Re: CNN weeklong series on autism

[Guest guest]

You're now getting wind of the new propaganda.

The "born with it" canard replaces the "it really isn't there" canard. That will be the big push.

Because Autism Speaks has shown that it really is there, the propagandists now must change the story to protect themselves.

This dovetails nicely with the genetic research which, while mostly a canard and useless, will prove that it was all your children's defective genes anyway.

Except that everyone's starting to catch on!

CNN weeklong series on autism

CNN "weeklong" series on autism just began. My heart goes out to the family of four, the two oldest children, an 8 year old boy diagnosed with asperger's and a 7 year old girl diagnosed as "moderately autistic". An obviously loving, committed family that has four children, younger "sibblings", a 2 and 1 year old who "seem fine".

Autism was described as "complex, hard to define". Children are "born" with it as "most autism is genetic". Nothing was mentioned of a child "regressing" into autism.

No attempt was made to explain the reason that "ten years ago autism was almost unheard of" and that "autism is rising higher than ever before...affecting 1 in 166 children....boys by a margin of 4 to 1, but, girls more severely affected". Ignoring the autism epidemic, the "expert" who insists "children are born with it" and "most autism is genetic" appears deliberately disingenuous. Common sense dictates there is no such thing as a "genetic epidemic". NONE.

Is it possible the two younger children represent the first evidence of thimerosal-free vaccines? After all, the narrator explained that "sibblings are at higher risk of autism" but these two younger sibblings "seem fine".

This is a week long series. Today's segment aired approximately 9:30 A.M. Tommorrow is supposed to be on possible "causes". We shall see. Kind of hard to distance themselves from what they presented today.

[Guest guest]

The problem is the whole argument is complete idiocy. I suppose those at Nagasaki who succumbed more readily to radiation sickness also had "defective genes".

What nitwit makes this argument other than a person who is ready to be sent to the gallows and has no other defense?

Wait'll you see the nonsense that will go on.

Mapping of genes with supercomputers and lining up of western blots and sequences- all of this bullsh-- just to try to bamboozle the public into believing they didn't poison your kid with mercury.

That's where these turkeys are headed.

We need some honest people to help do real research.

Cut them off at the pass.

Re: Re: CNN weeklong series on autism

How about the 'survival of the fittest' propaganda. I've heard it more than once.

Yes, these people do understand that certain gene pools are being poisoned. Apparently they feel that genocide is a perfectly acceptable thing. Those who aren't affected being, after all, the fittest among us>> You're now getting wind of the new propaganda.> The "born with it" canard replaces the "it really isn't there" canard. That will be the big push. > Because Autism Speaks has shown that it really is there, the propagandists now must change the story to protect themselves. > This dovetails nicely with the genetic research which, while mostly a canard and useless, will prove that it was all your children's defective genes anyway. > > Except that everyone's starting to catch on!>

[Guest guest]

But, it's already been published that the regressive form is the most

common.

Don't let facts get in the way,

Carolyn

>

> You're now getting wind of the new propaganda.

> The " born with it " canard replaces the " it really isn't there "

canard. That will be the big push.

> Because Autism Speaks has shown that it really is there, the

propagandists now must change the story to protect themselves.

> This dovetails nicely with the genetic research which, while mostly

a canard and useless, will prove that it was all your children's

defective genes anyway.

>

> Except that everyone's starting to catch on!

>

> CNN weeklong series on autism

>

>

>

> CNN " weeklong " series on autism just began. My heart goes out to

the family of four, the two oldest children, an 8 year old boy

diagnosed with asperger's and a 7 year old girl diagnosed

as " moderately autistic " . An obviously loving, committed family

that has four children, younger " sibblings " , a 2 and 1 year old

who " seem fine " .

>

> Autism was described as " complex, hard to define " . Children

are " born " with it as " most autism is genetic " . Nothing was

mentioned of a child " regressing " into autism.

>

> No attempt was made to explain the reason that " ten years ago

autism was almost unheard of " and that " autism is rising higher than

ever before...affecting 1 in 166 children....boys by a margin of 4 to

1, but, girls more severely affected " . Ignoring the autism

epidemic, the " expert " who insists " children are born with it "

and " most autism is genetic " appears deliberately disingenuous.

