"Very Threatening Calls" from Government Officials Forcing "Vaxxed" Pulled

[Aragorn]

Color emphasis is mine...

[...] Whichever cells in what part of the brain die due to lack of oxygen, produces the various neurological disorders sids, autism, schizophrenia, and many, many more.[...]

No, it doesn't, and I really, really, really wish that people would stop making such ridiculous claims and compare autism to brain damage when the rest of the world already long knows that autism is a genetically predisposed neurological difference — not damage or a disorder, but a difference, just like one person may have blue eyes and another person may have brown eyes, or like one person can be tall and skinny and another person can be short and chubby.

(In fact, schizophrenia, which is completely unrelated to autism, is also a genetically predisposed condition, but one in which the chemical balance of the brain can be upset by strong emotional or otherwise traumatic influences. It, too, is not brain damage, but the upsetting of the chemical balance itself may result in brain damage later on in life.)

The genes responsible for an autism spectrum neurology have already long been identified, and research has shown that people with an autism spectrum neurology have a different and more complex brain structure, with literally a multitude of the amount of neurons found in a non-autistic brain. These neurons are slightly less differentiated on account of the stimuluses they are meant to transfer than in a non-autistic brain, but given that there is literally a multitude of them, and that they form synapses between them which are not present in non-autistic brains, the autistic brain is significantly more complex than a non-autistic brain.

In fact, Albert Einstein's brain was removed from his skull before he was buried and is currently still being kept at a research facility, and so far the analysis of his brain structure by way of scans et al confirms everything I've already said earlier. And that's just one of the many autism-related research projects which all confirm what I've already said on this topic so far.

(Note: Kim Peek, upon whom Dustin Hoffman based his character for the movie "Rain Man", was not autistic, even though he did exhibit savantism. His brain, too, was different, but this had nothing to do with an autism spectrum neurology.)

From the neuropsychological point of view, an autism spectrum brain does not filter out the things which a non-autistic brain does. By consequence, autistic people notice all the little details that a non-autistic brain overlooks as "unimportant information".

As an anecdotal manifestation of that, many stand-up comedians are actually on the autism spectrum — both the late Robin Williams and Jim Carrey can clearly be named as afflicted with ADHD, which is an autism spectrum phenotype. This is why such comedians can go on and on about those little details, such as other people's strange tics or habits, or innocuous peculiarities about any given situation, because everybody else will be subconsciously aware of those things as well — given that it pertains to clearly observable details — but most people's minds simply filter out that information as not important. As such, one could easily postulate that autistic people's consciousness is broader than that of non-autistic people, because all of the information comes in unfiltered, and the presence of the extra synapses also allows for more associative thought processes.

(Jeffries) (Nurse) (Jeffries) (Nurse)

"What's the matter with him?" "He's autistic." "You mean nothing gets through to him?" "On the contrary, Agent Jeffries. Everything gets through to him."

(Conversation from the movie "Mercury Rising", between FBI Agent Art Jeffries (Bruce Willis) and a nurse, when Jeffries drops off the autistic and hysterical 9-year-old Simon Lynch at the hospital after the boy was discovered hidden in a closet at the house of his murdered parents.)

Autistic people are also far more meticulous in their work, exactly because they are acutely aware of all the little details, and many of them also have OCD/OCPD as a manifestation of the autism spectrum genotype, prompting them to be perfectionists. Ron Dennis, the founder and CEO of the McLaren Technology Group — the parent company of McLaren Automotive and of the McLaren Formula One Racing Team — fits that description to a tee.

In fact, I have a BBC documentary about McLaren Automotive on this computer — downloaded from YouTube, so the video is up there, and I'll provide the link for anyone who would be interested, but I'm not going to embed it here in order not to derail the thread — in which Ron Dennis points out a damaged tile in the enormous main hall of the McLaren Technology Centre at Woking, Surrey, UK, where he then emphasizes how much that cracked tile bothers him, and how they couldn't possibly fix that without having to repave the entire hall, because those tiles come in large batches, and if you replace only one of them, then there will be a color and texture difference with the others. Farther into the documentary, he also grins "My wife thinks I'm ill."

So if you or anyone else — and I don't care whether they call themselves medical researchers or not — think that this is something which is either brought about by the neurotoxins inside the conservation agents used in vaccines, or which would be a form of brain damage, then I suggest you look beyond the very insular and reactionary US American medical community and start looking at some real scientific research conducted in less intellectually corrupted parts of the world.

