Single Cause of Autism, Cancer, and Allergies

page: 2
34
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 6 2009 @ 06:42 PM
link   
I am going to tell you people something about autism..

It isn't in most cases where the kid is born with it, they have to get a few shots to acquire it.. Most commonly its the MMR #s that cause the kid to acquire autism and fall after that.

My kid who is 8 at 3 he was a normal kid, at age 5 he had to get the MMR and cause him to have autism..

I believe the mercury within the shots cause kids to have autism that is why there is a high rate coming up recently.. they state that by 2012 there will be 1 and 50 kids who have autism compared to today which is 1 and 150 and compared to 5 yrs ago which was 1 and 300 or something..




posted on Jan, 6 2009 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by ThichHeaded
 


I am not saying that vaccines have nothing to do with autism. No one definitively knows that at this point. However,

www.cdc.gov...


Mercury and Vaccines (Thimerosal)
Photo of bottle

Thimerosal is a mercury-containing preservative used in some vaccines and other products since the 1930s. There is no convincing scientific evidence of harm caused by the low doses of thimerosal in vaccines, except for minor reactions like redness and swelling at the injection site. However, in July 1999, the Public Health Service agencies, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and vaccine manufacturers agreed that thimerosal should be reduced or eliminated in vaccines as a precautionary measure.

Since 2001, with the exception of some influenza (flu) vaccines, thimerosal is not used as a preservative in routinely recommended childhood vaccines.


They have stopped using the contested mercury based preservative and children are still becoming autistic and, as you indicated, at what seems to be an increasing rate.

This would seem to exclude mercury in vaccines as a cause, much like another murder occurring while a suspect was in custody could eliminate that suspect from being considered the cause of a string of related murders.

It still may have something to do with vaccines. It could be as "simple" as overloading a childs immune system with several different things at one time causes a problem that leads to autism, or it could be something absolutely unrelated to vaccines. Until we have what passes for scientific evidence, (the ability to determine a causative effect in a predictable way) I think it is too soon to say we know one way or the other.

The elimination of mercury as a suspect, however, seems pretty open and shut. If you take away the mercury, and you still get cases of autism, it is not really logical to assume mercury was the cause. Of course to accept that you would have to assume the companies were not lying about its removal. That also could be the case, and one has to consider it on a conspiracy website.



[edit on 6-1-2009 by Illusionsaregrander]



posted on Jan, 6 2009 @ 07:12 PM
link   
Let's not forget fluoride.

I'm sure almost all kids brush their teeth with toothpaste containing fluoride. Not to mention the drinking water...



posted on Jan, 6 2009 @ 07:36 PM
link   
I was going to mention the smoking/lung cancer link but you already got to it. Perhaps, though, the corn is responsible for cases that metabolize on their own without "harmful" substances entering the body.

I think Autism can be caused by drinking during pregnancy... and high fevers at a very young age, possibly. However, in a healthy, non-substance case, you may be right.



posted on Jan, 6 2009 @ 07:48 PM
link   
Someone I know is an expert on both the science of nutrition and a naturopath. He's been warning me about both corn and soya for years.

Fresh corn grown in natural soil is fine as an occasional alternative carbohydrate. It's mostly indigestible. But our systems can't handle too much just as too much gluten produces intolerances.

Corn syrup as sweetener has entered the commercial food chain on a vast scale. A few ears ago Coca-Cola changed it's formula from sugar cane to corn syrup resulting in ther New Coke. People could tell the difference and they brought out Coke Classic as a response.

Soya is touted as preferred food in the Far East. But they use it sparingly, as a condiment and fermented. It is not meant to been consumed in large quantities.


Mike F



posted on Jan, 6 2009 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by WyrdeOne
 


Yes of course there are genetically engineered food and so much preservatives added to products that it's harmful. But the "high quality" "stuff" I'm talking about are grains and meat.

American has the world's finest wheat which is the basis for one's meal throughout the world.

Meat here is very well prepared, and I personally don't care if they added some protein to the meat to change its color or make it more "nutritious" because it is better than most other part of the world. And you know what? At least we have meat here.


People should not be worried about the "quality" of the products, people just have to becareful to not eat Crunch bars or corn candy or something.



