RE: DK - My take IMFAR and California data - one more thing

[Guest guest]

And perhaps the free clinics have the stockpiles of the multidose batches?

Alison

>From: kahybl@...

>Reply-EOHarm

>stratpat@..., EOHarm

>Subject: DK - My take IMFAR and California data - one more thing

>Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 18:23:20 EDT

>

> - you noted last week that Asians and Hispanics had a higher rate of

>autism than whites (I hope I remember that correctly). Could the stats for

>this

>study have left certain groups in (or out)? When there is language barriers

>among non-English speaking groups, I am wondering if anyone of these

>children

>are getting double vaccination through free clinics.

>

> " Limitations of the DDS database and lack of individual exposure data "

>Emphasis is now mine - what were the limitations of the DDS database - what

>were

>they implying?

>

>Kathy Hybl

>

>

>

>Next, I am still

>In a message dated 4/25/07 6:06:40 PM, stratpat@... writes:

>

>

>

> >

> > My child's autism is another child's Leukemia, (insert disease).

> > Absolutely.

> > Â > Â >

> > Re: IMFAR and California data - one more thing

> >

> >

> > And, ---- that genetic predisposition stuff -- the predisposition

>is

> > the amount of other crap (toxins) already taken in by the child

> > (inutero/post-And, ---- that genetic predisposition stuff -- the

>predisposition is the

> > amount of other crap (toxins) already taken in by the child

>(inutero/post-<

> > wbr>utero) to set him up. The only way genes matter is wheth

> >

> > My child's autism is another child's Leukemia, (insert disease).

> >

> > Rox

> >

> > kelly reedy <novacmama@...> wrote:

> > Okay - , I believe I heard you say when in Tempe (and I concur)

>that

> > although they say thimersol was taken out by a given year, that does not

> > account for all of the stock in the pediatrician'Okay - , I believe

>I heard

> > you say when in Tempe (and I concur) that although they sOkay - , I

> > believe I heard you say when in Tempe (and I concur) that although they

>say

> > thimersol was taken out by a given year, that does not account for all

>of the stock

> > in the pediatrician'<wbr>s office. I know parents

> >

> > And, I agree with -- so many other sources. My gosh - the

> > exposure from pesticides alone, I believe, when I was pregnant and

>living near many

> > golf courses, was enough to set my son up -- not to mention six amalgams

> > which are now long gone. Why no government agency concedes on this

>issue, I

> > don't know. Look how many sources of mercury there are. Why is it

>that some of

> > my organic mom friends whose child never saw a vaccine are so toxic?Â

>They

> > are getting hit with the other sources.

> >

> > - what you said about wildfires releasing mercury has just stuck

>with

> > me. For the past ten years, AZ and CA (all upwind of me) have never

>SEEN so

> > many wild fires.

> >

> > Rox

> >

> > christine <christine@lighthouschristinechri> wrote:

> >

> > There are so many other factors- other sources of mercury, immigration,

>flu

> > shots, increased awareness, rhogam, plus- was the thimerosal REALLY

>taken

> > out by 2001?  I don’t think so.  Also, I could see the gov’t

>telling CA that

> > they better dx the borderline kids to keep the numbers up.

> >

> >

> >

> > On 4/25/07 2:29 PM, " Kirby " <dkirby@...> wrote:

> >

> >

> >

> > Â > Â >

> >

> > This is interesting. Calif Dept of Health Services will be presenting

>DDS

> > data at IMFAR

> > Â > They will report that the number of 3-5 year old cases was still

>rising as

> > of Sept 2006 – thus no evidence for a major role for thimerosal in ASD

>was

> > found.

> > Â > But, the abstract makes a very interesting point. It says that:

>“Limitations

> > of the DDS database and lack of individual exposure data prevent

> > conclusions, based on these data, about thimerosal as a cause or

>modifier of autism in a

> > specific subgroup or child<FONT COLOR= " #000080 " FACE= " Arial " FA.

> >

> > (Emphases are mine)

> > Â > I read this to mean that one cannot apply the California data to

>prove that

> > a specific group or child (ie one with a genetic predisposition) was NOT

> > harmed by thimerosal. Also, there is no way to know for sure exactly how

>much

> > mercury individual children were exposed to during the period in

>question.

> >

> > Please, someone explain to me why I am wrong, and that includes any

>lurkers

> > out there who believe that the California numbers mean it is time to

>close

> > the thimerosal books once and for all.

> > Â > I am being serious. I really thought these numbers were probably the

>death

> > knell of this hypothesis, and they may still be. But it seems that the

>State

> > of California would have us interpret these numbers with a bit more

>caution.

> >

> > The abstract is below. ALL comments welcome, and that includes skeptics.

> > Thanks. DK

> > Â >

> >   Primary Author's Institution/Primary   >   California Dept. of

>Health Services   >   Abstract Title   >   Prevalence of Autism

>Reported by the California DDS System and Changing

> > Exposure to Thimerosal-ContainiPrevalence   >   List of Authors  Â

> >   J. K. Grether, R. Schechter   >   Enter abstract here-DON'T

>include authors or title   >   Background: The exclusion of thimerosal

>from childhood vaccines in the

> > U.S. was accelerated between 1999-2001. If exposure to thimerosal was a

>major

> > contributor to the occurrence of autism, it should now be possible to

>observe a

> > reduction in prevalence among young children.

> > Â > Â Objective: To determine whether trends in DDS autism client data

>support

> > the hypothesis that thimerosal exposure is a primary cause of autism.

> > Â > Â Methods: We obtained data from the California Department of

>Developmental

> > Services for active status clients from January 1995September 2006.

> > Denominator data for calculating prevalence of autism and prevalence for

>any

> > DDS-reported condition was obtained from live birth files and, as an

>age-specific

> > estimate of children living in California, from the California

>Department of

> > Finance. We calculated the estimated prevalence of autism for children

>at each

> > year of age from 3-12 years and also the estimated prevalence of autism

>for

> > children 3-5 years of age for each quarter from January 1995 through

>September

> > 2006.

> > Â > Â Results: When viewed either as the estimated prevalence by year of

>age or

> > as the estimated prevalence for children 3-5 years of age during each

> > reporting quarter, there is no observable decrease in DDS-reported

>autism.

> > Â > Â Conclusion: Prevalence trend estimates based on DDS-reported

>autism do not

> > support a major role for thimerosal-containi Conclusion: Prevalence

>trend

> > estimates based on DDS-reported autism do not support a major role for

> > thimerosal-containi<wbr>ng vaccines in the occurrence of autism.

>Limitations of the

> > DDS database and lack of individual exposure data

> >  >  Funding: California Department of Health Services  >

> > Â >

> >

> > Â Â Â Â >

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

>Ahhh...imagining that irresistible " new car " smell?

>Check out new cars at Autos.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>Ahhh...imagining that irresistible " new car " smell?

>Check out new cars at Autos.

>

>

>

>

> Messages in this topic (0) Reply (via web post) | Start a new

>topic

> Messages | Files | Photos | Links | Database | Polls | Calendar

>

>

>Change settings via the Web ( ID required)

>Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format

>to

>Traditional

>Visit Your Group | Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

>

> Recent Activity

>

> •  13

> New Members

>

> •  1

> New Photos

>

> •  2

> New Files

>

>

> Visit Your Group

>