Autism is not brain damage, and it is not a defect. It is a manifestation of a genetically predisposed neurological difference which can present itself in a whole variety of ways — this is why the symbol of the autism community long used to be a rainbow, until the gay crowd decided that they were tired of the pink triangle and stole the rainbow from the autism community as their new political symbol — and certain of these autism spectrum manifestations may pose challenges for the individual on account of how they function within this (already dysfunctional) society. And I could go ahead and tell you all about the challenges I myself have had to face — several of which I am still facing today — but that would derail the thread again, because then we'd be getting into the subjects of discrimination, bullying and severely traumatizing psychological abuse, and that's a subject that warrants a separate thread all of its own.

I'm sorry if it sounds like I'm ranting — and in fact, that is what I'm doing, yes — but this subject lies very close to my heart, given that I myself and at least half of my family and my circle of friends are on the autism spectrum, and I consider the equating of autism with brain damage or with "a disease" or "a disorder" a grave insult, on top of all the other crap I've already had to endure from people because of my being different.

If anyone wishes to consider me brain-damaged, then I'd be more than happy to toss my IQ scores on the table and compare them with theirs, and just for laughs, I would also then point my finger at how I became an autodidactic computer network administrator and programmer, how I've written an unfinished novel and the preparation work for another one, how I taught myself to play the guitar and played lead guitar in a band for which I've written maybe a dozen or so songs — music and lyrics.

Or maybe I should address the fact that I, as a Belgian kid who was born as the first son to a middle-school-graduated couple in their late twenties in a small Flemish village back in the early 1960s, and who was raised in (a local Flemish dialect of) Dutch, started teaching myself English as of the age of 7 onward without any help from anybody at all — my parents did not speak or even understand English, and our English classes at school didn't even start until 8th grade — and I was already capable of upholding a decent conversation in English by the time I was 10. And with a perfect Oxford accent too, although I have a distinctly North American accent now. Not to mention that I also speak French, Afrikaans and a bit of German, and that I can read about half of a text written in Norwegian — I do not speak it and I cannot write it, but I can make up about half of what it means by looking at the words. I even know some words and expressions in Spanish and Italian, although I've never taken any classes for that either.

Am I a savant? No, I'm not. I have an eidetic memory, but I cannot look at a page of the phone book and then recite all of the names on there. I cannot perform any complicated calculations in my head and spit out square roots without even understanding what I'm doing. But I can think, I can analyze, and I can remember, all to a far greater extent than the typical non-autistic person can be bothered with. I attempt to approach perfection in (almost) everything I do, and whenever I am required to do something for somebody else, I deliver a level of quality that they won't even get anywhere else. At no charge at all. It's just who I am.

And most of the time, I don't even get any gratitude at all for what I'm doing. On the contrary, I get criticized and falsely accused all the time. But I am being the change I want to see in this world. Instead of thinking linearly, I think multidimensionally. I see the patterns which are all there right under everybody's nose, but which everyone then also simply ignores until it's too late. And then they throw in my face, "Why didn't you tell me/us?" And then my answer is always the same: "I did, right there and right then, but you weren't listening."

So please, do not insult me, nor any other autistic individual, with such ludicrous claims.

[The One]

I have to agree with everything Aragorn's said and very well written my friend.

Me an my wife are going through this process now with our son Elliott and are waiting to see what spectrum they are going to put him on.Even though i do not agree with the vaccine program and totally against it i do not believe for one moment that vaccines cause Autism.You dont just get autism when you ARE 12 OR 17 you are born with it.

I think what these vaccines do is maybe trigger something in autistic children as they are more in tune with the world than most.

Cheers

[Aragorn]

I think what these vaccines do is maybe trigger something in autistic children as they are more in tune with the world than most.

Yes we are, Bro. Our brains have literally a multitude of the number of neurons found in a non-autistic brain, which means that we also possess a far greater amount of so-called mirror neurons, which are responsible for such things as empathy.

By consequence, autistic people are generally far more empathic and thus in tune with other people's feelings — or even those of animals — than non-autistic people, and because we see all the details, also with every other aspect of the world around us. And that is exactly why we can predict that certain things will go wrong and why, because we also see how other people overlook those details.

We are simply far more efficient, but alas, we are not sufficiently efficient for the type of society that we live in today, even if only because this society is wrong in so many ways.

[Elen]

Wow Aragorn, that is really something. I listened to Bruce Lipton's workshop on the thread: "Our manifestation is thought taking form" and he said that there's a possibility that Autism is part of "A Spiritual movement" that has been overlooked by the professionals. I personally think there is a strong possibility. These people come as an impetus for change in society. This sounds much more plausible than anything else I've heard, besides what you've come up with. Thank you for your very elaborate definitions on the subject: "We get it from the horse's mouth" so to speak.

