there are no such cases, of course, just that I still have not come across them.
Unsurprisingly, I also could not find a single study examining the infant's age at regression onset, affirming that those cases are evenly spread, regardless of vaccination timing. The vaccine industry has invested heavily in funding of dozens of statistical studies claiming to disprove the vaccine-autism link. These studies, typically focusing on a single vaccine (MMR) or a specific vaccine ingredient (Thimerosal), failed to clear the doubts over vaccines, which become heavier day by day. But in this multitude of studies - from Canada, Britain, Denmark, Japan and elsewhere - there was not even a single study which showed us:
Where are all those infants regressing to autism one month before their 1-year vaccination?
Such a study, if available, would have certainly provided strong support for the argument of absence of causality between vaccines and regressive autism. It is certainly plausible that the vaccine industry would have funded such a research if it could have shown the desired results.
But such a study was never published.
And until such a study is published, let us say it loud and clear: the argument stating that regressive autism "just happens" between the ages of one and two years is an insult to common sense, morality, and most of all – to the parents of children who regressed into autism.
[A big 'thank you' to Minority View for helping editing this post]
אין תגובות:
הוסף רשומת תגובה