From: <http://www.iceh.org/LDDI.html>Institute for Children's Environmental Health, Feb. 20, 2008 <http://www.precaution.org/lib/08/prn_lddi_statement_released.080220.htm>[Printer-friendly version]
Environmental agents associated with neurodevelopmental disorders A new Scientific Consensus Statement on Environmental Agents Associated with Neurodevelopmental Disorders, <http://www.iceh.org/LDDI.html>released this week, summarizes the latest science about environmental contaminants associated with neurodevelopmental disorders, such as learning disabilities, autism spectrum disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), intellectual disabilities and developmental delays. The <http://www.iceh.org/pdfs/LDDI/LDDIStatement.pdf>statement was published by the Collaborative on Health and the Environment's Learning and Developmental Disabilities Initiative. The statement, which summarizes over 200 studies, was drafted and reviewed by a prestigious committee of scientists and health professionals based in North America. They concluded: "The scientific evidence reviewed in this statement indicates environmental contaminants are an important cause of learning and developmental disabilities (LDDs).... "The consequences of learning and developmental disabilities are most significant for the affected individual but also have profound implications for the family, school system, local community and greater society. Despite some uncertainty, there is sufficient knowledge to take preventive action to reduce fetal and childhood exposures to environmental contaminants. Given the serious consequences of LDDs, a <http://www.precaution.org/lib/pp_def.htm>precautionary approach is warranted to protect the most vulnerable of our society. "Given the established knowledge, protecting children from neurotoxic environmental exposures from the earliest stages of fetal development through adolescence is clearly an essential public health measure if we are to help reduce the growing numbers of those with learning and developmental disorders and create an environment in which children can reach and maintain their full potential." "We know enough now to move on with taking steps to protect our children. This document pulls that knowledge together to further this vital effort," said reviewer Martha Herbert, PhD, MD, an assistant professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School and a pediatric neurologist with subspecialty certification in neurodevelopmental disabilities at the Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. Other researchers on the review committee underscored the cost- savings, policy-related and ethical implications of this consensus statement. "We could cut the health costs of childhood disabilities and disease by billions of dollars every year by minimizing contaminants in the environment," said Phil Landrigan, MD, MSc, of the Children's Environmental Health Center at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine. "Investing in our children's health is both cost-effective and the right thing to do." "The overwhelming evidence shows that certain environmental exposures can contribute to life-long learning and developmental disorders," noted Ted Schettler, MD, MPH, with the Science and Environmental Health Network. "We should eliminate children's exposures to substances that we know can have these impacts by implementing stronger health-based policies requiring safer alternatives. Further, we must urgently examine other environmental contaminants of concern for which safety data are lacking. " "The proportion of environmentally induced learning and developmental disabilities is a question of profound human, scientific and public policy significance," said lead author <http://www.asmalldoseof.org/>Steven G. Gilbert, PhD, DABT, of the Institute of Neurotoxicology & Neurological Disorders, "and has implications for individuals, families, school systems, communities and the future of our society. The bottom line is, it is our ethical responsibility to ensure all children have a healthy future." This document is designed for researchers, health professionals, health-affected groups, environmental health and justice organizations, policymakers and journalists to use as a resource for understanding and addressing concerns about links between environmental factors and neurodevelopmental disorders. >Kirk, > As I stated, my interest is mainly in regard to increased rates of >autism, and attention deficit disorders as relating to mercury and/or >aluminum in vaccines, and to increased rates of asthma, possibly due to >"tricking" the immune system with multiple doses of vaccines. > >But: >>> "This is not a rare occurrence. Epidemics in fully vaccinated >>>populations are a rule rather than an exception..." > >and > >>> "The DEATH RATE from smallpox was actually higher among >>those who had been vaccinated." > >Caught my attention. I wanted to know who is being quoted and where I can >find the info. > > I don't think I suggested that passive immunity is as effective as >active immunity. I certainly do not wish to defend the pharmaceutical >industry. > >> If you cant find this info on the web you arent looking. > You can find just about anything you want on the web (or is it at >Alice's Restaurant?). You can even learn how to make biodiesel the wrong >way. Just go to infopop. > > You put quotation marks around statements in your post. I merely wanted >to know who was being quoted and where I might find the quotes. > > One of your quotes had a reference, but I couldn't find the quote when I >looked there. > > I had a case of the real deal flu a couple of years back. The thought >of getting it again scares me; no joke. I refuse to get a flu vaccination. I >have my reasons. Before I tell anyone else what to do in regard to >vaccinations for themselves or their children I want to have solid >information. If you can help, thanks. If not, thanks anyway. > Tom > > > > ----- Original Message ----- >From: "Kirk McLoren" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org> >Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 2:39 PM >Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Vaccine Quotes Worth Repeating > > >> Soil and Health library had the original Royal Medical Society debates re >> Jenner and the fraud starts there. He used "grease from a horses hoof" and >> that doesnt meet germ theory. The idea that cow pox and small pox are >> related enough to confer immunity may be a little more palatable but still >> incorrect. >> The last pertussis outbreak in Washington state saw 80% of the >> hospitalized childen with thei vaccine and all boosters. Where was the >> conferred immunity? >> The US Army smallpox eradication effort in the Phillipines saw the next >> year with most of the new cases where they had already innoculated. >> The smallpox effort in England with Jenner saw a 10 fold death increase >> the