Elen

[modwiz]

Excellent information, Aragorn. It is time for the "normals" to understand the "others" they share the planet with.

[Cearna]

Can I put two cents in with absolutely no knowledge of this side of autism, or any side of autism whatsoever, but as I read what you have written Aragorn, it rings a bell to my own situation, in that I hid away from everything in my childhood on my own in the bedroom absolutely devouring books, I was considered a dummy by my family (except for my father), and by most people, but if I wanted to and put my own need to it I could suddenly do whatever I actually put my mind to. I did not ever expect to do well, but always knew exactly how little I need do in order to achieve the little expected of me, and yet stay amongst the top class but never a part of it. Yet later on when teaching at the Correspondence school, my boss and I knew each other well and she considered I was the only worth while teacher in her staff of 16 (She was born on April 11th by the way), so we had a lot in common, we too at that stage being the only ones with forward thinking, and at one stage we were working over time trying to pack the school up to move to new premises, and the Deputy Head principal and the Science head teacher were helping me out, talking to one another about how bright I was, there I had no need to not work at my peak instead of not being expected to be able to perform.

Now what I would like to put into the melting pot is also our abilities many autistic aer high performers in some gifts, so are they really talented in ways beyond the comprehension of the ungifted or those not using their paranormal gifts, whereas what you are speaking of to me sounds as if these are the get- to- it people living in roles completely undiscovered by the be-sorry- for-themselves folks, who want to come no where near some fearful thing called, being in life and real love, and thus must call us wonton gifted ones some do -as- your- told life and thus this our wrong and their right to keep us as different, because be it what you like to call it this is our right to live with, our right to use what gifts or talents we have to the extreme as it was given us instead of the usual non-existence of most to not poke their heads up to be seen.

I also believe much of what you are saying also equates to my use of sonic and the feeling of vibrations by which I live and may be connected to the extra neurons you are mentioning allowing empaths, hearing, feeling which can be so acute that the younger person may need to exhibit the behavioural tendencies so often noted in the autistic?

[Aragorn]

[...] I also believe much of what you are saying also equates to my use of sonic and the feeling of vibrations by which I live and may be connected to the extra neurons you are mentioning allowing empaths, hearing, feeling which can be so acute that the younger person may need to exhibit the behavioural tendencies so often noted in the autistic?

I think you're probably on the spectrum as well, Colleen. (It takes one to know one, et al. )

[TimeLab]

Aragorn, there was no intention of 'calling you brain damaged' by my suggesting reading 4 detailed pages of Dr. Mouldens work to get his big picture with all it's caveats, qualifications and exceptions that is much greater than a couple sentences could express (including why some effects do develop later in life, The One). I see no evidence that you read it. I would have liked your fair assessment of where he may have been right or wrong for what specific reasons with your data to support it with over a longwinded attack on my very shallow, feeble attempt to summarize.

So I went through all your writing again carefully to find any links to read what your beliefs were based on and found none. It leaves you standing in front of someone demanding you believe their conclusions with no sources, exactly what the alternative community finds frustrating with our opposition. Especially when followed by angrily admonishing the reader for not already knowing what "the rest of the world already long knows". Saying 'the rest of the world' greatly reduces the readers confidence in the writer's dedication to accuracy and fairness. Where then are all the non-scientist/easy to understand links, interviews and forum chats showing how the rest of the world long ago fully understood and accepts everything you're claiming? I've read mountains of vaccine related data and haven't seen it's prevalence at all.

One thing I especially can't add up is how if "The genes responsible for an autism spectrum neurology have already long been identified" but autism cannot be diagnosed until a later age... "In order to correctly diagnose autism, there are several tests which either could or should be conducted depending on the condition and age of the person." ...why can't these genes that have "long been identified" be identified in DNA at birth?

I listened to the very recent C2C interview with the Vaxxed producer and Andrew Wakefield where he explained his version of the backstory to his past legal issues that are different from whatever source you based how you phrased it on.. [I] "Andrew Wakefield, the British physician who was banned from ever practising medicine again in the UK after he was found guilty of having falsified his research and abused the "autism is caused by vaccines" myth in order to continue receiving research grants" I'm not yet convinced Doctor Wakefield is only a charlatan working hard to perpetuate a false myth.

More than anything considering the world of massive disinfo, to save us having to blindly plow thru sources not having a clue who is reliable (impressive sounding credentials aren't even a sure bet anymore) I would like to know what sources you have found reliable enough to support the conviction of your beliefs... "The neuroscience as I have presented it here is the correct one, and has been empirically confirmed through various test vectors."

