CA numbers

[Guest guest]

Are they out yet? 2nd quarter should have ended in June???

[Guest guest]

They are out and the numbers are UP

Table 34 of the report will describe our caseload of persons with autism. The most current CDER data reveals a net increase over the previous quarter of 831 persons diagnosed with autism, for a total of 31,012 persons. Here is a closer look at recent quarterly increases of the autism caseload, in comparison to the rest of the DDS caseload:

DATE

Date CDER Master File Queried

Total Persons with Autism

Net Increase from Previous Quarter

Quarterly Percent Change

Total* Caseload (CDERs)

Net Increase In Total Caseload from Previous Quarter

% Caseload Change

1/4/2005

Tuesday, January 4, 2005

26,576

807

3.13%

176,465

1,562

0.89%

4/4/2005

Monday, April 4, 2005

27,312

736

2.77%

177,749

1,284

0.73%

7/8/2005

Friday, July 8, 2005

28,046

734

2.69%

178,993

1,244

0.70%

10/4/2005

Tuesday, October 4, 2005

28,724

678

2.42%

180,017

1,024

0.57%

1/4/2006

Wednesday, January 4, 2006

29,424

700

2.44%

181,191

1,174

0.65%

4/4/2006

Tuesday, April 4, 2006

30,181

757

2.57%

182,395

1,204

0.66%

7/10/2006

Sunday, July 10, 2006

31,012

831

2.75%

183,761

1,366

0.75%

Crap,

A Jeff's mom

From: EOHarm [mailto:EOHarm ] On Behalf Of HollySent: Tuesday, August 08, 2006 10:54 AMEOHarm Subject: CA numbers

Are they out yet? 2nd quarter should have ended in June???

[Guest guest]

You know, there is never going to be definitive proof of anything. Numbers

are Numbers and there are so many varitables. Maybe a new dx place opened

up, maybe the Autism Speaks ads are encouraging parents to get their kids

checked out, maybe there are more kids in CA in general.

Don't these numbers need to be compared to the total population? Are they?

If 10,000 new kids moved to CA in that quarter- and the numbers went up-

that doesn't neccessary mean the rates are going up.

I just feel like I don't trust ANY numbers anymore.

[Guest guest]

And did they factor in the new CDC

recommendations for flu shots for kids?

Crap.

From: EOHarm [mailto:EOHarm ] On Behalf Of christine@...

Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2006

2:10 PM

EOHarm

Subject: Re: CA numbers

You know, there is never going to be definitive proof

of anything. Numbers

are Numbers and there are so many varitables. Maybe a new dx place opened

up, maybe the Autism Speaks ads are encouraging parents to get their kids

checked out, maybe there are more kids in CA in general.

Don't these numbers need to be compared to the total population? Are they?

If 10,000 new kids moved to CA in that quarter- and the numbers went up-

that doesn't neccessary mean the rates are going up.

I just feel like I don't trust ANY numbers anymore.

[Guest guest]

We are trying to catch a butterfly with a pair of tweezers.

Re: CA numbers

You know, there is never going to be definitive proof of anything. Numbersare Numbers and there are so many varitables. Maybe a new dx place openedup, maybe the Autism Speaks ads are encouraging parents to get their kidschecked out, maybe there are more kids in CA in general.Don't these numbers need to be compared to the total population? Are they?If 10,000 new kids moved to CA in that quarter- and the numbers went up-that doesn't neccessary mean the rates are going up.I just feel like I don't trust ANY numbers anymore.

[Guest guest]

Right, numbers are numbers and until a test is developed that will

show on case by case basis that autism was caused by mercury in the

vaccines we are screwed. The CDC knows this which is why they can

keep stating there is no relationship no matter how many Boyd

Haley's or Mark and Geris we have on our team.

>

> You know, there is never going to be definitive proof of

anything. Numbers

> are Numbers and there are so many varitables. Maybe a new dx

place opened

> up, maybe the Autism Speaks ads are encouraging parents to get

their kids

> checked out, maybe there are more kids in CA in general.

