The Silent Time Bomb Now Affecting 1 in 54 Boys in the US

[Guest guest]

http://articles. mercola.com/ members/Dr. -Mercola/ default.aspx

The most recent autism prevalance numbers do NOT tell the present story,

or show a 78% increase over the last 5 years. This is a widely held

misconception which is confusing the statistcs' publishment date with the

respective study populations.

Being more specific:

In 2007, the CDC published figures saying that ASD had hit 1 in

150. This study was actually conducted 5 years earlier on a single

age of kids (8 year olds), meaning the study population was born in

1994.

In 2009, the CDC published figures saying that ASD had hit 1 in

110. This study was conducted 3 years earlier on 8 year olds,

children born in 1998.

And now, in 2012, the CDC published figures saying that ASD had hit

1 in 88. This study looked at kids born in 2000.

So the increase actually occured between birth cohorts from more than a

decade ago. This does not tell us what teh overall prevalance of

autism is in our population, as most of us here and many of the people in

professional circles understand that to some degree or other, autism has

significantly increased over teh last 3 plus decades. Looking at

the paper that was compiled by Blaxhill, collecting all the major

prevalance studies going back to the early 70s, we can see that there is

a general creep that is probably insignificant until we reach the mid

late 80's where there is a pronounced jump.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1497666/pdf/15504445.pdf

This was actually brought to light by the CDC when they went to Brick

NJ. That was the first of the modern studies, using the 8 yo target

population (birth cohort of 1988) and remains probably the single most

intensive study ever conducted. Brick found 4 in 1000 autism and

6.7 in 1000 ASD. Over the next 12 birth years, we see asteady climb

in prevalance till 2000. What has occurred in the 12 years since

then is speculative at best, and at the rate the CDC conducts and

publishes these studies, we will not know what the prevalance rate for

kids born in 2010 is until about 2020.

While I agree that there are almost assuredly several paths to autism,

springing from a combination of genetic susceptibility and environmental

insults (no different from the genetic component to cancer) I

believe that there must be some central toxic factor that was introduced

into our society around the mid 80s. If it were truly like eating

at a buffet (a little of this, a little of that) I do not believe we

would have seen the approximate 10 fold jump in prevalance between 1985

and 1988 that clearly happened.

It is also important to keep in mind that despite what the shills and

mouthpieces may say, the CDC studies do NOT exonerate thimerosal.

The FDA suggested to Pharma that they eliminate thimerosal from pediatric

vaccines in 1999, but allowed them time to reformulate to prevent an

interrupt in supply. The phaseout could not have begum before 2000,

more likely in 2001, and it wasn't until about 2002 that the phaseout had

been made, substituting toxic amounts of aluminum for the toxic amounts

of mercury. Of course, the CDC added back a partial amount of

mercury in 2004 with the addition of flu vaccines to the pediatric

schedule.

What needs to happen is for 9 or 10 year olds to be studied this year, to

get those born in 2002 or 2003, after the reduction of thimerosal to

trace amounts but before the flu jabs added part of it back. Who

wants to be a paycheck that the CDC will do so? I am betting they

won't. Call me cynical, but I believe the excessive delay in

publication was calculated by the CDC specifically to allow the paid

spokespersons to say that the numbers have significantly climbed in the

past decade, after thimerosal had been eliminated, when in reality, the

kids in the studies received the maximum doses of thimerosal that ever

was injected in babies.

I am not saying that thimersoal is the reason that so many kids are

autistic today. That remains to be proven. I am saying that

we in truth have zero studies that have shown that thimerosal could NOT

be the reason.