The question of who to believe however, is unfortunately never absent. If we're not the scientist or don't know them personally, we're choosing which convinced source to believe and they frequently don't match. The internet is both a quagmire and a blessing.

[lcam88]

An interesting article here: http://www.thedoctorwithin.com/aller...ergy-epidemic/

I'm going to quote a bit here:

ANAPHYLACTIC SHOCK AND ALLERGY

Before 1900, anaphylactic shock was virtually unknown. The syndrome of sudden fainting, respiratory distress, convulsions, and sometimes death did not exist until vaccinators switched from the lancet to the hypodermic needle. That transformation was essentially complete by the turn of the century in the western world.

Right at that time, a new disease called Serum Sickness began to afflict thousands of children. A variety of symptoms, including shock, fainting, and sometimes death, could suddenly result following an injection.

Instead of covering it up, the connection was well recognized and documented in the medical literature of the day. Dr Clemens Von Pirquet, who actually coined the word “allergy,” was a leading researcher in characterizing the new disease. [5] Serum Sickness was the first mass allergenic phenomenon in history. What had been required for its onset, apparently, was the advent of the hypodermic needle.

When the needle replaced the lancet in the late 1800s, Serum Sickness soon became a frequent visitor to the child’s bed. It was a known consequence of vaccinations. Indeed, the entire field of modern allergy has evolved from the early study of Serum Sickness coming from vaccines.

VACCINE HYPERSENSITIVITY

Von Pirquet recognized that vaccines had 2 primary effects: immunity and hypersensitivity. [5] He said they were inseparable: the one was the price of the other.

In other words, if we were going to benefit from the effects of mass immunization, we must accept the downside of mass hypersensitivity as a necessary co-feature. Modern medicine has decided that this double effect should be kept secret, so they don’t allow it to be brought up much.

Many doctors in the early 1900s were dead set against vaccines for this precise reason. The advertised benefit was not proven to be worth the risk. Doctors like Walter Hadwen MD, Wm. Howard Hay, and Alfred Russell Wallace saw how smallpox vaccines had actually increased the incidence of smallpox. [2,3] Wallace was one of the principal epidemiologists of the age, and his charts showing the increase in smallpox death from vaccination are unassailable – meticulous primary sources.

Another landmark researcher of the early 1900s was Dr Charles Richet, the one who coined the term anaphylaxis. [4] Richet focused on the reactions that some people seemed to have to certain foods. He found that with food allergies, the reaction came on as the result of intact proteins in the food having bypassed the digestive system and making their way intact into the blood, via leaky gut.

Foreign protein in the blood, of course, is a universal trigger for allergic reaction, not just in man but in all animals. [6]

But Richet noted that in the severe cases, food anaphylaxis did not happen just by eating a food. That would simply be food poisoning.

Food anaphylaxis is altogether different. This sudden, violent reaction requires an initial sensitization involving injection of some sort, followed by a later ingestion of the sensitized food. Get the shot, then later eat the food.

The initial exposure creates the hypersensitivity. The second exposure would be the violent, perhaps fatal, physical event.

Richet’s early work around 1900 was primarily with eggs, meat, milk and diphtheria proteins. Not peanuts. The value of Richet’s research with reactive foods was to teach us the sequence of allergic sensitivity leading to anaphylaxis, how that had to take place.

Soon other doctors began to notice striking similarities between food reactions and the serum sickness that was associated with vaccines. Same exact clinical presentation.

PENICILLIN

Next up was penicillin, which became popular in the 1940s. It was soon found that additives called excipients were necessary to prolong the effect of the antibiotic injected into the body. The excipients would act as carrier molecules. Without excipients, the penicillin would only last about 2 hours. Refined oils worked best, acting as time-release capsules for the antibiotic.

Peanut oil became the favorite, because it worked well, and was available and inexpensive.

Allergy to penicillin became common, and was immediately recognized as a sensitivity to the excipient oils. To the present day, that’s why they always ask if you’re allergic to penicillin. The allergy is a sensitivity to the excipients.

THE RISE OF VACCINES

The big change came with vaccines. Peanut oils were introduced as vaccine excipients in the mid 1960s. An article appeared in the NY Times on 18 Sept, 1964 that would never be printed today. [8] The author described how a newly patented ingredient containing peanut oil was added as an adjuvant to a new flu vaccine, in order to prolong the “immunity.” The oil was reported to act as a time release capsule, and theoretically enhanced the vaccine’s strength. Same mechanism as with penicillin.