Common sense dictates there is no such thing as a " genetic

epidemic " . NONE.

>

> Is it possible the two younger children represent the first

evidence of thimerosal-free vaccines? After all, the narrator

explained that " sibblings are at higher risk of autism " but these two

younger sibblings " seem fine " .

>

> This is a week long series. Today's segment aired approximately

9:30 A.M. Tommorrow is supposed to be on possible " causes " . We

shall see. Kind of hard to distance themselves from what they

presented today.

>

[Guest guest]

But, it's already been published that the regressive form is the most

common.

Don't let facts get in the way,

Carolyn

>

> You're now getting wind of the new propaganda.

> The " born with it " canard replaces the " it really isn't there "

canard. That will be the big push.

> Because Autism Speaks has shown that it really is there, the

propagandists now must change the story to protect themselves.

> This dovetails nicely with the genetic research which, while mostly

a canard and useless, will prove that it was all your children's

defective genes anyway.

>

> Except that everyone's starting to catch on!

>

> CNN weeklong series on autism

>

>

>

> CNN " weeklong " series on autism just began. My heart goes out to

the family of four, the two oldest children, an 8 year old boy

diagnosed with asperger's and a 7 year old girl diagnosed

as " moderately autistic " . An obviously loving, committed family

that has four children, younger " sibblings " , a 2 and 1 year old

who " seem fine " .

>

> Autism was described as " complex, hard to define " . Children

are " born " with it as " most autism is genetic " . Nothing was

mentioned of a child " regressing " into autism.

>

> No attempt was made to explain the reason that " ten years ago

autism was almost unheard of " and that " autism is rising higher than

ever before...affecting 1 in 166 children....boys by a margin of 4 to

1, but, girls more severely affected " . Ignoring the autism

epidemic, the " expert " who insists " children are born with it "

and " most autism is genetic " appears deliberately disingenuous.

Common sense dictates there is no such thing as a " genetic

epidemic " . NONE.

>

> Is it possible the two younger children represent the first

evidence of thimerosal-free vaccines? After all, the narrator

explained that " sibblings are at higher risk of autism " but these two

younger sibblings " seem fine " .

>

> This is a week long series. Today's segment aired approximately

9:30 A.M. Tommorrow is supposed to be on possible " causes " . We

shall see. Kind of hard to distance themselves from what they

presented today.

>

[Guest guest]

It's real easy for the 'experts' to say kids are born with autism when

they are vaccinated the day they are born, then at age 2,4,6 months.

Any given child could become autistic from just one shot.

That is why the numbers were there, just not as great, from the very

beginnig of the age of vaccines.

Just remember that.

[Guest guest]

In my son's case, he was born with it.  I could tell from the beginning that something was not right.  He had major sensory issues.  I had two mercury laden Rhogam shots (62.5 micrograms per) during pregnancy and was also induced.  I believe this is what pushed him over the edge.On Jul 31, 2006, at 7:56 AM, H wrote:You're now getting wind of the new propaganda.The "born with it" canard replaces the "it really isn't there" canard.  That will be the big push. Because Autism Speaks has shown that it really is there, the propagandists now must change the story to protect themselves.   This dovetails nicely with the genetic research which, while mostly a canard and useless, will prove that it was all your children's defective genes anyway.  Except that everyone's starting to catch on!  CNN weeklong series on autismCNN "weeklong" series on autism just began.  My heart goes out to the family of four, the two oldest children, an 8 year old boy diagnosed with asperger's and a 7 year old girl diagnosed as "moderately autistic".   An obviously loving, committed family that has four children, younger "sibblings", a 2 and 1 year old who "seem fine". Autism was described as "complex, hard to define".  Children are "born" with it as "most autism is genetic".  Nothing was mentioned of a child "regressing" into autism.   No attempt was made to explain the reason that "ten years ago autism was almost unheard of" and that "autism is rising higher than ever before...affecting 1 in 166 children....boys by a margin of 4 to 1, but, girls more severely affected".   Ignoring the autism epidemic, the "expert" who insists "children are born with it" and "most autism is genetic" appears deliberately disingenuous.  Common sense dictates there is no such thing as a "genetic epidemic".  NONE.    Is it possible the two younger children represent the first evidence of thimerosal-free vaccines?   After all, the narrator explained that "sibblings are at higher risk of autism" but these two younger sibblings "seem fine".  This is a week long series.  Today's segment aired approximately 9:30 A.M.  Tommorrow is supposed to be on possible "causes".  We shall see.  Kind of hard to distance themselves from what they presented today.