>

> Don't these numbers need to be compared to the total population?

Are they?

> If 10,000 new kids moved to CA in that quarter- and the numbers

went up-

> that doesn't neccessary mean the rates are going up.

>

> I just feel like I don't trust ANY numbers anymore.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

No. Looking at vaccinated vs. unvaccinated populations will clearly tell you whether the causal link is the vaccines (i.e., something in the vaccines) or is something other than vaccines. Especially if it is as stark as the initial informal numbers suggest.

If you know that it is the vaccines, you can take a look at specifics within the vaccines.

That is why Maloney-Olmsted is so critical.

That is why they will fight that tooth and nail and rely on the flawed epidemiology as the final say. Enzi's colloquy to CAA telelgraphed the approach.

It's not helpful to try and catch butterflies with a tweezers.

That is what we do when we try to assign numbers based upon "lumped together" populations. All you get is noise.

Re: CA numbers

Right, numbers are numbers and until a test is developed that will show on case by case basis that autism was caused by mercury in the vaccines we are screwed. The CDC knows this which is why they can keep stating there is no relationship no matter how many Boyd Haley's or Mark and Geris we have on our team.>> You know, there is never going to be definitive proof of anything. Numbers> are Numbers and there are so many varitables. Maybe a new dx place opened> up, maybe the Autism Speaks ads are encouraging parents to get their kids> checked out, maybe there are more kids in CA in general.> > Don't these numbers need to be compared to the total population? Are they?> If 10,000 new kids moved to CA in that quarter- and the numbers went up-> that doesn't neccessary mean the rates are going up.> > I just feel like I don't trust ANY numbers anymore. > > >

[Guest guest]

The fact is that if the problem is mercury and mercury has been

greatly reduced in vaccines, we should see numbers either dropping, or

the rate of increase dropping. Maybe the later is true, I can't tell

from this one chart alone. These reports have always come with

caveats about how they are not properly controlled for a variety of

factors that could affect the actuals, like the CDC recommendations

for mercury flu shots or their aggressive push for early (and more)

diagnosis.

We (not just ) can't one day point to these numbers and say:

" see, they support the mercury hypothesis " when it suit us, and then

later say " you really can't trust these numbers " when they don't.

These numbers are still appear to be going up and we need to

understand why this isn't more evidence of no harm.

Mark Blaxill of SafeMinds warned me almost a year ago that the numbers

might not be going down. I don't remember asking him then why he

thought so.

Lenny

>

> You know, there is never going to be definitive proof of anything.

Numbers

> are Numbers and there are so many varitables. Maybe a new dx place

opened

> up, maybe the Autism Speaks ads are encouraging parents to get their

kids

> checked out, maybe there are more kids in CA in general.

>

> Don't these numbers need to be compared to the total population?

Are they?

> If 10,000 new kids moved to CA in that quarter- and the numbers went up-

> that doesn't neccessary mean the rates are going up.

>

> I just feel like I don't trust ANY numbers anymore.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Oh. CA as in California, the bellwether state.

Well in Denmark you know they took thimerosal out and the cotton-pickin' autism rates went up. In California, thimerosal has been banned a total of one month now and the rates are soaring as well. Yup. Yup.

RE: CA numbers

They are out and the numbers are UP

Table 34 of the report will describe our caseload of persons with autism. The most current CDER data reveals a net increase over the previous quarter of 831 persons diagnosed with autism, for a total of 31,012 persons. Here is a closer look at recent quarterly increases of the autism caseload, in comparison to the rest of the DDS caseload:

DATE

Date CDER Master File Queried

Total Persons with Autism

Net Increase from Previous Quarter

Quarterly Percent Change

Total* Caseload (CDERs)