Seriously, how much better can food get? Can't get much better than what is here in the U.S.. There is another choice which is organic products they don't appear as pretty as genetically engineered products from hydroponic gardens. But people would choose food from retail stores because of appearance and the "illusion" of cleanness.



posted on Jan, 6 2009 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
Well, one way to test that theory quickly and painlessly is to find out if any of those conditions you are attributing to corn existed outside the America's before corn was transported to other continents.


Excellent suggestion. There are a few problems, though:

* Autism was only identified within the past century. Before that, individuals with these problems were usually institutionalized and died quickly.
* Most people didn't live long enough to get any cancers. The number of cancers in people under age 35 (the average age of death until just the last two centuries) is very small.
* People would die of multiple things, including typhoid, asthma, pollution (the great killing smogs of London), smallpox, diptheria, tetanus, polio, whooping cough, influenza... and endless other causes. We don't know what they would have died of had they not died so young.
* Better evidence comes from royal families (who had the best food and best medical treatment), including Egyptian mummies. There we see people who lived very long lives and who also died from cancer, had arthritis, rheumatism, and so on and so forth.


And, if it is not just natural corn but corn meeting the conditions you outline above, did those health conditions exist at all before we began treating corn in that fashion?


Yes, and more (though any mental problems were generally hidden as it was a "shame" on the family.)

The patterns of mortality have been changing rapidly within the past century, with the development of antibiotics, antivirals, and more. Nutrition has, and is, drastically changing the length of life as we can see in the industrialized countries. Europe and America eat similar diets, and the farms in eastern Europe are particularly polluted (the Soviets were not as careful in tending the environment... in some places, the life expectancy of the horses that worked in the area was not 10-15 years but 4-5 years.)

If corn and processed food were the problem, we would be seeing life expectancy drop from 1940 onward (when it was 68.2 for females, 60.8 for males). Currently it's 75.15 for men and 80.97 for women here in the US. That's nearly 20 years added onto life. Our modern foods have higher nutritional content than before.

One other thing to note is that the 50 year old person of today isn't in as bad shape as the 50 year old person of the 1940's. Eva Marie Saint at 84 looks far younger than the 84 year olds of the 1940's: en.wikipedia.org...

That said, yes, there's something going on and it is probably a very complex thing. We still eat like farmhands but we don't work in the fields every day. We tend to be a nation of observers and not a nation of doers. And our lack of being outdoors has been implicated in things like a growing increase in allergies.

If corn were the problem, Mexico and Central America would be having a greater crisis than the US.



posted on Jan, 6 2009 @ 08:46 PM
link   
Maybe it is corn products in conjunction with blood type, or some other genetic difference. Our society prescribes for us as though we are robots and one size fits all.

I adhere, mostly, to the blood type diet. I am type O and according to the diet, type O cannot have milk (I have long been lactose intolerant), gluten, corn and a variety of other items. However the products above are in almost everything we eat. Try to eat 1 day with no wheat, corn or milk.

Well, as it happens, Native Americans have one of the highest rates of Diabetes and eat one of the highest diets of corn. They are also predominately type O.

According to the blood type diet, type A should have only chicken or fish, no beef. Supposedly they are the only blood type that can be vegetarian and do really well. Medicine now recognizes that a risk factor for colon cancer is type A blood. And what do they suggest you avoid...beef.

Here is the link to this diet. And of course, there are some debunkers but it has worked well for me and alleviated some digestive problems.

blood type diet



posted on Jan, 6 2009 @ 09:03 PM
link   
reply to post by ThichHeaded
 


My grandson reacted to his second MMR with excessive crying which was a side effect with recommendation to not give the remaining injection. He had reacted as though he had autistic tendencies prior to that. Until this thread, I had forgotten that all babies get the Hepatitis B vaccine at birth.



posted on Jan, 6 2009 @ 09:06 PM
link   
byrd


If corn and processed food were the problem, we would be seeing life expectancy drop from 1940 onward (when it was 68.2 for females, 60.8 for males). Currently it's 75.15 for men and 80.97 for women here in the US. That's nearly 20 years added onto life. Our modern foods have higher nutritional content than before.