[Guest guest]

You said “from the beginning”.

when? Birth or 2 months? Was he vaccinated in the hospital? If

not, he certainly was at 2 months. Can you track it back?

From: EOHarm [mailto:EOHarm ] On Behalf Of

Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2006

8:23 PM

EOHarm

Subject: Re: CNN weeklong

series on autism

In my

son's case, he was born with it. I could tell from the beginning that something

was not right. He had major sensory issues. I had two mercury laden Rhogam

shots (62.5 micrograms per) during pregnancy and was also induced. I believe

this is what pushed him over the edge.

On Jul 31, 2006, at 7:56 AM, H wrote:

You're

now getting wind of the new propaganda.

The

" born with it " canard replaces the " it really isn't there "

canard. That will be the big push.

Because

Autism Speaks has shown that it really is there, the propagandists now must

change the story to protect themselves.

This

dovetails nicely with the genetic research which, while mostly a canard and

useless, will prove that it was all your children's defective genes anyway.

Except

that everyone's starting to catch on!

-----

Original Message -----

From: Rmoffi@...

EOHarm

Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 10:50 AM

Subject: CNN weeklong

series on autism

CNN

" weeklong " series on autism just began. My heart goes out to the

family of four, the two oldest children, an 8 year old boy diagnosed with asperger's

and a 7 year old girl diagnosed as " moderately autistic " . An

obviously loving, committed family that has four children, younger

" sibblings " , a 2 and 1 year old who " seem fine " .

Autism

was described as " complex, hard to define " . Children are " born "

with it as " most autism is genetic " . Nothing was mentioned of a child

" regressing " into autism.

No

attempt was made to explain the reason that " ten years ago autism was

almost unheard of " and that " autism is rising higher than ever

before...affecting 1 in 166 children....boys by a margin of 4 to 1, but, girls more severely

affected " . Ignoring the autism epidemic, the " expert " who

insists " children are born with it " and " most autism is

genetic " appears deliberately disingenuous. Common sense dictates there is

no such thing as a " genetic epidemic " . NONE.

Is it

possible the two younger children represent the first evidence of

thimerosal-free vaccines? After all, the narrator explained that

" sibblings are at higher risk of autism " but these two younger sibblings

" seem fine " .

This is

a week long series. Today's segment aired approximately 9:30 A.M. Tommorrow is

supposed to be on possible " causes " . We shall see. Kind of hard to

distance themselves from what they presented today.

[Guest guest]

I mean he never regressed into autism.  He has been ASD since the first day of his life.  He did not get his hep B on the day he was born because he was ill.  He got it at his two month old appointment.  On Aug 1, 2006, at 5:27 PM, Holly Bortfeld wrote:You said “from the beginning”. when?  Birth or 2 months?  Was he vaccinated in the hospital?  If not, he certainly was at 2 months.  Can you track it back? From: EOHarm [mailto:EOHarm ] On Behalf Of Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2006 8:23 PMEOHarm Subject: Re: CNN weeklong series on autism In my son's case, he was born with it. I could tell from the beginning that something was not right. He had major sensory issues. I had two mercury laden Rhogam shots (62.5 micrograms per) during pregnancy and was also induced. I believe this is what pushed him over the edge.   On Jul 31, 2006, at 7:56 AM, H wrote: You're now getting wind of the new propaganda.The "born with it" canard replaces the "it really isn't there" canard. That will be the big push.Because Autism Speaks has shown that it really is there, the propagandists now must change the story to protect themselves.This dovetails nicely with the genetic research which, while mostly a canard and useless, will prove that it was all your children's defective genes anyway.Except that everyone's starting to catch on! CNN weeklong series on autism CNN "weeklong" series on autism just began. My heart goes out to the family of four, the two oldest children, an 8 year old boy diagnosed with asperger's and a 7 year old girl diagnosed as "moderately autistic". An obviously loving, committed family that has four children, younger "sibblings", a 2 and 1 year old who "seem fine".Autism was described as "complex, hard to define". Children are "born" with it as "most autism is genetic". Nothing was mentioned of a child "regressing" into autism.No attempt was made to explain the reason that "ten years ago autism was almost unheard of" and that "autism is rising higher than ever before...affecting 1 in 166 children....boys by a margin of 4 to 1, but, girls more severely affected". Ignoring the autism epidemic, the "expert" who insists "children are born with it" and "most autism is genetic" appears deliberately disingenuous. Common sense dictates there is no such thing as a "genetic epidemic". NONE.Is it possible the two younger children represent the first evidence of thimerosal-free vaccines? After all, the narrator explained that "sibblings are at higher risk of autism" but these two younger sibblings "seem fine".This is a week long series. Today's segment aired approximately 9:30 A.M. Tommorrow is supposed to be on possible "causes". We shall see. Kind of hard to distance themselves from what they presented today.   

