Re: Fw: Re: Re: Which vaccine should I give?

[Guest guest]

,

1. Factually, one cannot cost effectively report

included confirmed " DSM OV/CDER Group 1 " in

real time for a number of reasons.

2. Factually, the absolute number of added cases

per quarter has been declining for some time

and the 2003 addition of " inclusion " criteria

has been shown to accoutn for no more than a

1% decrease in the number of included confirmed

cases vis-a-vis the number of confirmed cases.

3. When the growth in the number of babies being

born is factored in, the CA data, though displaced

by 3 years because of the time to be an official

confirmed " autism " case, indicate that the peak

occurred in CA just after the industry began

reducing the amount of mercury in the childhood

vaccines that had been Thimerosal-preserved (part

of this decline may be attributable to the public's

decision to delay vaccination until safer vaccines

were available.

Hopefully, you will first understand the process by

which diagnosed " autism " cases are confirmed and then

assessed for incluson as well as take the biostatistical

courses needed to truly " understand " the realities in

CA or, for that matter, the realities in the initial

Verstraeten studies that have been deliberately

misrepresented to the public because we need more

qualified biostatisticians to truthfully comment on

these matters.

Respectfully,

Dr. King

http://www.dr-king.com

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

At 08:00 11/11/05 -0000, twoweasleys wrote:

>

>I agree, the California autism numbers are worth watching, although

>they don't report incidence in " real time " and are looking at service

>usage rather than exact diagnoses, as far as I understand (I may be

>wrong). And wasn't it the *increase* in intake numbers rather than the

>actual numbers that are going down? I will some more reading on that

>(have downloaded the September report, but I find them difficult to

>interpret).

>

>

>

>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> I don't have the web address but I am sure you can do a search and

>find the

>> California autism rates for this year and see that in the last three

>> quarters that autism has actually been declining. I think that the final

>> quarter (Oct-Dec) will show that it is continuing to decline. You

>can argue

>> research all day, but you can't argue with fact in numbers. If the

>autism

>> rates continue to fall then there is your " proof " without all the

>science

>> mumbo jumbo.

>> Just my two cents.

>>

>>

>...