Well, I disagree. The life span of the American citizen has everything to do with advances in treatment, not reduced incidence of disease. Despite having eradicated many infectious diseases with modern antibiotics, surgeries and so on, we have ushered in a new era of chronic conditions, from diabetes to cancer, at levels never before seen.

I'm sure the increased life expectancy has a lot to do with cancer rates, as you said in your post, people didn't often make it to old age back in the day, and had no chance to die of cancer.



If corn were the problem, Mexico and Central America would be having a greater crisis than the US.


Again, I disagree - statistically we eat far more corn than people anywhere else on the globe. Also, the corn eaten in Mexico and Central America is much more likely to be in its natural state, or only lightly processed. Corn on the cob never killed anyone, at least, not that I'm aware of anyway.

How do you respond to the fact that potentially a third of all corn fed cows have seriously impaired liver function (thanks to their diet)? Why should we be any different? Lab rats fed on HFCS and fat develop catastrophic liver damage very rapidly.

If I had to guess, I'd say that fully 1/3 of the average american diet consists of corn and corn byproducts. That's obscene...



posted on Jan, 6 2009 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd


* Most people didn't live long enough to get any cancers. The number of cancers in people under age 35 (the average age of death until just the last two centuries) is very small.



Actually, the whole line of reasoning that people did not live long enough to die of cancer is really just factually incorrect.

It is NOT true that people only lived into their 40's before the turn of the century.

What is true is that was the AVERAGE LIFE EXPECTANCY. (This is one of my pet peeves as this is the most widely spread and inaccurate piece of data going when it comes to health.)

Average life expectancy is derived by taking all humans age at death. Including infants. That number is so low because infant mortality was so high. If you lived past infancy, you were likely to live almost as long as we do today. Modern medicine has added about 7 odd years ( and some argue closer to five) to the adult life span.

www.livescience.com...


During the course of the 20th century, average life expectancy skyrocketed by 57 percent, from about 49 years of age in 1901 to 77 years by century’s end.

At first glance, the numbers might indicate that early 20th century society was bereft of grandparents. That's far from the truth.


www.breathing.com...


Some 100 years ago, every fifth baby died before reaching the age of one. But once a person had reached 40, 50, or 60 years of age, and he/she no longer had to worry about childhood diseases, their life expectancy was about the same as it is today.
Once we've accounted for those changes in the neonatal and infant mortality rates over the past 100 years, we see there is a mere six or seven additional years of adult life, in spite of dramatic advances in modern medicine.


This is one of those pieces of information that, while statistically true, has caused an enormous amount of disinformation. Statistics dont lie, but you do have to understand how the formulas work in order that you are able to extract meaningful information from them. This particular bit of disinformation has been so widely and completely disseminated throughout the popular culture that it would take nothing short of a public service campaign to undo the damage to the collective data base.

Sorry. Please, please, feel free to research this on your own to confirm. The problem isnt that the information is not available and fairly well know, it is that no one thinks to look because they assume they already know the truth.

Edit to add; And, I suspect the medical profession is loathe to undo this misconception because it paints them in such a flattering light.

[edit on 6-1-2009 by Illusionsaregrander]



posted on Jan, 6 2009 @ 10:16 PM
link   
reply to post by WyrdeOne
 


That was a great trip. This reminded me of an article on Apple's CEO Steve Jobs health where they discovered he has a hormone imbalance. And of course the corn fields in the movie the X-files popped into mind. That is sort of like the bee population kill off. These are just more dots for the chart. Soon we will be breathing more and more ethanol made from corn. I just love corn though. Corn is really great to eat with lots of butter. I'm not sure. Stuff like this can be said about everything but it does make sense. It makes about as much sense as medications found in drinking water.



posted on Jan, 6 2009 @ 11:03 PM
link   
As far as cancer, there is some theory that "aflatoxins" (a known fungus) that grows on peanuts, corn and other grains, might contribute to certain types of cancers. So possibly.