[Guest guest]

What does an ASD 1 day old do that a NT 1

day old doesn’t do? Or 1 month?

From: EOHarm [mailto:EOHarm ] On Behalf Of

Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2006

8:45 PM

EOHarm

Subject: Re: CNN weeklong

series on autism

I mean he

never regressed into autism. He has been ASD since the first day of his

life. He did not get his hep B on the day he was born because he was

ill. He got it at his two month old appointment.

On Aug 1, 2006, at 5:27 PM, Holly Bortfeld wrote:

You said “from the

beginning”. when? Birth or 2 months? Was he vaccinated in the

hospital? If not, he certainly was at 2 months. Can you track it

back?

From: EOHarm

[mailto:EOHarm ]

On Behalf Of

Sent:

Tuesday, August 01, 2006 8:23 PM

EOHarm

Subject:

Re: CNN weeklong series on autism

In my son's case, he was born with it. I

could tell from the beginning that something was not right. He had major sensory

issues. I had two mercury laden Rhogam shots (62.5 micrograms per) during

pregnancy and was also induced. I believe this is what pushed him over the edge.

On Jul 31, 2006, at 7:56 AM, H

wrote:

You're now getting wind

of the new propaganda.

The " born with

it " canard replaces the " it really isn't there " canard. That

will be the big push.

Because Autism Speaks has

shown that it really is there, the propagandists now must change the story to

protect themselves.

This dovetails nicely

with the genetic research which, while mostly a canard and useless, will prove

that it was all your children's defective genes anyway.

Except that everyone's

starting to catch on!

CNN weeklong

series on autism

CNN " weeklong "

series on autism just began. My heart goes out to the family of four, the two

oldest children, an 8 year old boy diagnosed with asperger's and a 7 year old

girl diagnosed as " moderately autistic " . An obviously loving, committed

family that has four children, younger " sibblings " , a 2 and 1 year

old who " seem fine " .

Autism was described as

" complex, hard to define " . Children are " born " with it as

" most autism is genetic " . Nothing was mentioned of a child

" regressing " into autism.

No attempt was made to

explain the reason that " ten years ago autism was almost unheard of "

and that " autism is rising higher than ever before...affecting 1 in 166

children....boys by a margin of 4

to 1, but, girls more severely affected " . Ignoring the autism epidemic, the

" expert " who insists " children are born with it " and

" most autism is genetic " appears deliberately disingenuous. Common

sense dictates there is no such thing as a " genetic epidemic " . NONE.

Is it possible the two

younger children represent the first evidence of thimerosal-free vaccines?

After all, the narrator explained that " sibblings are at higher risk of

autism " but these two younger sibblings " seem fine " .

This is a week long

series. Today's segment aired approximately 9:30 A.M. Tommorrow is supposed to

be on possible " causes " . We shall see. Kind of hard to distance

themselves from what they presented today.