Net Increase In Total Caseload from Previous Quarter

% Caseload Change

1/4/2005

Tuesday, January 4, 2005

26,576

807

3.13%

176,465

1,562

0.89%

4/4/2005

Monday, April 4, 2005

27,312

736

2.77%

177,749

1,284

0.73%

7/8/2005

Friday, July 8, 2005

28,046

734

2.69%

178,993

1,244

0.70%

10/4/2005

Tuesday, October 4, 2005

28,724

678

2.42%

180,017

1,024

0.57%

1/4/2006

Wednesday, January 4, 2006

29,424

700

2.44%

181,191

1,174

0.65%

4/4/2006

Tuesday, April 4, 2006

30,181

757

2.57%

182,395

1,204

0.66%

7/10/2006

Sunday, July 10, 2006

31,012

831

2.75%

183,761

1,366

0.75%

Crap,

A Jeff's mom

From: EOHarm [mailto:EOHarm ] On Behalf Of HollySent: Tuesday, August 08, 2006 10:54 AMEOHarm Subject: CA numbers

Are they out yet? 2nd quarter should have ended in June???

[Guest guest]

The national media exposure that Ca. reporting drew a lot of attention. What's a little more fuzzy math to people who caused a 6000% increase in autism?

Re: CA numbers

You know, there is never going to be definitive proof of anything. Numbersare Numbers and there are so many varitables. Maybe a new dx place openedup, maybe the Autism Speaks ads are encouraging parents to get their kidschecked out, maybe there are more kids in CA in general.Don't these numbers need to be compared to the total population? Are they?If 10,000 new kids moved to CA in that quarter- and the numbers went up-that doesn't neccessary mean the rates are going up.I just feel like I don't trust ANY numbers anymore.

[Guest guest]

One for you and three for me?

Re: CA numbers

Right, numbers are numbers and until a test is developed that will show on case by case basis that autism was caused by mercury in the vaccines we are screwed. The CDC knows this which is why they can keep stating there is no relationship no matter how many Boyd Haley's or Mark and Geris we have on our team.>> You know, there is never going to be definitive proof of anything. Numbers> are Numbers and there are so many varitables. Maybe a new dx place opened> up, maybe the Autism Speaks ads are encouraging parents to get their kids> checked out, maybe there are more kids in CA in general.> > Don't these numbers need to be compared to the total population? Are they?> If 10,000 new kids moved to CA in that quarter- and the numbers went up-> that doesn't neccessary mean the rates are going up.> > I just feel like I don't trust ANY numbers anymore. > > >

[Guest guest]

Seems to me that mandated flu vaccines do correlate with the numbers.

That said, I've questioned before about entire population. If there

are 1,000 new infants who move to my state, that has to affect the

outcome. the raw number of " 800 " or what ever in one quarter has

little meaning until it's proportionalized against the total no. of

children in that age group, and proportionalized against prior quarter

entire no of children and children with new dx.

Also, if you're like me, and believe aluminum to have a place in

autism, it will only get worse with new vaccines being added. Perhaps

aluminum with thimerosal is the trigger for many kids, perhaps just

thimerosal. But aluminum, which has nasty results when exposed, and

will be in every vaccine, can't be ignored.

Debi

>

>

> The fact is that if the problem is mercury and mercury has been

> greatly reduced in vaccines, we should see numbers either dropping, or

> the rate of increase dropping. Maybe the later is true, I can't tell

> from this one chart alone. These reports have always come with

> caveats about how they are not properly controlled for a variety of

> factors that could affect the actuals, like the CDC recommendations

> for mercury flu shots or their aggressive push for early (and more)

> diagnosis.

>

> We (not just ) can't one day point to these numbers and say:

> " see, they support the mercury hypothesis " when it suit us, and then

> later say " you really can't trust these numbers " when they don't.

>

> These numbers are still appear to be going up and we need to

> understand why this isn't more evidence of no harm.

>

> Mark Blaxill of SafeMinds warned me almost a year ago that the numbers

> might not be going down. I don't remember asking him then why he

> thought so.