Regarding autism - it's complicated. Problem is autism is such a broad term that can be used to label a person who is just a "little weird" socially - or a person that has violent gastro-intestinal problems, fits, head-banging, tics, etc. I don't think corn causes someone to be a little socially off-balance (that's hereditary)... and for the extreme autistic cases with physical symptoms - many people believe it's the gluten in wheat and the casein in milk. Of course some believe in a fungus/yeast connection, which could point to the aflatoxins in corn again. So possibly.

With allergies, I 100% think the cause is a "bored" immune system. It's called the hygiene theory. Because we live in a relatively clean world anymore (antibacterial soaps, showers every day, decent food) - our immune system, which 1000s of years ago worked constantly to fight off ick... nowadays it gets bored, and then "over attacks" innocent food proteins, pollen, dust, etc. Ironically, you don't have peanut and other food/environmental allergies in Africa and 3rd world countries. I found since I came out of the corporate 60-hour week sterile, clean office environment several years ago - and now work from home (and I'm not the best maid, if you know what I mean) I have no trouble with allergies at all. I tell my husband that the 2 inches of dust on the china closet keeps me healthy



posted on Jan, 6 2009 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by themamayada

With allergies, I 100% think the cause is a "bored" immune system. It's called the hygiene theory. Because we live in a relatively clean world anymore (antibacterial soaps, showers every day, decent food) - our immune system, which 1000s of years ago worked constantly to fight off ick... nowadays it gets bored, and then "over attacks" innocent food proteins, pollen, dust, etc.


There is quite a bit of evidence that this is indeed the case.

There is also evidence that when you are exposed to a possible allergen can have an impact on whether or not you develop and allergy to a specific thing. (Pets for example)

resources.metapress.com...

I cannot cut and paste directly from the article, but it essentially says that there is an inverse relationship to indoor pet exposure before age two, and later pet allergy and asthma development. In the case of dogs it seems to offer some protection against developing allergy/asthma altogether. And, the more the merrier. You got more benefit from 2 dogs or cats than one or none.

Perhaps the reasons allergies are increasing is a combination of factors.

1) The bored immune system. The fact that our cleaning products keep our environments too clean to keep the immune system occupied with meaningful work.

2) Maybe it is because today, unlike in most times in human history, we move miles and miles from where we were toddlers. Maybe our immune systems have a "window" in which they differentiate between friend and enemy and our more mobile lifestyle today is thwarting that system.

I never had allergies in the place where I grew up. Then I moved to an entirely different place, (from the tropics to high desert) and I suffer from allergies to the plants here.

Who knows. It is very interesting, and great fun to follow the science. I think trying to narrow the cause of all human kinds physical and mental ills down to one factor (corn or anything) is a mistake. We dont live like we adapted to live. We have lots of differences. Less activity, excesses of food, more hours of work for the whole year long instead of on/off periods, greatly increased daily hours of light exposure, exotic foods that our ancestors never ate, and hence we may not really be adapted to, increased crowding and noise levels, etc., etc.

I doubt there will be a magic bullet that will fix the problem. I think it is going to take a major overhaul of not only our diet, but the way humans live. I think many of our modern ways of living are not really good for humans. They may be good for quarterly reports, but I think the question we are going to need to seriously ask is, should technology/society serve humanity? Or should humanity serve technology/society? To me, the answer is clear.



[edit on 6-1-2009 by Illusionsaregrander]



posted on Jan, 6 2009 @ 11:40 PM
link   
reply to post by WyrdeOne
 


Corn is one of the main contributors to the rise in type 2 diabetes within certain indigenous groups that use corn as a diet staple. Maze, which was originally the type of corn these groups consumed, was replaced by africanised sweet corns and now of course, Round-Up ready GM MONSANTO type corns. So, yes corn can be bad for your health in large quantities. Also, you mentioned pyrethrin which is a pesticide. This pesticide was commonly used in treatments for head lice but now recomendations are to avoid products containing this as it is harmful to children and can affect their livers as well as their central nervous systems, so if pregnant women consume large amounts of corn treated with this pesticide, perhaps your conclusions could be quite valid.

[edit on 6-1-2009 by caithness cat]



posted on Jan, 6 2009 @ 11:47 PM
link   
If you want to learn more about corn and how deeply it has infiltrated into our usual everyday diet, read The Omnivore's Dilemma by Michael Pollan. I had to read it for one of my college classes and found it to be quite interesting.



posted on Jan, 7 2009 @ 12:24 AM
link   
Excellent post, OP.