[Guest guest]

He was always extremely sensitive to touch and noise.  We had to be extremely careful not to overstimulate him or we would pay for four or five days afterword.  He just continued on like this and never outgrew it.  As he aged, other symptoms (eg. very behind with speech, flapping,etc., social issues) began to appear.  I look back and there was never any change where he went backward.  He just didn't ever go forward like he should have.On Aug 1, 2006, at 5:49 PM, Holly Bortfeld wrote:What does an ASD 1 day old do that a NT 1 day old doesn’t do?  Or 1 month? From: EOHarm [mailto:EOHarm ] On Behalf Of Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2006 8:45 PMEOHarm Subject: Re: CNN weeklong series on autism I mean he never regressed into autism.  He has been ASD since the first day of his life.  He did not get his hep B on the day he was born because he was ill.  He got it at his two month old appointment.    On Aug 1, 2006, at 5:27 PM, Holly Bortfeld wrote: You said “from the beginning”. when?  Birth or 2 months?  Was he vaccinated in the hospital?  If not, he certainly was at 2 months.  Can you track it back? From: EOHarm [mailto:EOHarm ] On Behalf Of Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2006 8:23 PMEOHarm Subject: Re: CNN weeklong series on autism In my son's case, he was born with it. I could tell from the beginning that something was not right. He had major sensory issues. I had two mercury laden Rhogam shots (62.5 micrograms per) during pregnancy and was also induced. I believe this is what pushed him over the edge.   On Jul 31, 2006, at 7:56 AM, H wrote: You're now getting wind of the new propaganda.The "born with it" canard replaces the "it really isn't there" canard. That will be the big push.Because Autism Speaks has shown that it really is there, the propagandists now must change the story to protect themselves.This dovetails nicely with the genetic research which, while mostly a canard and useless, will prove that it was all your children's defective genes anyway.Except that everyone's starting to catch on! CNN weeklong series on autism CNN "weeklong" series on autism just began. My heart goes out to the family of four, the two oldest children, an 8 year old boy diagnosed with asperger's and a 7 year old girl diagnosed as "moderately autistic". An obviously loving, committed family that has four children, younger "sibblings", a 2 and 1 year old who "seem fine".Autism was described as "complex, hard to define". Children are "born" with it as "most autism is genetic". Nothing was mentioned of a child "regressing" into autism.No attempt was made to explain the reason that "ten years ago autism was almost unheard of" and that "autism is rising higher than ever before...affecting 1 in 166 children....boys by a margin of 4 to 1, but, girls more severely affected". Ignoring the autism epidemic, the "expert" who insists "children are born with it" and "most autism is genetic" appears deliberately disingenuous. Common sense dictates there is no such thing as a "genetic epidemic". NONE.Is it possible the two younger children represent the first evidence of thimerosal-free vaccines? After all, the narrator explained that "sibblings are at higher risk of autism" but these two younger sibblings "seem fine".This is a week long series. Today's segment aired approximately 9:30 A.M. Tommorrow is supposed to be on possible "causes". We shall see. Kind of hard to distance themselves from what they presented today.      

[Guest guest]

I think that is a very accurate way to put it!On Aug 1, 2006, at 6:09 PM, cathylynn2 wrote:I believe it's fair to say that he DID regress..... just before he was born.  My daughter regressed into autism in my 6th month of pregnancy, when I was given a 25 mcg. HG flu shot.  She was perfect until that day, and then went into fetal distress soon after that shot and never grew another ounce.On Aug 1, 2006, at 5:44 PM, wrote:I mean he never regressed into autism.  He has been ASD since the first day of his life.  He did not get his hep B on the day he was born because he was ill.  He got it at his two month old appointment.  On Aug 1, 2006, at 5:27 PM, Holly Bortfeld wrote:You said “from the beginning”. when?  Birth or 2 months?  Was he vaccinated in the hospital?  If not, he certainly was at 2 months.  Can you track it back?  SP

[Guest guest]

curious. sick with what on the first day?

Bax's mom

> >>

> >>>

> >>> You said " from the beginning " . when? Birth or 2 months? Was

he

> >>> vaccinated in the hospital? If not, he certainly was at 2

> >>> months. Can you track it back?

