The Los Angeles Times has published a list of California schools where the kindergarden class has a high rate of students with vaccine exemptions.
Yes, there are vaccine-rejectionist clusters.
There are about 30 schools with over 50% of the students using exemptions.
Yuba River Charter (Nevada City) 32 of 37 (86.5%) (86%)
City School, The (Lake Balboa) 9 of 11 (81.8%) (82%)
Slvusd Charter (Ben Lomond) 13 of 16 (81.3%) (81%)
Coastal Grove Charter (Arcata) 19 of 25 (76.0%) (76%)
Sunridge Charter (Sebastopol) 25 of 33 (75.8%) (76%)
Sebastopol Independent Charter (Sebastopol) 33 of 44 (75.0%) (75%)
Carmichael Elementary (Carmichael) 82 of 112 (73.2%) (73%)
Waldorf Of The Peninsula (Los Altos) 29 of 40 (72.5%) (73%)
Dehesa Charter (Escondido) 28 of 39 (71.8%) (72%)
Ananda Living Wisdom (Nevada City) 7 of 10 (70.0%) (70%)
Westside Waldorf (Pacific Palisades) 14 of 20 (70.0%)
California is a big state. I guess I shouldn’t be so surprised that there are so many schools. I guess one could try to correlate income levels, parent education levels and the like with the exemption rate.
I’m just glad my kid isn’t at any of the schools listed.
I’m sure there are those who would say, “see, they have high exemption rates and they don’t have outbreaks of disease” and imply or state that there is no such thing as herd immunity.
All I can say is that the kids at those schools are safer because of families like mine.
Left Brain Right Brain 
Many of those schools are waldorf schools. (So is the top one, Yuba river, even though it doesn’t have waldorf in its name.) Anthroposophists oppose vaccination of entirely different reasons than the anti-vaccine crowd. It’s a spiritual issue. If one does not want to be among unvaccinated people one should stay far away from all waldorf/steiner schools and all anthroposophical communities 😉
-z
I wouldn’t call anthroposophy a religion–it’s a spiritual or mystical philosophy. They have their own approach to medicine–homeopathic woo–but are happy to go with “traditional” medical procedures when it’s something serious. So they don’t consider infectious disease serious. Waldorf schools have regular outbreaks of disease. Arthur Allen discusses the issue in Bucking the Herd: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200209/allen_a
I think, based esp. on readings in Allen, that the “anti-vaccine crowd” is heavily influenced by religious/philosophical concerns. But, they probably play up safety issues when trying to present their message to the general public.
Right, because my ASD really isn’t the main problem I have in my life, and all the credible evidence pointing to a link between vaccines and autism doesn’t matter to me, and I’m just part of some super-fanatic, Jim Jones-like religious cult who wants to eliminate all vaccines from the face of the earth because they’re UNGODLY! :S lol
I seriously don’t get how people like you also manage to call people like me conspiracy theorists in the same breadth.
If Brian Deer is a sham, Arthur Allen is just plain incompetent. I noticed he wrote that article in September 2002, two months before he wrote the “not-so-crackpot” piece for The New York Times often used as “evidence” that he once believed vaccines may have caused autism, then changed his mind. Apparently, his mind had already been made up before he even started writing about autism in the first place. So much for that.
Mr. Crosby,
I take it you didn’t read the article I linked above before you criticized Arthur Allen in your comment. The “Bucking the Herd” piece mentions autism only once, and it’s to point out that some people “believe that vaccines are responsible for otherwise unexplained increases in conditions such as autism.” That’s it. The article itself is about herd immunity, not about autism. Nowhere in that piece does Arthur Allen say he does not think vaccines cause autism. As you know, Allen thought a link was possible, and wrote about that for the New York Times. He eventually investigated the subject deeply, and has since written plenty based on that subsequent research. The fact that Allen “switched sides” makes it clear that he weighed the evidence and came to a rational, informed conclusion.
Well,
since Brian Deer is NOT a sham, what happens then?
Jake, I don’t think anyone called you a conspiracy theorist here, much less in the same breath.
Your first paragraph is a bit, well, strange. Are you in “the anti-vaccine” crowd that David N. Brown referred to? Somehow I would have thought your first response would have been, “We are not anti-vaccine”.
OK, you are not a conspiracy theorist. You just think that Arthur Allen wrote his piece on vaccines and autism to give himself credibility when he changed his mind?
Yeah. That’s a better place to be.