That new excipient, though not approved in the US, became the model for subsequent vaccines. ([1] p 103)

By 1980 peanut oil had become the preferred excipient in vaccines, even though the dangers were well documented. [9] It was considered an adjuvant – a substance able to increase reactivity to the vaccine. This reinforced the Adjuvant Myth: the illusion that immune response is the same as immunity [2].

The pretense here is that the stronger the allergic response to the vaccine, the greater will be the immunity that is conferred. This fundamental error is consistent throughout vaccine literature of the past century.

Historically, researchers who challenged this Commandment of vaccine mythology did not advance their careers.

KEEPING PEANUT ADJUVANTS A SECRET

The first study of peanut allergies was not undertaken until 1973. It was a study of peanut excipients in vaccines. Soon afterwards, and as a result of the attention from that study, manufacturers were no longer required to disclose all the ingredients in vaccines.

What is listed in the Physicians Desk Reference in each vaccine section is not the full formula. Same with the inserts. Suddenly after 1973, that detailed information was proprietary: the manufacturers knew it must be protected. Intellectual property. So now they only were required to describe the formula in general.

Why was peanut allergy so violent? Adjuvant pioneer Maurice Hilleman claimed peanut oil adjuvants had all protein removed by refining. [9] The FDA disagreed. They said some peanut protein traces would always persist [10]- that even the most refined peanut oils still contained some traces of intact peanut proteins. This was the reason doctors were directed to inject vaccines intramuscular rather than intravenous – a greater chance of absorption of intact proteins, less chance of reaction.

But all their secret research obviously wasn’t enough to prevent sensitivity. Mother Nature bats last: no intact proteins in the body. 60 million years of Natural Selection didn’t create the mammalian immune system for nothing. Put intact proteins, peanut or whatever, for any imagined reason into the human system and the inflammatory response will fire. And since the goal of oil emulsion adjuvants was to prolong reactivity in the first place – the notion of time-release – this led to sensitization.

FRAME OF REFERENCE

So in addition to all the other problems with vaccines delineated in our text, now we have a new one – peanut oil excipients. Which all by themselves can cause severe, even fatal, episodes of shock, as well as chronic allergy – irrespective of the mercury, aluminum, formaldehyde, ethylene glycol, and the attenuated pathogens which the manufacturers do admit to.

Quite a toxic burden to saddle the unprotected newborn with. No wonder the US Supreme Court refers to vaccines as “unavoidably unsafe.”

Childhood allergies doubled between 1980 and 2000, and have doubled again since that time. [11] Theories abound. Childhood vaccines doubled at the same time. Why is there a virtual blackout of viable discussion about this glaring fact?

The epidemic of peanut allergy is just one facet of this much broader social phenomenon. We have the sickest, most allergic kids of any country, industrialized or not, on Earth. A study of the standard literature of vaccines is identical to a study of the history of adjuvants – an exercise in cover-up and dissimulation. Unvaccinated children don’t become autistic. And they don’t go into shock from eating peanuts.

But there can never be a formal clinical study where the control group is unvaccinated. NIH would never do that. They cannot. They know the outcome.

So that is an interesting bit of a twist. The serum sickness (increased sensitivity) issue being the milder of the two. That intact proteins are just as big an issue.

It seems that autism, as the author used the term above, is meant to describe the symptoms rather than the predisposition. That may explain why the test for autism is so complex; traditionally symptoms are not the disease in and of themselves.

Aragorn, I'd appreciate your comments.

NOTE the bold and italicized points in the quote above are from the original article, I've underlines sections that I want to draw attention too.

[Aragorn]

Aragorn, there was no intention of 'calling you brain damaged' by my suggesting reading 4 detailed pages of Dr. Mouldens work to get his big picture with all it's caveats, qualifications and exceptions that is much greater than a couple sentences could express (including why some effects do develop later in life, The One). I see no evidence that you read it. I would have liked your fair assessment of where he may have been right or wrong for what specific reasons with your data to support it with over a longwinded attack on my very shallow, feeble attempt to summarize.

The lack of oxygen can lead to brain damage. So can neurotoxins. Everyone knows that. However, autism is not brain damage (and brain damage is not autism), so the point is moot.

So I went through all your writing again carefully to find any links to read what your beliefs were based on and found none. It leaves you standing in front of someone demanding you believe their conclusions with no sources, exactly what the alternative community finds frustrating with our opposition.

I used to have various links bookmarked in my browser, but that was on another computer — which has died in a quite spectacular manner in the meantime — many years ago, back when I was still active on Facebook, where I was an administrator of an autism-related group for autistic adults and a moderator of another, more generic autism-related group.