> >>>

> >>>

> >>>

> >>>

> >>>

> >>

> >>

> >>

> >>

> >> SP

> >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Did your doc inform you of the risks of Rhogam? HHF CNN weeklong series on autismCNN "weeklong" series on autism just began. My heart goes out to the family of four, the two oldest children, an 8 year old boy diagnosed with asperger's and a 7 year old girl diagnosed as "moderately autistic". An obviously loving, committed family that has four children, younger "sibblings", a 2 and 1 year old who "seem fine". Autism was described as "complex, hard to define". Children are "born" with it as "most autism is genetic". Nothing was mentioned of a child "regressing" into autism. No attempt was made to explain the reason that "ten years ago autism was almost unheard of" and that "autism is rising higher than ever before...affecting 1 in 166 children....boys by a margin of 4 to 1, but, girls more severely affected". Ignoring the autism epidemic, the "expert" who insists "children are born with it" and "most autism is genetic" appears deliberately disingenuous. Common sense dictates there is no such thing as a "genetic epidemic". NONE. Is it possible the two younger children represent the first evidence of thimerosal-free vaccines? After all, the narrator explained that "sibblings are at higher risk of autism" but these two younger sibblings "seem fine". This is a week long series Today's segment aired approximately 9:30 A.M. Tommorrow is supposed to be on possible "causes". We shall see. Kind of hard to distance themselves from what they presented today.

[Guest guest]

He aspirated amniotic fluid and had to be in intensive care for 5 days.  They were worried he would develop an infection in his lungs.On Aug 2, 2006, at 3:16 AM, djberle wrote:curious. sick with what on the first day?Bax's mom> >>> >>>> >>> You said "from the beginning". when? Birth or 2 months? Was he > >>> vaccinated in the hospital? If not, he certainly was at 2 > >>> months. Can you track it back?> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> SP> >> >>

[Guest guest]

No, he did not.On Aug 2, 2006, at 5:07 AM, Herman Fudenberg wrote:Did your doc inform you of the risks of Rhogam? HHF CNN weeklong series on autismCNN "weeklong" series on autism just began.  My heart goes out to the family of four, the two oldest children, an 8 year old boy diagnosed with asperger's and a 7 year old girl diagnosed as "moderately autistic".   An obviously loving, committed family that has four children, younger "sibblings", a 2 and 1 year old who "seem fine". Autism was described as "complex, hard to define".  Children are "born" with it as "most autism is genetic".  Nothing was mentioned of a child "regressing" into autism.   No attempt was made to explain the reason that "ten years ago autism was almost unheard of" and that "autism is rising higher than ever before...affecting 1 in 166 children....boys by a margin of 4 to 1, but, girls more severely affected".   Ignoring the autism epidemic, the "expert" who insists "children are born with it" and "most autism is genetic" appears deliberately disingenuous.  Common sense dictates there is no such thing as a "genetic epidemic".  NONE.    Is it possible the two younger children represent the first evidence of thimerosal-free vaccines?   After all, the narrator explained that "sibblings are at higher risk of autism" but these two younger sibblings "seem fine".  This is a week long series  Today's segment aired approximately 9:30 A.M.  Tommorrow is supposed to be on possible "causes".  We shall see.  Kind of hard to distance themselves from what they presented today.

[Guest guest]

Hi, . Sounds like he may have been BORN with it, but he

wasn't CONCEIEVED with it.

Best wishes, Carolyn

>

>

>

>

> You're now getting wind of the new propaganda.

> The " born with it " canard replaces the " it really isn't there "

canard. That will be the big push.

> Because Autism Speaks has shown that it really is there, the

propagandists now must change the story to protect themselves.

> This dovetails nicely with the genetic research which, while

mostly a canard and useless, will prove that it was all your

children's defective genes anyway.

>

> Except that everyone's starting to catch on!

>

> CNN weeklong series on autism

>

>

>

> CNN " weeklong " series on autism just began. My heart goes

out to the family of four, the two oldest children, an 8 year old

boy diagnosed with asperger's and a 7 year old girl diagnosed

as " moderately autistic " . An obviously loving, committed family

that has four children, younger " sibblings " , a 2 and 1 year old

who " seem fine " .

>

> Autism was described as " complex, hard to define " . Children

are " born " with it as " most autism is genetic " . Nothing was

mentioned of a child " regressing " into autism.

>

> No attempt was made to explain the reason that " ten years

ago autism was almost unheard of " and that " autism is rising higher

than ever before...affecting 1 in 166 children....boys by a margin

of 4 to 1, but, girls more severely affected " . Ignoring the autism

epidemic, the " expert " who insists " children are born with it "

and " most autism is genetic " appears deliberately disingenuous

Common sense dictates there is no such thing as a " genetic

epidemic " . NONE.