>

> Lenny

>

[Guest guest]

Vaccinated vs unvaccinated wont give you squat in a court of law.

Jimmy of Naperville Illinois will have to have medical proof

that his autism was caused by the vaccines for his parents to get

any compensation. It will have to be a case by case basis. Their

wont be a blanket statement stating all autism is caused by mercury

in vaccines, cause it probably isn't.

> >

> > You know, there is never going to be definitive proof of

> anything. Numbers

> > are Numbers and there are so many varitables. Maybe a new dx

> place opened

> > up, maybe the Autism Speaks ads are encouraging parents to get

> their kids

> > checked out, maybe there are more kids in CA in general.

> >

> > Don't these numbers need to be compared to the total

population?

> Are they?

> > If 10,000 new kids moved to CA in that quarter- and the

numbers

> went up-

> > that doesn't neccessary mean the rates are going up.

> >

> > I just feel like I don't trust ANY numbers anymore.

> >

> >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

I agree. I have heard reports from biochemists and toxicologists of the

synergistic

qualities of aluminum and thimerosal. My kids' aluminum and arsenic is still

literally off

the charts on their test results, as well as elevated mercury, after a year of

chelation.

You factor in all of the new vaccine recommendations over the last four years

and there

are plenty of things that could muddy the waters here. Not to mention live

attenuated

virus vaccines, one of which my oldest son had a documented reaction to. I think

that all

of these things play a role. But I still believe that if my children hadn't

recieved the HepB,

along with everything alse, at 2, 4, and 6 months, that their bodies would have

been much

more able to deal with these other components. And quite possibly have been

strong

enough to rid their little bodies of these other toxins.

> >

> >

> > The fact is that if the problem is mercury and mercury has been

> > greatly reduced in vaccines, we should see numbers either dropping, or

> > the rate of increase dropping. Maybe the later is true, I can't tell

> > from this one chart alone. These reports have always come with

> > caveats about how they are not properly controlled for a variety of

> > factors that could affect the actuals, like the CDC recommendations

> > for mercury flu shots or their aggressive push for early (and more)

> > diagnosis.

> >

> > We (not just ) can't one day point to these numbers and say:

> > " see, they support the mercury hypothesis " when it suit us, and then

> > later say " you really can't trust these numbers " when they don't.

> >

> > These numbers are still appear to be going up and we need to

> > understand why this isn't more evidence of no harm.

> >

> > Mark Blaxill of SafeMinds warned me almost a year ago that the numbers

> > might not be going down. I don't remember asking him then why he

> > thought so.

> >

> > Lenny

> >

>

[Guest guest]

,

I think what we really need is chemistry, biochemistry, neuro-chemistry (if that's a term or discipline of science), biophysics, physiology, and scientific competency. There are natural progessions that simply aren't being tackled. The reason is mostly self-preservation by those that have caused the epidemic.

Any science prefixed with neuro is OK and probably most relevant. The brain damage has already been done to our children. We need help fixing them.

My kid didn't have Starkist injected into him, and I'll bet that's the same for everybody.

Re: CA numbers

I agree. I have heard reports from biochemists and toxicologists of the synergistic qualities of aluminum and thimerosal. My kids' aluminum and arsenic is still literally off the charts on their test results, as well as elevated mercury, after a year of chelation. You factor in all of the new vaccine recommendations over the last four years and there are plenty of things that could muddy the waters here. Not to mention live attenuated virus vaccines, one of which my oldest son had a documented reaction to. I think that all of these things play a role. But I still believe that if my children hadn't recieved the HepB, along with everything alse, at 2, 4, and 6 months, that their bodies would have been much more able to deal with these other components. And quite possibly have been strong enough to rid their little bodies of these other toxins.> >> > > > The fact is that if the problem is mercury and mercury has been> > greatly reduced in vaccines, we should see numbers either dropping, or> > the rate of increase dropping. Maybe the later is true, I can't tell> > from this one chart alone. These reports have always come with> > caveats about how they are not properly controlled for a variety of> > factors that could affect the actuals, like the CDC recommendations> > for mercury flu shots or their aggressive push for early (and more)> > diagnosis. > > > > We (not just ) can't one day point to these numbers and say:> > "see, they support the mercury hypothesis" when it suit us, and then> > later say "you really can't trust these numbers" when they don't.> > > > These numbers are still appear to be going up and we need to> > understand why this isn't more evidence of no harm.> > > > Mark Blaxill of SafeMinds warned me almost a year ago that the numbers> > might not be going down. I don't remember asking him then why he> > thought so.> > > > Lenny> >>