I have left Facebook behind me many years ago — somewhere in 2010 or late 2009, if my memory serves me right — because of my personal objections against Facebook's flagrant disregard of privacy and their pretty blunt statement that all my personal information and all the pictures I had uploaded to my profile page were their intellectual property, to do with as they pleased.

However, I had already long left both groups before I emptied my profile page and deactivated my Facebook account. I left my position as administrator of the adult autism group because of a conflict with the group's founder over something that had nothing to do with autism — concretely, it had to do with my criticism of US American culture, which she took to her offense.

Shortly before that, I had left my position as moderator of the generic autism group because I was viciously being hounded, harassed and insulted — not just myself, but also other autism acceptance advocates — with all the fury in hell by "autism moms" who relied on "their infallible mother's instinct" to testify that their child was not autistic until it received the MMR vaccine, and no amount of attempting to convince them with hard science would work.

Although there were a few men among these people, most of them were females, and I can tell you with my hand on my heart that hell hath no fury like those women. You have no idea how low these people will sink and how vicious their attacks and insults were. And to top it all off, the woman who was the founder of that particular group is herself also autistic, but chose not to defend her moderators because she wanted to be friends with everyone. It was a popularity contest for her, nothing else. She seriously let us all down.

A few years ago, this group founder was even involved with a smear campaign against one of my dearest friends — someone who had also been a moderator on that group at the same time as myself, but who had already been bullied away before I was, and I can tell you that my friend is a very brave woman with a lot of stamina. This smear campaign — which my friend then wrote about on her blog — also included stalking, doxing, harassment, and whatever else have you. My friend published all the evidence on her blog, including screenshots from Facebook and other blogs.

(If you ever come across the name Zoey Roberts from British Columbia, Canada, stay the hell away from her. She'll smile in your face and give you a big hug, and as soon as you turn your back, she'll stick a rusty knife in it, all with the same smile.)

I have since then walked away from that battle because it was emotionally draining and I had simply had enough of all the insults, the stalking, the harassment and the mobbing by the anti-vax crowd, who hadn't even had a shred of education in any of the scientific disciplines and who probably couldn't tell a gene apart from a germ. And yes, I had the links, but because I had left that battle behind me — for my own wellbeing — I did not give any priority to saving those links in my backups. Or maybe I did save them — I don't remember — but either way, the medium upon which I used to store my backups is irreparably broken, so I have no access to that information anymore. All I can say is that one of those reports listed 12 specific genes, all of them situated on the 23rd X chromosome, and it also drew a link with the so-called Fragile X Syndrome.

One thing I especially can't add up is how if "The genes responsible for an autism spectrum neurology have already long been identified" but autism cannot be diagnosed until a later age... "In order to correctly diagnose autism, there are several tests which either could or should be conducted depending on the condition and age of the person." ...why can't these genes that have "long been identified" be identified in DNA at birth?

Technically, they could do that, yes — and maybe they should, just like they should simply stop putting Thimerosal in those vaccines. In practice however, no doctor is going to order a genetic exam of any infant before the vaccines are administered, and I doubt whether the parents would be contemplating such a genetic test either. The law either way says that the child has to be vaccinated, regardless of the outcome of any genetic testing.

I listened to the very recent C2C interview with the Vaxxed producer and Andrew Wakefield where he explained his version of the backstory to his past legal issues that are different from whatever source you based how you phrased it on.. [I] "Andrew Wakefield, the British physician who was banned from ever practising medicine again in the UK after he was found guilty of having falsified his research and abused the "autism is caused by vaccines" myth in order to continue receiving research grants" I'm not yet convinced Doctor Wakefield is only a charlatan working hard to perpetuate a false myth.

You are entitled to believe whatever it is that you want to believe, even if that which you want to believe is utterly wrong. I have also stopped trying to convince fanatically religious people of the lunacy of their religion. The truth will come out sooner or later anyway.

Try thinking out of the box. This is not a unidirectional thing. There are people with various agendas at play here. Wakefield is one of those people, and I don't know what his agenda is. Maybe he's trying to become a hero now that he's lost his credibility with the medical community. Maybe he's a sock puppet for some political agenda. I don't know. And quite frankly, I don't care.

More than anything considering the world of massive disinfo, to save us having to blindly plow thru sources not having a clue who is reliable (impressive sounding credentials aren't even a sure bet anymore) I would like to know what sources you have found reliable enough to support the conviction of your beliefs... "The neuroscience as I have presented it here is the correct one, and has been empirically confirmed through various test vectors."