>

> Is it possible the two younger children represent the first

evidence of thimerosal-free vaccines? After all, the narrator

explained that " sibblings are at higher risk of autism " but these

two younger sibblings " seem fine " .

>

> This is a week long series. Today's segment aired

approximately 9:30 A.M. Tommorrow is supposed to be on

possible " causes " . We shall see. Kind of hard to distance

themselves from what they presented today.

>

[Guest guest]

Hi, . Sounds like he may have been BORN with it, but he

wasn't CONCEIEVED with it.

Best wishes, Carolyn

>

>

>

>

> You're now getting wind of the new propaganda.

> The " born with it " canard replaces the " it really isn't there "

canard. That will be the big push.

> Because Autism Speaks has shown that it really is there, the

propagandists now must change the story to protect themselves.

> This dovetails nicely with the genetic research which, while

mostly a canard and useless, will prove that it was all your

children's defective genes anyway.

>

> Except that everyone's starting to catch on!

>

> CNN weeklong series on autism

>

>

>

> CNN " weeklong " series on autism just began. My heart goes

out to the family of four, the two oldest children, an 8 year old

boy diagnosed with asperger's and a 7 year old girl diagnosed

as " moderately autistic " . An obviously loving, committed family

that has four children, younger " sibblings " , a 2 and 1 year old

who " seem fine " .

>

> Autism was described as " complex, hard to define " . Children

are " born " with it as " most autism is genetic " . Nothing was

mentioned of a child " regressing " into autism.

>

> No attempt was made to explain the reason that " ten years

ago autism was almost unheard of " and that " autism is rising higher

than ever before...affecting 1 in 166 children....boys by a margin

of 4 to 1, but, girls more severely affected " . Ignoring the autism

epidemic, the " expert " who insists " children are born with it "

and " most autism is genetic " appears deliberately disingenuous

Common sense dictates there is no such thing as a " genetic

epidemic " . NONE.

>

> Is it possible the two younger children represent the first

evidence of thimerosal-free vaccines? After all, the narrator

explained that " sibblings are at higher risk of autism " but these

two younger sibblings " seem fine " .

>

> This is a week long series. Today's segment aired

approximately 9:30 A.M. Tommorrow is supposed to be on

possible " causes " . We shall see. Kind of hard to distance

themselves from what they presented today.

>

[Guest guest]

Nope.On Aug 2, 2006, at 11:18 AM, thefitzenreiterfamily wrote:Hi, . Sounds like he may have been BORN with it, but he wasn't CONCEIEVED with it.Best wishes, Carolyn> > > > > You're now getting wind of the new propaganda.> The "born with it" canard replaces the "it really isn't there" canard. That will be the big push. > Because Autism Speaks has shown that it really is there, the propagandists now must change the story to protect themselves. > This dovetails nicely with the genetic research which, while mostly a canard and useless, will prove that it was all your children's defective genes anyway. > > Except that everyone's starting to catch on!> > CNN weeklong series on autism> > > > CNN "weeklong" series on autism just began. My heart goes out to the family of four, the two oldest children, an 8 year old boy diagnosed with asperger's and a 7 year old girl diagnosed as "moderately autistic". An obviously loving, committed family that has four children, younger "sibblings", a 2 and 1 year old who "seem fine".> > Autism was described as "complex, hard to define". Children are "born" with it as "most autism is genetic". Nothing was mentioned of a child "regressing" into autism. > > No attempt was made to explain the reason that "ten years ago autism was almost unheard of" and that "autism is rising higher than ever before...affecting 1 in 166 children....boys by a margin of 4 to 1, but, girls more severely affected". Ignoring the autism epidemic, the "expert" who insists "children are born with it" and "most autism is genetic" appears deliberately disingenuous Common sense dictates there is no such thing as a "genetic epidemic". NONE. > > Is it possible the two younger children represent the first evidence of thimerosal-free vaccines? After all, the narrator explained that "sibblings are at higher risk of autism" but these two younger sibblings "seem fine". > > This is a week long series. Today's segment aired approximately 9:30 A.M. Tommorrow is supposed to be on possible "causes". We shall see. Kind of hard to distance themselves from what they presented today.>

[Guest guest]

You're now getting wind of the new propaganda.

> The " born with it " canard replaces the " it really isn't there "

canard. That will be the big push.