Louise, just look at what the end of Arthur Allen’s article said, quoting an “enlightened, avante-garde” family physician:
“When I get parents who don’t vaccinate, I tell them, ‘When your boy gets a vaccination he takes on a risk for the public good, just like the firemen [at the World Trade Center] who went back into the buildings.'” But Gottlieb’s words usually fall on deaf ears. “These are probably people who donate a lot of money to good causes,” he said, “but their view is ‘I’m going to let everyone else’s child take a risk but not my own.’ That’s not avant-garde. That’s not enlightened. It’s pretty primitive. And ironically, in a town like Boulder the selfish strategy is probably not in the best interests of your child either.”
Here’s a thought: If the risk of getting vaccinated is akin to throwing yourself into the World Trade Center after the planes crashed into them, and that risk is taken by every child in this country, MAYBE it’s not a good idea to get vaccinated.
Of course, if Arthur Allen ever truly considered the reality of an autism-thimerosal link and the implications for that, he would have never ended his article this way. His closing thought, the implication that vaccines are worth the risk of brain-injury over catching some childhood germ, speaks for itself.
To Jake,
I did not intend my comment on “religious/philosophical concerns” as in any way denigrating. I’m a seminary student, also an author of religiously-themed fiction. I would genuinely regret it if “religious” were taken as an intrinsically negative terms. Another point that could use clarification: I have put it in print elsewhere that religious and other ideologies in anti-vaccine groups are clearly not a unified whole, but on the contrary can represent opposite extremes (eg. Calvinist Christianity and “New Age”). Allen does not downplay this diversity, either. He does place ample emphasis on the fact that “religious” opposition to vaccines was around long before “scientific” controversy.
Sullivan,
Brian Deer is a sham journalist, I even gave him a chance to prove otherwise when I debated him on David Gorski’s blog and he backed down.
I have been called a conspiracy theorist before, and was not referring to this blog specifically, but within a broader context. I know Brian Deer has called “anti-MMR campaigners” “conspiracy theorists,” and I know he has frequented this blog in the past, saying some pretty despicable stuff, as is his character.
As for Arthur Allen, I’m not saying he deliberately wrote that article to sway opinion about where he stands on the vaccine-autism issue, just that people who use that article as evidence are being deceptive. The entire article was based on his interview with Dr. Neal Halsey, an AAP/ACIP insider with heavy drug ties, who had some concern about thimerosal but never even believed it could cause autism, that’s all.
And yet, that suddenly makes Arthur Allen look like he was weighing all sides? Just the title, “The NOT SO crackpot-autism theory” speaks for itself, as if to say the theory was always crackpot, just not completely because of the concerns of one drug rep whose issues with thimerosal were never even about autism.
As for your inquiry about my not suddenly denying being “anti-vaccine,” I feel no reason to do so. It won’t stop the people calling me this already from continuing to do so, like Arthur Allen, so I would therefore be part of his designated “anti-vaccine crowd.”
On top of which, the issue of “pro” vs “anti” vaccine is beyond the scope of this debate. The controversy is whether or not vaccines cause autism, not whether or not they have a place in public health, which is a whole other issue altogether.
@David:
I’m sorry I offended you by equating religion to something negative. I really meant cults more than anything else, as I have also been accused of being a part of one of those for my views on autism and vaccines if you can imagine. That’s definitely what your comment suggested, whether you meant it to be that way or not, by insinuating that we exploit safety for some hidden religious agenda.
Jake,
Another point which I guess needs to be clarified: I don’t question safety concerns as a serious and sincere part of “anti-vaccine” message(s). I find nothing sinister in specific groups emphasizing it when presenting their message to “outsiders”. This is simply the sensible and diplomatic thing to do, as a detailed presentation of a “sectarian” ideology would likely be offensive, confusing or simply uninteresting. (Imagine missionaries giving aborigines a lecture on “five-point Calvinism”…) The only thing I question is whether, in many cases, doubts about safety are not preceded by ideology or unconscious prejudice.
My views about this were certainly not influenced by any ideology, and considering the fact that I was vaccinated right before I came to college, I seriously doubt I had some “unconscious prejudice” against vaccines.
Jake,
I didn’t intend to make a statement about your own background, and would consider it irrelevant to my point: If an ideology is to be successful in influencing the general public, it MUST work on terms that would be meaningful beyond its core membership.