[Guest guest]

Two things at play here.

1. Whether this society can continue to recklessly inject countless vaccines of perhaps dubious quality and efficacy which cause a significant amount of damage to neonates and tremendous adverse effects to this society; and

2. Whether you/your son can be compensated for injuries suffered by having been exposed to a vaccine protocol which injected toxic quantities of mercury into him, which, in combination with vaccines of some, but limited value (not merited by the overvaccination or the damage done), caused his autism.

The answer to the first point, will assist you in proving causation for the second point.

There is no test to determine that autism was caused by mercury in vaccines.

There are tests which would show a predisposition to mercury bioaccumulation and the inability to process same. This, combined with evidence that certain neurological growth/differentiation processes in the brain or immune dysregulation in the first 18-24 months of a child's life are negatively impacted by the bioaccumulation/immune dysregulation caused by the mercury toxicity will help show causation.

In most instances, autism is not mercury poisoning per se-autism appears to be a combination of secondary physiological effects (which vary, but are a combination of gastrointestinal, immune and neurological effects) which occur as a consequence of mercury poisoning introduced through the vaccine protocol.

We may never know all of the intricacies of autism biology- we just know that the kids who are vaccinated get autism and the kids who avoid vaccination are autism free as well as free from a host of other disease states/conditions.

That's a very good place to start.

While that may not put money in your pocket- it will help this society pay to help your son.

[Norton AntiSpam] Re: CA numbers

Vaccinated vs unvaccinated wont give you squat in a court of law. Jimmy of Naperville Illinois will have to have medical proof that his autism was caused by the vaccines for his parents to get any compensation. It will have to be a case by case basis. Their wont be a blanket statement stating all autism is caused by mercury in vaccines, cause it probably isn't.> >> > You know, there is never going to be definitive proof of > anything. Numbers> > are Numbers and there are so many varitables. Maybe a new dx > place opened> > up, maybe the Autism Speaks ads are encouraging parents to get > their kids> > checked out, maybe there are more kids in CA in general.> > > > Don't these numbers need to be compared to the total population? > Are they?> > If 10,000 new kids moved to CA in that quarter- and the numbers > went up-> > that doesn't neccessary mean the rates are going up.> > > > I just feel like I don't trust ANY numbers anymore. > > > > > >>

[Guest guest]

According to Dr. Haley, the aluminum jacks up the toxicity of the thimerosal from ten to possibly a hundred times!

The synergy of the two metals is bad news!

Barb

Re: CA numbers

Seems to me that mandated flu vaccines do correlate with the numbers.That said, I've questioned before about entire population. If thereare 1,000 new infants who move to my state, that has to affect theoutcome. the raw number of "800" or what ever in one quarter haslittle meaning until it's proportionalized against the total no. ofchildren in that age group, and proportionalized against prior quarterentire no of children and children with new dx.Also, if you're like me, and believe aluminum to have a place inautism, it will only get worse with new vaccines being added. Perhapsaluminum with thimerosal is the trigger for many kids, perhaps justthimerosal. But aluminum, which has nasty results when exposed, andwill be in every vaccine, can't be ignored.Debi>> > The fact is that if the problem is mercury and mercury has been> greatly reduced in vaccines, we should see numbers either dropping, or> the rate of increase dropping. Maybe the later is true, I can't tell> from this one chart alone. These reports have always come with> caveats about how they are not properly controlled for a variety of> factors that could affect the actuals, like the CDC recommendations> for mercury flu shots or their aggressive push for early (and more)> diagnosis. > > We (not just ) can't one day point to these numbers and say:> "see, they support the mercury hypothesis" when it suit us, and then> later say "you really can't trust these numbers" when they don't.> > These numbers are still appear to be going up and we need to> understand why this isn't more evidence of no harm.> > Mark Blaxill of SafeMinds warned me almost a year ago that the numbers> might not be going down. I don't remember asking him then why he> thought so.> > Lenny>

