Re: NY Times: New definition of autism......

[Guest guest]

amesw posted:

Of course, then all these kids will have to be diagnosed with something else...

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No problem .. "conversion disorder" should work pretty well.....

[Guest guest]

I find this whole movement justifying what I have been telling people for years....THE GOVERNMENT MANDATES INJECTING OUR INFANTS WITH THEIR ILL-EQUIPPED BODIES FULL OF NEUROTOXINS AND NOW THE MEDICAL ASSOCIATION IS GOING TO LESSEN THE ACCESSIBILITY TO TREAT and TEACH THOSE PRECIOUS CHILDREN. For those of us who had success in removing toxic levels of mercury and alluminum and watched our babies return, in part, to their world and have the medical proof to back it, can only jest out how outragous this act is on the part of the medical field. wasn't the doctor's responsibilty to become educated first before injecting a whole generation full of brain altering preservatives? I am greatful now, but years ago after presenting this very objective data to my son's pediatrician that concurred my son's autism was a

result of the neurotoxins in the vaccines, I was sent a certified letter from that pediatrician saying that all my children are no longer welcome at the practice. Since then, a friend of mine who still goes to this pediatrician, stated that that same doctor is now admitting that he respects parents who are researching this very topic because he himself agrees that "their is something going on...".

Subject: Re: NY Times: New definition of autism......To: EOHarm Date: Saturday, January 21, 2012, 6:28 AM

amesw posted:

Of course, then all these kids will have to be diagnosed with something else...

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No problem .. "conversion disorder" should work pretty well.....