I understand David,
So according to you, core membership of the anti-vax movement would be:
parents of more severe autistic children, people with ASDs like myself
And the message to the general public in order to get our ideology across (that vaccines cause autism) would be:
This could happen to YOU.
Am I right?
What I mean by an “ideological” anti-vaccine group is one with objections to vaccines apart from safety and effectiveness: religion, political opinion, cultural suspicion of corporations, etc, etc. Claims about specific effects of vaccines are effectively the means by which these groups connect to the broader public, and also with each other.
Mr. Crosby,
if the test of whether someone is a real or sham journalist is whether he will debate you, I submit that 99.9999% of journalists are likely “shams”.
I, for one, don’t put much stock in requests to debate. All too often the requests are made by people attempting to improve their own credibility rather than as a real exercise.
My impression of Mr. Deer is that he is far from a “back down” kind of guy.
“had some concern about thimerosal”. Kind of an understatement, don’t you think? Dr. Halsey was the prime motivator behind the removal of thimerosal from vaccines, if I recall correctly.
“All too often the requests are made by people attempting to improve their own credibility rather than as a real exercise.”
This also applies to journalists who are generally by nature deceitful – the general public know this in surveys of trust in different professions.
Jake
Brian is unlikely to want to debate, his efforts here and outside the GMC consist of little more than throwing insults
and avoiding the Judge ealy question and that of how he came into posessions of childrens medical records.
I gave Jake Crosby the opportunity to debate one of his Age of Autism articles on the Autism Speaks ning forum, and he just cried that he only wanted to discuss his A of A articles on A of A, where coincidentally the editors delete responses they don’t like. So what does that prove, Jake?
What does this say of your unwavering dedication to a hypothesis that cannot be borne out by any credible research?
Yes Sullivan, Dr. Halsey was the architect of the precautionary principle regarding thimerosal in vaccines, in addition to calling for the discontinue of the birth dose of Hep B.
I too would be interested in how this distinguishes a ‘sham’ journalist (thoughts of Olmstead dancing in my head) from a legitimate one?
“I too would be interested in how this distinguishes a ‘sham’ journalist (thoughts of Olmstead dancing in my head) from a legitimate one?”
Indeed, the idea that a journalist with mulitple awards and repeated nominations who also has a good reputation in his field, could be ‘redeemed’ by a debate with a junior and previously unheard of contributor from some blog somewhere is laughably amusing.
It’s quite likely that Deer has no idea who Jake is, even asuming he was even aware of the challenge.
Jake has a history of being unable to provide appropriate references, so I’m not going to push him into providing one for the alledged ‘challenge’ (of which the appears to be no sign), but in the only conversations I’m aware of the included Jake and Deer, Jake’s contribution were certainly not up to the same quality of Deer’s by a long shot, bringing up silly little points that were easily refuted by multiple commentators, using basic knowledge that wouldn’t faze even a basic grade health care assistant.
So, it’s possible that Deer knows about Jake, but rightly pegs him as an amusing diversion, not a serious opponent.
Nice to know that Jake can still crank out the funnies.
“Dejd,” If that is your real name, all you are is an ND troll who comments on some blogs while using a name that’s probably fake, it if hasn’t been ripped off from some character in science fiction. So I really wouldn’t be talking if I were you.
If Brian Deer is such a good “journalist,” he wouldn’t have to resort to calling someone a “dribbling idiot” on camera, cursing out BBC journalists who won awards for exposing a pedophile or blaming parents of autistic children for their conditions, the last of which you defended him for, “Dejd.” I don’t recall Dan Olmsted doing any of that.
It’s no wonder you would use a double-standard for saying I don’t provide “appropriate” references, when the only reference you’ve ever provided was a cheap diagram of a brain, in a failed attempt to try and prove that methyl-mercury cannot cause dysphasia, a symptom of autism (it does). http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/165/2/205
Perhaps I shouldn’t be surprised that you would consider gems such as, “the antivaxxers’ correspondent will find that both his girlfriend and his hero have been fucked by the GMC,” and “He’ll (Dr. Wakefield) end up like…a nutty old guy rolling out autism cures made from his own bone marrow on the kitchen table. Pitiful really,” to be high quality contributions as your values are in the gutter with Brian Deer.