The question of who to believe however, is unfortunately never absent. If we're not the scientist or don't know them personally, we're choosing which convinced source to believe and they frequently don't match. The internet is both a quagmire and a blessing.

Like I said, I used to have all the links bookmarked, but I don't have them anymore, and I have also lost contact with most of the people whom I was moderating those groups with at the time. There are only a few of them that I'm still in contact with — and of those few, most only sporadically, like once every two or three years. There is one whom I unfortunately don't hear from all that much anymore these days because she has her own set of problems, and she has a busy career, but our friendship runs really deep — I've always referred to her as my Sister In Arms. She's the one who was the victim of the smear campaign and who was the first of the moderators to be bullied out of that autism group on Facebook. Another one of the people with whom I've stayed in contact is a member here — because I invited her over — but I'm not going to tell you who she is, and she too has lots of problems in her own life and in her family life, so she doesn't connect to The One Truth all that much anymore either. But she does still check up on me via e-mail on a regular basis, because we are dear friends.

You can reject everything I've told you in favor of some dude out there on the Internet who's got a website, or some doctor who was found guilty of having falsified his research so as to continue receiving subsidies from the government, but all of the research they will point you at is stuff which is either irrelevant to autism — they simply lump autism in there as some kind of vaccine-induced brain damage — or it is just a matter of statistics. And when it comes to statistics, I want you to look very hard at the next three bullet points...

• There are lies, there are damn lies, and there are statistics.
• Statistics are commonly used like a drunk uses a lamp post: for support, rather than for illumination.
• 84.965% of all statistics is made up on the spot.

If you don't want to believe me, then that is fine. But I stand by everything I've written on this thread, and whenever the subject comes up again and some idiot starts equating autism with vaccine- or environmentally induced brain damage again — like the conservative variety that George Noory now regularly has for guests at Coast To Coast AM, because every couple of weeks, they'll be talking about that again — then I'll be on the fence again.

But to be quite honest, I've really had it with reactionary people, and my patience is starting to wear thin. I have proven myself a long time ago already, and I don't feel like doing that all over again just because somebody out on the Intergoogles rather believes "someone of authority" — i.e. someone with a website or someone with some kind of diploma hanging from their wall (but who had their license to practise medicine revoked).

I have tried to explain everything as best as I could. If people don't want to accept that, then that's their problem. I either way know that my explanation was solid, and that most of the readers of my posts will have perfectly understood my elaboration, and the logic behind everything that I've said on that subject.

I rest my case.

[Aragorn]

An interesting article here: http://www.thedoctorwithin.com/aller...ergy-epidemic/

[...]

Unvaccinated children don’t become autistic.

NOTE the bold and italicized points in the quote above are from the original article, I've underlines sections that I want to draw attention too.

I'm not going to respond to the article, lcam88, because I am less aware of all the things which cause allergic reactions. It is possible that the gist of that article is correct, except for the underlined part, which I've left quoted in.

Indeed, children don't become autistic — whether they've been vaccinated or not — because one is either born autistic or not. People keep on bringing up autism as one of these vaccine-induced conditions because they don't know what autism is. They see a child becoming less responsive to stimuli after having been administered a vaccine, and they equate this reduced response (called "regression") with autism. But that is not what autism is, and it has nothing to do with autism, period. That statement is just as stupid as claiming that Barack Obama's skin is brown because he's been laying in the sun too long.

I have explained what autism is, and what it is not. And I've done that now in multiple posts on this thread, and even in multiple posts on other, related threads. I'm not going to be doing that anymore — at least, not on this thread. This is a forum, and the threads and posts here are for most part made up of the written word. I also think that my command of the English language leaves very little to be desired. So if people find themselves unable to properly read what I have written, then they should go back to school — this is no slant at you, old friend; it is a generic statement.

This is getting really tiresome... <deep sigh>

[Chester]

All I know is that my 12 month old grand daughter is not getting vaccinated because my son and his wife feel she is far more likely to benefit from NOT being vaccinated and far more likely to experience harm if she DOES get vaccinated.

This has a great deal to do with not being able to trust the unwittingly incompetent and the wittingly malicious folks involved in the medical industry.

[lcam88]

Thanks for what you did say of value in the first two paragraphs above.

I am not the first person to have different or simplified notions associated with the term. And this is not the first term that you and I split hairs over, might certainly not be the last and that is the way you and I both want it to be. The tiresome stalemate game is worth playing to me, I value our exchanges, don't you?