next year. >> >> We routinely innoculate newborns with Hepatitis B vaccine yet the >> literature says infants have an immature immune system and are incapable >> of forming an immune response. >> Advocates point to the polio campaign in the US and show the curve with >> its steep decline in cases as proof. They neglect to show the curve for 3 >> years prior where the infection rate was declining at the same step rate. >> We know that the SV40 is still in polio even after 3 times they >> supposedly removed it. We know SV40 in humans causes brain and kidney >> cancer. We know there is more SV40 virus in polio vaccine than polio >> virus. Only an investor in such things would advocate it. The Bush family >> is heavily invested in vaccines. Bush gave vaccine companies immunity from >> liability. >> That is criminal. His daddy was censured when VP for unlawful lobying for >> a pharma co. That company was Eli Lilley. At that time the largest single >> stockholder was the Quayle family. Recall that name? >> Jenner did not come up with the idea. The wife of the British ambassador >> to Turkey brought tales of the practice to Jenner. Just another example of >> pharma misinformation. > > My grandsone had no shots. He has never even had an ear infection. > > On the local level our school nurse was in the local paper amazed that >> the children in the outbreak of chicken pox had their innoculations - >> where is the conferred immunity? >> Germany stopped innoculating under 12 months of age. SIDS fell by 90 %. >> If you cant find this info on the web you arent looking. >> >> Kirk >> >> Thomas Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Kirk, >> It's not my intention to argue for or against vaccination of children. >> I am interested in the possible relationship between vaccination and the >> rise in certain diseases/disorders. >> Perhaps you can clarify a few points: >> >>> "This is not a rare occurrence. Epidemics in fully vaccinated >>>populations are a rule rather than an exception..." >>> Dr. Viera Scheibner, Australia >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viera_Scheibner >> >> I did not find this quote at the site you referred to. >> >>> "The DEATH RATE from smallpox was actually higher among >those who >> had been vaccinated." >> >> Who are you quoting? Where can I find more info. >> Example: >> If 50% of the unvaccinated population contracts smallpox, and 50% of >> these people die from it = 25% of the unvaccinated pop dies from smallpox >> If 1% of the vaccinated pop. contracts smallpox and 51% of these >> people die from it = 0.5% of the vaccinated pop die from smallpox. >> This would not be an argument against vaccination. >> >>> "It is a well documented fact that the incidence and mortality from >>> >infectious diseases fell by 90% well before any vaccine was even >>> >introduced... So [the U.S.] mandated vaccination and it resulted in a >>> >three-fold increase in whooping cough..." >> >> Again, where did this quote come from? >> >> I would like to know if this ("infectious diseases fell by >> 90%")corresponded to the time period in which Joseph Lister associated >> bacteria with infection with, and then Robert Koch demonstrated that >> "germs" >> can cause disease. Improved sanitary methods/aseptic procedures result in >> dramatic decreases in infectious disease even today. Given a choice >> between >> one or the other, I would go for improving sanitary conditions over >> vaccination. In itself, that would not argue against vaccination. >> >>>In the March 4, 1977 issue of Science Jonas and Darrell Salk warn, >"Live >> virus vaccines against influenza or poliomyelitis may in each instance >>>produce the disease it intended to prevent. The live virus against measles >>>and mumps may produce such side effects as encephalitis (brain >damage). >>>from http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/index.php?p=534 >> >> This is taken from: >> "Control of influenza and poliomyelitis with killed virus vaccines" >> J Salk and D Salk >> Science 4 March 1977: 834-847. >> >> The article referred to does, in fact, warn against the use of live >> viruses in vaccines. I don't think any vaccines today use live viruses. >> It also, in part, explains some of the problems Dr. Howenstine refers >> to in his 2003 article "Why You Should Avoid Taking Vaccines" >> http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/index.php?p=534 Many of the problems cited >> occurred in the late 1800's and first half of the 1900's when live viruses >> were injected to confer passive immunity. >> >> I think many of us are concerned with possible links between multiple >> vaccinations' "tricking" of our immune system and the rise in asthma, for >> example; with the addition of mercury and/or aluminum to vaccines and the >> rise in autism and attention deficit disorders. It has been difficult to >> separate the role vaccines play in the dramatic rise in many >> diseases/disorders from other factors: mercury and other heavy metal >> contaminants in food and water, pesticides, artificial colorings, >> flavorings, and other food additives. >> Any help in this regard is appreciated. >> I don't see any benefit to adding heavy metals, pesticides and >> other carcinogens to my food and water. I am not convinced that >> vaccinations >> are without benefit. >> Tom >> >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Kirk McLoren" >> To: "biofuel" >> Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 8:41 PM > > Subject: [Biofuel] Vaccine Quotes Worth Repeating > > >> >>> >>> >>> >>> Vaccine Quotes Worth Repeating [and remembering]: >>> >>> "The only safe vaccine is one that is never used." Dr. James R. >>> Shannon, former Director, National Institute of Health >>> >>> "Live virus vaccines against influenza or poliomyelitis may in each >>> instance produce the disease it intended to prevent. The live virus >>> against measles and mumps may produce such side effects as encephalitis >>> (brain damage)" Jonas and Darrell Salk, >>> 1977 >>> >>> "The DEATH RATE from smallpox was actually higher among those who had >>> been vaccinated." >>> >>> "It took over three years of research before we looked at each other and >>> said 'Vaccines are killing babies'." >>> >>> "It is a well documented fact that the incidence and mortality from >>> infectious diseases fell by 90% well before any vaccine was even >>> introduced... So [the U.S.] mandated vaccination and it resulted in a >>> three-fold increase in whooping cough..." >>> >>> "This is not a rare occurrence. Epidemics in fully vaccinated >>> populations are a rule rather than an exception..." >>> Dr. Viera Scheibner, Australia >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viera_Scheibner >>> >>> >>> Do you still believe vaccines are safe? > >> http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/index.php?p=534 _______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