Meanwhile, Deer has never been able to explain away who the editor was that put him on the Dr. Wakefield character-assassination assignment, the son of a doctor who helped pass an MMR vaccine later withdrawn for causing meningitis, that Deer sent the first complaint to the GMC against the three doctors but continued writing about the GMC hearings anyway, that his boss joined the board of directors at GSK eight days before his latest smear rag, or the inherent fabrications in that piece which were equally sickening. And yet, everyone expects Dr. Wakefield to respond to the allegations made against him when put on the spot. Well he has! Time for the same to be expected of Brian Deer!
Jake,
Mr. Deer is more harsh than I would prefer. However, if your standard of quality is whether someone uses profanity or resorts to harsh language, you are quite welcome to bring this up with Jenny McCarthy. There is a much better example I can think of as well.
If you want to call someone else a troll, clean up your own act first. Bringing up Brian Deer in this post is borderline, sidetracking the discussion from creationism to vaccines at Respectful Insolence is clearly trolling. And now you are trying to sidetrack into the old tired argument that someone mercury poisoning looks like autism.
And, now, it’s time to debate Dr. Wakefield as well? I’ll give you the opportunity to do so shortly.
Jake, don’t play cheap “if that is you’re real name ooogie woogie” attempts, for a start, I’m easily traceable through my real name if you know what to search for (and it’s obvious) so I’m clearly not going to use it with people like Best about (and I explained my reasons carefully and extensively to Best personally), and secondly it’s my actual initials “DJ” spelt phonetically.
In addition, my ‘cheap’ diagram was from the source of your source, as I told you in the initial discussion. In other words, you’re dismissing your own source, as I pointed out in the original discussion. As I pointed out in the initial discussion, I deliberately stuck to only the sources YOU gave, or thier secondary references (thier sources), or the study that your sources were discussing. Pay better attention next time.
“or blaming parents of autistic children for their conditions, the last of which you defended him for, “Dedj”.”
Actually, I pointed out that Deer could be referencing the idea that parents of autistic children can and do create situations that can prompt adverse behaviour in their children, whereas you assumed he was using a Bettleheimian ‘refrigerator mother’ style arguement. This is a known phenomenon in group dynamics, psychology, behaviourism, challenging behaviour literature and so on. It’s not even high falutin’ technical stuff, but basic training for entry level health care staff. It’s part of the NVQ1 training for people working in Learning Disabilities. I even explained this in the thread.
So, you resort to cheap implications of some sort of nefarious intent, show that you didn’t bother to pay more than a precursory bit of attention to what is put in front of you, and you still have yet to address the numerous problems that we found with you misreading your sources. You didn’t even bother to present your above solitary link until the problems and contradictions with your previous totally unreferenced sources (which I had to chase up for you again and again) were exposed.
In short, you’re very hard work for very little reward.
Oh, by the way – you do know what congenital means don’t you? Given your misuse of the above reference, I’d guess not. I’m guessing you just saw the word you google searched for and left it at that.
Now, Sullivan has asked us to get back on topic, thusly, any further attempt to derail this thread for your own agenda will go unanswered but not unreported.
Just to add: I do not have the original discussion in front of me, but I am fairly certain that I did NOT say that mercury poison ‘could not’ cause dysphasia. The discussion was about wheter or not the few scraps of data presented by Jake indicated that the dysphasia of the type and pattern seen in people with autism was similar enough to the types and pattern that may be seen in the cases of people with mercury poisening to conclude that they have a shared aetiology.
The answer to this is: No, it didn’t and by a hell of a long shot.
Case closed, nothing to see here, move along.
Dendritic spines did not stain with silver but did with mercury i.e. dendritic spines do take up mercury.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VRT-4JG4MPC-7&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1002476661&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=733abef47e37f81daaa1eca91c35ee48
Not sure of the significance, but some questions remain open re. dendritic spines and mercury.
“Dedj,” don’t worry, I have not displayed the pretentious and arrogant behavior you have, although I feel that just talking to you is making me into a more bitter person by the second. That really leaves me to question just how happy you and others like yourself really are with your autism considering the misery and fowlness inherent in every one of your comments.
Yet you don’t see me going by a pseudonym online because of one angry parent who’s probably too busy taking care of his profoundly disabled son anyway. In the meantime, I have to deal with Phil Gluyas, Clay Adams, Kassiane Sibley, and the Autism Bitch From Hell among others and you don’t see me perseverating on it and going by some phony name as a result.
The sources I took directly from Minamata Bay based their information from a US government institution instead of the noticeable outbreaks of chronic mercury poisoning happening in their own community, right. :S
The problem with arguing with you is that even after being proven wrong, you’ll deny it and change the course of the argument.
