RE: Re: Scientific studies vs. anecdotal evidence

[Guest guest]

If there is a shred of a possibility that the mercury in the vaccines or in

the amalgam fillings contribute the Autism epidemic, why would the AMA, FDA,

CDC,...etc.. want fund any research to self-implicate.

It would be noble of them to push for honest and independent research to at

least vindicate the vaccines and provide solid evidence that is not the

culprit.

Re: Scientific studies vs. anecdotal

evidence

>

> >just because there is no harm done, doesn't mean it

> isn't quackery. the fact is, we really need

> scientific studies done, instead of anecdotal evidence

> on some of these treatments<

>

> As long as the respected AMA, FDA, NIH refuse to fund these studies, they

won't get done. We will have to continue to rely on those doctors willing

to treat our kids. In the 2000 Redbook for physicians it cautioned doctors

against using different interventions that many of us try yet no studies to

find out if these treatments are good ones have been done.

>

> Carlson

>

>

[Guest guest]

And this to me is the height of hypocrisy because NOTHING the medical

establishment does right now--any antipsychotics, no drug, nothing--have the

backing of any scientific studies. I made a big wig at TCH really mad by

calling her a hypocrit after she discouraged me from using the GFCF diet yet

encouraged me to use the Greenspan method and try Rhisperaol. I mean, if

they are really going to use the scientific study as a standard, then EVERY

medical physician should be recommending ABA. But that is not the case

either. Also, please remember that since the 50's the medical community was

perfectly content to blame the mother for causing their child's autism until

as recently as 7 or 8 years ago! And that was the reigning theory that had

not a single, shred of scientific evidence to back it up. So please, any

doctor that criticizes the DAN protocols can go and stuff themselves.

Re: Scientific studies vs. anecdotal

evidence

>just because there is no harm done, doesn't mean it

isn't quackery. the fact is, we really need

scientific studies done, instead of anecdotal evidence

on some of these treatments<

As long as the respected AMA, FDA, NIH refuse to fund these studies, they

won't get done. We will have to continue to rely on those doctors willing

to treat our kids. In the 2000 Redbook for physicians it cautioned doctors

against using different interventions that many of us try yet no studies to

find out if these treatments are good ones have been done.

Carlson

[Guest guest]

There is a reason I like hanging out with you. Happy Thanksgiving! Hugs,

Liz

On 11/21/04 10:58 PM, " Singleton " <cmtssingleton@...>

wrote:

>

> And this to me is the height of hypocrisy because NOTHING the medical

> establishment does right now--any antipsychotics, no drug, nothing--have the

> backing of any scientific studies. I made a big wig at TCH really mad by

> calling her a hypocrit after she discouraged me from using the GFCF diet yet

> encouraged me to use the Greenspan method and try Rhisperaol. I mean, if

> they are really going to use the scientific study as a standard, then EVERY

> medical physician should be recommending ABA. But that is not the case

> either. Also, please remember that since the 50's the medical community was

> perfectly content to blame the mother for causing their child's autism until

> as recently as 7 or 8 years ago! And that was the reigning theory that had

> not a single, shred of scientific evidence to back it up. So please, any

> doctor that criticizes the DAN protocols can go and stuff themselves.

>

>

> Re: Scientific studies vs. anecdotal

> evidence

>

>

>

>> just because there is no harm done, doesn't mean it

> isn't quackery. the fact is, we really need

> scientific studies done, instead of anecdotal evidence

> on some of these treatments<

>

> As long as the respected AMA, FDA, NIH refuse to fund these studies, they

> won't get done. We will have to continue to rely on those doctors willing

> to treat our kids. In the 2000 Redbook for physicians it cautioned doctors

> against using different interventions that many of us try yet no studies to

> find out if these treatments are good ones have been done.

>

> Carlson

>

>