Re: the article Col linked to.... this piece contains so many errors
of fact that I don't know where to start (not to mention using
loaded terms like "plague" etc.) Typical of the incredibly poorly
researched "journalism" seen in far too many papers, I'm sorry to
say.
Just to hit the major points, autism didn't suddenly appear in 1941
(see Uta Frith's book on Hugh Blair, see my article in the journal
Autism earlier this year, see the case notes of any doctor treating
neurological conditions in children in the 19th and early 20th
century); there are many, many documented cases of autism
from the UK dating from the 40s, 50s, 60s and 70s, not "only one
probable case"(!); autism is seen in US-like rates in the UK,
Scandinavian countries, the Phillipines, Japan, and many, many
other countries; etc.
I don't doubt that there are more children with autism currently, or
that mercury exposure may contribute to this fact--putting a
known neurotoxin in vaccines is simply inexplicable and needs to
stop. But there are so many complex reasons involved in the far
higher rate of diagnosis, and not just one causative or
contributory factor. Looking only at mercury/thimersol is as foolish
at looking only at genetics.
-- Mitzi Waltz
________________End of message______________________
Archives and tools for the Disability-Research Discussion List
are now located at:
www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
You can JOIN or LEAVE the list from this web page.
|