I guess it would be futile for me to explain to you why interpretng comments made by a guy like Deer about parents of autistic children as being the result of having any kind of background in psychology is garbage, unless you include Bruno Bettelheim in that category, who was not even a real psychologist but a fraud. I gather Deer’s assertion that some kid wearing an ileostomy bag doesn’t really have bowel disease, just “diarrhea,” is based on a gastroenterological background, too?
All of the potential “errors” you claimed to have pointed out, if not downright ridiculous like the justification of Deer’s remarks above, were irrelevant to the points I was making by citing them. Your claim that I don’t know what “congenital” means is a perfect example of this, as all that I was conveying was that methylmercury does in fact cause dysphasia, whether post or pre-natally.
So now I see you’re switching goalposts. First you tell me to find evidence of dysphasia in methylmercury poisoning, as it is also a symptom of autism, I did. Now you’re telling me that dysphasia in autism is a different kind of dysphasia from that of methylmercury poisoning, with nothing to back that up other than your own pseudo-expertise.
“…with nothing to back that up other than your own pseudo-expertise.”
Classic case of pot calling a kettle black. That is except for the fact that Dedj can use Dr. Patricia Rodier for backup. You see, Dr. Rodier is an expert in autism and in mercury toxicity. She pointed out quite clearly that the symptoms of autism and the symptoms of mercury poisoning are quite distinct.
I commented on this here:
https://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/?p=2077
Her report to the Autism Omnibus Proceeding is here:
Click to access ExEE_Rodier_Report_03-215.pdf
The idea that the symptoms of autism are similar to those of mercury poisoning was put forward by, who? Oh, yeah, non medical people who published in a journal that has no peer-review.
Talk about pseudo-expertise.
Wheter you chose to use your real name is irrelevant Jake, I am not the only person with my name associated with the online autism community, and I am not the only member of my profession with a formal ASD disgnosis, but I am the only member of my profession who has my name. I have explained my reasons to Best and others already. Even David M Andrews worked out my profession, gender and nationality just by my spelling and use of technical terms.
Your reasons for why YOU chose not to use a nickname are irrelevant to mine, as you are not in a remotely similar posistion. You’re not 12 anymore so deal with it.
“The sources I took directly from Minamata Bay based their information from a US government institution instead of the noticeable outbreaks of chronic mercury poisoning happening in their own community, right. :S”
I’m not sure what this is even supposed to mean. You posted a source, (which I believe was a tourist promotion board website if I remember correctly). I checked thier secondary references, and visited thier website and got the information there, from a far superior source to yours. In other words, I used the people your source got their information from, as I have already stated, potentially even the same document. Far from being ‘an american’ source, both the postal address and the web address of this institution were both japanese, although your claim would be irrelevant even if true (what? People can’t be informed sources about things that happened in other countries? Be careful you don’t invalidate your own contribution here Jake). Exactly as I already pointed out. I even gave you directions on how to find it. If you think it was only ‘a diagram’ then you clearly only paid a precursory 5-second look.
“I guess it would be futile for me to explain to you why interpreting comments made by a guy like Deer about parents of autistic children as being the result of having any kind of background in psychology is garbage……”
It would be garbage, because thats not what I said or implied. I did NOT say Deer had a background in psychology. I said it was such basic knowledge that even the most basic grade of health care assistants is likely to know about it even if they don’t use the actual terms. The concept of Antecedent, Behaviour, Consequence is extremely basic and easily verifiable. It was part of my training for working in an autism charity and it was also freshman contributary disciplines (psych, physiology, sociology and other), so basic it didn’t even get it’s own module. THATS why it would be futile. because I know you’re wrong through several different ways.
“Now you’re telling me that dysphasia in autism is a different kind of dysphasia from that of methylmercury poisoning, with nothing to back that up other than your own pseudo-expertise.”
Indeed I did NOT say this as a quick scoot upwards has just confirmed. You have treated all dysphasia as if it is the same. There are multiple subtypes of dysphasia, and dysphasia in autism is widely researched as having different patterns to dysphasia in non-autistic people, as even a preliminary search would have shown, with research going back at least 3 decades. Arguing that your evidence does not mean what you think it does, is NOT the same as saying the exact opposite.