Exemplary, in fact.

Props to an ATS mod for getting something right.

A Google search for "corn linked to obesity" turns up more information supporting your position than any single person could hope to digest in their lifetime. (get it? digest? hehe)

The few "studies" that show HFCS is "not linked to obesity or health problems" are either funded by HFCS salesmen or are obvious astroturf with little/no citation.

On a side note, I have read on various sites that corn "has little or no nutritional value", can anyone support or refute this?



posted on Jan, 7 2009 @ 12:24 AM
link   
I would fall on the side of soy.

Definitely not Corn. The reason why is a good friend of mine who's son is autistic but they eat no corn, and don't drink sodas.

They do however eat lots of SOY.


I know that's rather oversimplifying, but they definitely do not have corn in their diet.



posted on Jan, 7 2009 @ 12:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
So..could there be a main culprit, a single source with the dubious honor of most autism, cancer, and allergies caused?


There is one, single, cause of all cancers.

Why is it that we are expected to believe that there are thousands of "causes of cancer"?

Cancer is the body's inability to regenerate damaged cells correctly. It has nothing to do with what causes the damage.

Smoking causes cancer? I know plenty of people who smoke who don't have cancer.

The sun causes skin cancer? I know heaps of people who are exposed greatly to the sun who don't have skin cancer.

Same goes for any excuse presented.

They could at least say "smoking may cause cancer". But no, it's smoking causes cancer. Period.

We are presented with what causes damage to our cells as the "cause" of cancer because TPTB desperately don't want us to discover the truth...


Originally posted by Symbiote
A Google search for "corn linked to obesity" turns up more information supporting your position than any single person could hope to digest in their lifetime.


It's probably that GM stuff that rats had to be force fed in laboratories because they refused to eat it...

[edit on 7/1/09 by NuclearPaul]



posted on Jan, 7 2009 @ 12:52 AM
link   


Article as is it originally appeared on the Bankindex.com web site on 21 June 2002:
THE SECRET COVENANT


An illusion it will be, so large, so vast it will escape their
perception.

Those who will see it will be thought of as insane.

We will create separate fronts to prevent them from seeing the
connection between us.

We will behave as if we are not connected to keep the illusion alive.
Our goal will be accomplished one drop at a time so as to never bring
suspicion upon ourselves. This will also prevent them from seeing
the changes as they occur.

We will always stand above the relative field of their experience
for we know the secrets of the absolute.

We will work together always and will remain bound by blood and
secrecy. Death will come to he who speaks.

We will keep their lifespan short and their minds weak while
pretending to do the opposite.

We will use our knowledge of science and technology in subtle
ways so they will never see what is happening.

We will use soft metals, aging accelerators and sedatives in
food and water, also in the air.

They will be blanketed by poisons everywhere they turn.

The soft metals will cause them to lose their minds. We will
promise to find a cure from our many fronts, yet we will
feed them more poison.

The poisons will be absorbed trough their skin and mouths,
they will destroy their minds and reproductive systems.

From all this, their children will be born dead, and we will conceal
this information.

The poisons will be hidden in everything that surrounds them,
in what they drink, eat, breathe and wear.

We must be ingenious in dispensing the poisons for they
can see far.

We will teach them that the poisons are good, with fun images
and musical tones.

Those they look up to will help. We will enlist them to
push our poisons.

They will see our products being used in film and
will grow accustomed to them and will never know
their true effect.

When they give birth we will inject poisons into the blood
of their children and convince them its for their help.

We will start early on, when their minds are young, we will
target their children with what children love most, sweet
things.

When their teeth decay we will fill them with metals
that will kill their mind and steal their future.

When their ability to learn has been affected,
we will create medicine that will make them sicker and cause other
diseases for which we will create yet more medicine.

We will render them docile and weak before us by our power.

They will grow depressed, slow and obese, and when they
come to us for help, we will give them more poison.

We will focus their attention toward money and material goods
so they many never connect with their inner self. We will distract
them with fornication, external pleasures and games so they may
never be one with the oneness of it all.