I say my son was born with it as well, but I know that those first

few hours of all the vaccines and hepB vaccine really pushed him

over the edge. I had shots during pregnancy too.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > You're now getting wind of the new propaganda.

> > The " born with it " canard replaces the " it really isn't

there "

> canard. That will be the big push.

> > Because Autism Speaks has shown that it really is there, the

> propagandists now must change the story to protect themselves.

> > This dovetails nicely with the genetic research which, while

> mostly a canard and useless, will prove that it was all your

> children's defective genes anyway.

> >

> > Except that everyone's starting to catch on!

> >

> > CNN weeklong series on autism

> >

> >

> >

> > CNN " weeklong " series on autism just began. My heart goes

> out to the family of four, the two oldest children, an 8 year old

> boy diagnosed with asperger's and a 7 year old girl diagnosed

> as " moderately autistic " . An obviously loving, committed family

> that has four children, younger " sibblings " , a 2 and 1 year old

> who " seem fine " .

> >

> > Autism was described as " complex, hard to define " .

Children

> are " born " with it as " most autism is genetic " . Nothing was

> mentioned of a child " regressing " into autism.

> >

> > No attempt was made to explain the reason that " ten years

> ago autism was almost unheard of " and that " autism is rising

higher

> than ever before...affecting 1 in 166 children....boys by a margin

> of 4 to 1, but, girls more severely affected " . Ignoring the

autism

> epidemic, the " expert " who insists " children are born with it "

> and " most autism is genetic " appears deliberately disingenuous

> Common sense dictates there is no such thing as a " genetic

> epidemic " . NONE.

> >

> > Is it possible the two younger children represent the

first

> evidence of thimerosal-free vaccines? After all, the narrator

> explained that " sibblings are at higher risk of autism " but these

> two younger sibblings " seem fine " .

> >

> > This is a week long series. Today's segment aired

> approximately 9:30 A.M. Tommorrow is supposed to be on

> possible " causes " . We shall see. Kind of hard to distance

> themselves from what they presented today.

> >

>

[Guest guest]

I give out Cave's," What You Doctor May Not Tell you About Children's Vaccinations," with every baby shower gift.  It is the best way I know to give new parents information before the day their baby is born. On Aug 2, 2006, at 1:59 PM, Sally Colletti wrote:You're now getting wind of the new propaganda.> The "born with it" canard replaces the "it really isn't there"canard. That will be the big push.I say my son was born with it as well, but I know that those first few hours of all the vaccines and hepB vaccine really pushed him over the edge. I had shots during pregnancy too. > > > > > > > > > > You're now getting wind of the new propaganda.> > The "born with it" canard replaces the "it really isn't there" > canard. That will be the big push. > > Because Autism Speaks has shown that it really is there, the > propagandists now must change the story to protect themselves. > > This dovetails nicely with the genetic research which, while > mostly a canard and useless, will prove that it was all your > children's defective genes anyway. > > > > Except that everyone's starting to catch on!> > > > CNN weeklong series on autism> > > > > > > > CNN "weeklong" series on autism just began. My heart goes > out to the family of four, the two oldest children, an 8 year old > boy diagnosed with asperger's and a 7 year old girl diagnosed > as "moderately autistic". An obviously loving, committed family > that has four children, younger "sibblings", a 2 and 1 year old > who "seem fine".> > > > Autism was described as "complex, hard to define". Children > are "born" with it as "most autism is genetic". Nothing was > mentioned of a child "regressing" into autism. > > > > No attempt was made to explain the reason that "ten years > ago autism was almost unheard of" and that "autism is rising higher > than ever before...affecting 1 in 166 children....boys by a margin > of 4 to 1, but, girls more severely affected". Ignoring the autism > epidemic, the "expert" who insists "children are born with it" > and "most autism is genetic" appears deliberately disingenuous > Common sense dictates there is no such thing as a "genetic > epidemic". NONE. > > > > Is it possible the two younger children represent the first > evidence of thimerosal-free vaccines? After all, the narrator > explained that "sibblings are at higher risk of autism" but these > two younger sibblings "seem fine". > > > > This is a week long series. Today's segment aired > approximately 9:30 A.M. Tommorrow is supposed to be on > possible "causes". We shall see. Kind of hard to distance > themselves from what they presented today.> >>