I’m tired of having to correct you all the time, I shouldn’t have to do it for things you’ve just read and which could have been double checked in seconds. I’m tired of you assuming I’m taking the polar opposite arguement to you simply because I disagree that you have sufficiently and proficciently made a convincing arguement, even after I’ve carefully explained the difference between my actual words and your crass and blundering misinterpretations.
Sullivan: Thank you for the Rodier reference, her name escaped me for some reason. She’s far from the only person to say that, but she’s certianly the best known and very well respected.
I’m definetly done with Jake. If he can’t comprehend that disagreement is not polar opposition then he’s not going to correctly comprehend anything I write, something which he has provided clear and ample evidence for.
Jake is clearly not going to have the decency to behave himself like an adult, so I would advise that any further attempts at derailing this thread for his own agenda be met with removal or warning. I would be more than happy for any of my replies to be met with the same.
I was going to comment that perhaps the suggestion that Mr. Crosby isn’t behaving like an adult was not necessary. Then he proved you correct.
I have a question for you Dedj, is this who you are in real-life?
I just get tired of arguing with someone who talks like my cranky 10th grade geometry teacher.
Mr. Crosby,
perhaps you could try discussing rather than arguing?
Jake said:
Brian Deer is a sham journalist
Jake, I’ve just realised I love you. But probably not in the way you imagine.
Deer has a long track record in serious and ground-breaking investigative journalism. You are a schoolboy blogger. Squeal all you want. It excites me.
Harry Williams, you call yourself “Socrates,” so speak for yourself.
On second thought, Brian Deer made a video to explain to all of YouTube why he didn’t win a TV journalism award. So you can speak for him, too.
@Sullivan:
I would, if that were even possible here.
Jake,
your behavior is up to you to control, here or elsewhere. Posting images with “is this you” isn’t discussing. It isn’t even arguing.
Although debating people on blogs doesn’t distinguish a sham journalist from a real one, fact checking does. This is one reason why AoA is just a blog and not a real journalistic enterprise. I submit that fact-checking would be a good job for Jake Crosby, who could hone his skills in looking for support for factual assertions while improving the quality of AoA’s posts. Win-win.
The person that posted this is incredibly ignorant. “I’m just glad my kid doesn’t go to any of those schools”?? Wow. I guess your kid must go to a school where there are just a lot of kids that have mercury poisoning and ASD. Do your research, Moron. There are some of us who have VERY good reasons for not doing this.
Mother of an Autistic Child,
there are, indeed, people who have excellent reasons for not vaccinating or selectively vaccinating their children. Some are frequent commenters to this blog.
“Autism as mercury poisoning” is not a reason. And, yes, I have done my research on this.
“Mother of an autistic child”,
The complete absence of a connection between autism and mercury poisoning has been demonstrated both ways. Autism is NOT similar to mercury poisoning, beyond a few very superficial common symptoms. Altogether more importantly, induspitable cases of mass poisoning from local mercury poisoning have never produced an increase in autism diagnoses. Also, if you are concerned with preventing mercury poisoning, you should be avoiding sea food, not refusing vaccines. A clam from the wrong place could contain hundreds or thousands of times more mercury than there ever was in vaccines.
“In the meantime, I have to deal with Phil Gluyas, Clay Adams, Kassiane Sibley, and the Autism Bitch From Hell among others”
And that bothers you, Jake? Thank you for the compliment. It’s what you get for associating with dirtsheet central (AKA Age of Autism) and downgrading the efforts of Ari Ne’eman and ASAN through your articles in an attempt to paint the entire Spectrum as an all world bad thing that needs to go. You will always get people like us fighting such an attitude, because it is a basic human rights violation.
Overwhelming evidence backed up by publicly available research data shows that vaccines containing Thimeresol harms children’s brains. Even though the pharmaceutical companies and governments won’t admit it, we do not need an official declaration to know that they are in fact unsafe. Both governments and pharmaceutical companies can be found liable if they were to officially admit that Thimerseol in vaccines and other aluminum based ingredients do in fact harm children’s brain. This is why they will not officially declare these types of vaccines unsafe. Visit http://fluhealer.blogspot.com to get your latest Swine Flu Pandemic updates.
Idiot spammer, why should we believe that can cure flu when you spew lies.
First thimerosal has never really been shown to be a hazard. Second pediatric vaccines do not contain thimerosal. Which is spelled a few ways, but not the way you spelled it!
By the way, the here are the latest American Swine Flu Updates.
fluhealer is posting the exact same thing on multiple blogs. It should be treated as spam.
You are so brainwashed!