AND

While your command of the English language is remarkable, we are not really here exchanging ideas with any intention of discouraging members who have more difficulty with English from participating, much less to be recommending school even if today's schools could be argued as something good (a separate thread)

The genes responsible for an autism spectrum neurology have already long been identified, and research has shown that people with an autism spectrum neurology have a different and more complex brain structure, with literally a multitude of the amount of neurons found in a non-autistic brain. These neurons are slightly less differentiated on account of the stimuluses they are meant to transfer than in a non-autistic brain, but given that there is literally a multitude of them, and that they form synapses between them which are not present in non-autistic brains, the autistic brain is significantly more complex than a non-autistic brain.

Perfect.

We both seem agree that _sometimes_ outwards symptoms are noticeable and sometimes they aren't. Depends. Furthermore regardless of whether they are noticeable or not those symptoms can be provoked and/or aggravated with certain stimuli.

I get that the stimuli does not cause the condition, it causes the provocation and/or aggravation of symptoms only. That difference is actually because of a more exceptional understanding of autism. Thanks for that. Honestly, I probably still have a simplified view overall; I've not been very interested in neuro-science specifically.

Regardless of however correct and precise a definition of autism you and I may elaborate, I accept that the baseline reference of the term (ie non-expert) is commonly associated with the symptoms.

The quoted material written by Dr Tim O’Shea is of that more common understanding. I give absolutely no value to the appeal to authority here, as far as I am concerned Dr is a title of nobility and nothing more. I would also expect any intelligent person such as yourself to make up your own mind about the ideas. Indeed that is why I even bothered to ask you.

What I found to be interesting is that the article provides at least three insightful ideas I think is worthy of examination.

1. immune system hypersensitivity caused by serums and vaccines
2. adjuvants and the effect of prolonging reactivity (and sensitivity) thought to be a good thing as per the Adjuvant Myth
3. intact proteins being present with the adjuvants that are the universal trigger for possibly violent "allergic" reactions (serum sickness) including anaphylaxis

What I was asking you to comment on, Mr Aragorn, is whether those three points are of any particular interest to the autistic individual specifically as you define the term.

Do you think the neurological condition of autism can lend the individual to heightened immune sensitivity in general when compared to the lame duck ordinary?

Do you think the prolonging effect of adjuvants would be about the same for everyone?

Intact proteins?

And please if you are tired, I'd prefer wait till tomorrow to read a more intelligent reply, than to able to read the less thoughtful knee-jerk reply quickly.

[DNA]

the person behind this film is none other than Andrew Wakefield, the British physician who was banned from ever practising medicine again in the UK after he was found guilty of having falsified his research and abused the "autism is caused by vaccines" myth in order to continue receiving research grants from the British government.

Your argument is kind of like sticking up for smokers by saying that lung disease already existed before people started smoking.

It is not the existence of autism which we link to immunizations it is the skyrocketing amount of new cases we see almost in accordance with how many more shots we are now demanding children be given.

And in so far as your statement about Wakefield, one must realize the extent big pharma and the regulatory bodies are in bed with one another. Wakefield's treatment was much like the censoring of this movie. There is a concerted effort to not allow this information to get out.

I realize Aragorn that all of this must seem like a tin foil hat conspiracy. One has to come to terms with a motive before things like this make sense, and I think you must have come to a conclusion as I did at one point that greed can not account as a motive in so far as this is concerned.

Greed is not the reason for Immunizations poisoning our children, our food is poisoned with pesticides, preservatives, hydrogenated oils, artificial colors, artificial sweetners, addictive food additives and now it is genetically modified so as to have pesticide built into it on a genetic level.

To understand all of this one must get past the idea that greed and or profit is the sole motivator because it is not.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
update
You know, I replied before reading the whole thread, of which I just did and maybe Autism is the wrong issue of which to debate the point of immunizations causing sever damage.
I understand that Autism is a hot button for you Aragorn, but I just have not been in the presence of any autistic folks who would consider it a gift or blessing.
I know a family where there are three generations of autisim. So indeed I agree that vaccinations are not the only source. Of the family I mentioned the worst has the mind of an 8 year old and he is now 25.
So I'm not used to folks considering autism anything but a burdon.

[Chester]

I think there's more to this than what has so far been stated as points of view in this thread.

start at the 30 minute mark and listen for 4 minutes then wait and watch the film when it comes out.

In addition, forget anything that may be seen as related to something some might call "autism" and instead open the mind to the possibility that one or more very negative effects can be caused by vaccines and that these negative effects were known and covered up.

I am under the illusion that thinking its wrong to trust others... and that my trust in others, when my loved ones or myself end up harmed because of this trust, that makes the result my fault and that I am wrong for ever trusting anyone, despite this being a highly social planet of seven billion people and trillions of other life forms.


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUVbYD_RurI