[Guest guest]

Yes. We currently have a few dozen scientists dedicated to this cause, but we

need many

more for future research to gain more mainstream credibility. The evidence has

already

presented itself through past studies repeatedly. Imagine if we had two-three

times the

number of scientists in these disciplines doing the research that needs to be

done. It

wouldn't be ignored as easily as is is now.

This presents the greater problem of finding a clever way on a national level

(possibly

through many grassroots orgs working together) to raise independant funding for

this

research. I'm sure that many more scientists would be willing to do the research

if the

believed there would be funding for it. I realize that there are already orgs

that are trying

to do this, but it would take all of the orgs dedicated to seeing this type of

research

working together.

> > >

> > >

> > > The fact is that if the problem is mercury and mercury has been

> > > greatly reduced in vaccines, we should see numbers either dropping, or

> > > the rate of increase dropping. Maybe the later is true, I can't tell

> > > from this one chart alone. These reports have always come with

> > > caveats about how they are not properly controlled for a variety of

> > > factors that could affect the actuals, like the CDC recommendations

> > > for mercury flu shots or their aggressive push for early (and more)

> > > diagnosis.

> > >

> > > We (not just ) can't one day point to these numbers and say:

> > > " see, they support the mercury hypothesis " when it suit us, and then

> > > later say " you really can't trust these numbers " when they don't.

> > >

> > > These numbers are still appear to be going up and we need to

> > > understand why this isn't more evidence of no harm.

> > >

> > > Mark Blaxill of SafeMinds warned me almost a year ago that the numbers

> > > might not be going down. I don't remember asking him then why he

> > > thought so.

> > >

> > > Lenny

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Since mercury is used in the manufacturing process, wouldn't that make even single dose vials labeled thimerosal free just as dangerous as the multi-dose vials with thimerosal, especially if they are adding more aluminum?

Re: CA numbers

Seems to me that mandated flu vaccines do correlate with the numbers.That said, I've questioned before about entire population. If thereare 1,000 new infants who move to my state, that has to affect theoutcome. the raw number of "800" or what ever in one quarter haslittle meaning until it's proportionalized against the total no. ofchildren in that age group, and proportionalized against prior quarterentire no of children and children with new dx.Also, if you're like me, and believe aluminum to have a place inautism, it will only get worse with new vaccines being added. Perhapsaluminum with thimerosal is the trigger for many kids, perhaps justthimerosal. But aluminum, which has nasty results when exposed, andwill be in every vaccine, can't be ignored.Debi>> > The fact is that if the problem is mercury and mercury has been> greatly reduced in vaccines, we should see numbers either dropping, or> the rate of increase dropping. Maybe the later is true, I can't tell> from this one chart alone. These reports have always come with> caveats about how they are not properly controlled for a variety of> factors that could affect the actuals, like the CDC recommendations> for mercury flu shots or their aggressive push for early (and more)> diagnosis. > > We (not just ) can't one day point to these numbers and say:> "see, they support the mercury hypothesis" when it suit us, and then> later say "you really can't trust these numbers" when they don't.> > These numbers are still appear to be going up and we need to> understand why this isn't more evidence of no harm.> > Mark Blaxill of SafeMinds warned me almost a year ago that the numbers> might not be going down. I don't remember asking him then why he> thought so.> > Lenny>

No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG Free Edition.Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.8/414 - Release Date: 8/9/2006