Guest guest Posted March 13, 2001 Report Share Posted March 13, 2001 All, I think the problem with the argument over MMR is that the parties aren't looking at the big picture and all of the evidence. I think its pretty clear that MMR is a problem that has been a major factor in some of the autism cases; but it also clear that its not the only cause or factor in autism or perhaps even in any case of autism. Other factors played a part as well. The parties involved in the suit seem to be arguing over whether MMR is the only cause of autism, which I think it clearly is not. so if a group is arguing this they are making a mistake. I think the case is strong that MMR has been a major factor in some cases, but clearly not all. They should be arguing that MMR is a clear factor in their case or in a group of cases. Its clear other vaccines also caused problems including DPT, etc. Looking at data regarding all autism cases and all vacinations is not very relevant to this case IMO. The case regarding MMR comes from tests and specifics, not all or none. Its clear that metals are a major factor in many, probably the majority of cases, and that detox problems such as metallothionine, cysteine dioxyganese, sulfur oxidation, mineral imbalances, etc. and enzymatic blockages, immune reactivity, etc. are also factors in many cases. And a lot of these factors are synergistic, the whole is bigger than the parts individually. Seems to me if one was going to pursue a case regarding the class of all kids with autism, the case should be about the total and synergistic effect of vaccines, not just about MMR. Do I misunderstand the case they are trying to bring? Bernie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.