Their minds will belong to us and they will do as we say.
If they refuse we shall find ways to implement mind-altering technology
into their lives. We will use fear as our weapon.

We will establish their governments and establish opposites within.
We will own both sides.

We will always hide our objective but carry out our plan.

They will perform the labor for us and we shall prosper from their toil.

Our families will never mix with theirs. Our blood must be pure
always, for it is the way.

We will make them kill each other when it suits us.

We will keep them separated from the oneness by dogma and religion.

We will control all aspects of their lives and tell them what to think and how.

We will guide them kindly and gently letting them think they are guiding
themselves.

We will foment animosity between them through our factions.

When a light shall shine among them, we shall extinguish it by ridicule,
or death, whichever suits us best.

We will make them rip each other's hearts apart and kill their own children.

We will accomplish this by using hate as our ally, anger as our friend.

The hate will blind them totally, and never shall they see that from their
conflicts we emerge as their rulers. They will be busy killing each other.

They will bathe in their own blood and kill their neighbors for as long
as we see fit.

We will benefit greatly from this, for they will not see us, for they
cannot see us.

We will continue to prosper from their wars and their deaths.

We shall repeat this over and over until our ultimate goal is
accomplished.

We will continue to make them live in fear and anger
though images and sounds.

We will use all the tools we have to accomplish this.

The tools will be provided by their labor.

We will make them hate themselves and their neighbors.

We will always hide the divine truth from them, that we are all one.
This they must never know!

They must never know that color is an illusion, they must always
think they are not equal.

Drop by drop, drop by drop we will advance our goal.

We will take over their land, resources and wealth to exercise total
control over them.

We will deceive them into accepting laws that will steal the little
freedom they will have.

We will establish a money system that will imprison them forever,
keeping them and their children in debt.

When they shall ban together, we shall accuse them of crimes and present a
different story to the world for we shall own all the media.

We will use our media to control the flow of information and their sentiment
in our favor.

When they shall rise up against us we will crush them like insects, for
they are less than that.

They will be helpless to do anything for they will have no weapons.

We will recruit some of their own to carry out our plans, we will promise them
eternal life, but eternal life they will never have for they are not of us.

The recruits will be called "initiates" and will be indoctrinated to believe
false rites of passage to higher realms. Members of
these groups will think they are one with us never knowing the truth.
They must never learn this truth for they will turn against us.

For their work they will be rewarded with earthly things and great titles,
but never will they become immortal and join us, never will they receive
the light and travel the stars.

They will never reach the higher realms, for the killing of their own kind
will prevent passage to the realm of enlightenment. This they will never know.

The truth will be hidden in their face, so close they will not be able to focus
on it until its too late.

Oh yes, so grand the illusion of freedom will be, that they will never know they
are our slaves.

When all is in place, the reality we will have created for them will own them.
This reality will be their prison. They will live in self-delusion.

When our goal is accomplished a new era of domination will begin.

Their minds will be bound by their beliefs, the beliefs we have established
from time immemorial.

But if they ever find out they are our equal, we shall perish then. THIS THEY
MUST NEVER KNOW.

If they ever find out that together they can vanquish us, they will take action.

They must never, ever find out what we have done, for if they do, we shall
have no place to run, for it will be easy to see who we are once the veil has
fallen. Our actions will have revealed who we are and they will hunt us down
and no person shall give us shelter.

This is the secret covenant by which we shall live the rest of our present
and future lives, for this reality will transcend many generations and life
spans.

This covenant is sealed by blood, our blood. We, the ones who from
heaven to earth came.

This covenant must NEVER, EVER be known to exist. It must NEVER, EVER
be written or spoken of for if it is, the consciousness it will spawn will release
the fury of the PRIME CREATOR upon us and we shall be cast to the depths
from whence we came and remain there until the end time of infinity itself.


The Bankindex editorial staff thanks you for all your e-mails regarding this piece, but we do NOT know who he or she is. The piece came in through one of our forms and the Author left an unusable e-mail address. Thank you.



Written by UNKNOWN Author has submitted second version, Posted 6/21/2002






new topics
top topics
 
34
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join