Well, Geier has testified in 90 medical damage hearings and only been dis-allowed for 10, according to a Wikipedia smear article against him. He's been studying these issues since 1971 so I'm sure he's more qualified than even you to talk on this issue.
They are going to crack down on him because they do with any doctor who questions vaccines on any level. Practically every doctor that I have heard about who publically supports families of vaccine damaged children, has an investigation opened on them. They welcome people in to be vaccinated and say you are a good parent for doing it but when something goes wrong they slam the door in your face.
Today's 'science' is not really science because real science is re-evaluated constantly, ideas are openly discussed and debated, that is the nature of science. But with this particular issue there is no room for debate or discussion of any kind. Opposing evidence is ignored or explained away, those presenting with injuries are treated with contempt because their very presence challenges the status quo, doctors who dissent (and there are MANY) are struck off or they attempt to strike them off. The government took liability for MMR after the first brand caused outbreaks of meningitis in Canada. The drug manufacturer told them they wanted immunity if they wanted to market it in the UK. Is that really the actions of a community that wants to help children? So the pluserix MMR then caused meningitis in the UK and was withdrawn again. If anything is found wrong with vaccines, it's the government who is liable, not the vaccine companies and I think that's one of the reasons why scientific debate is no longer allowed. This is political.
As for 'neuro diversity', I don't believe in that theory (although I do intend to write an article on it even so). It runs contrary to the theory of evolution. Since humans first developed we have become progressively more advanced, we developed walking upright and speech and better cognitive function and have improved with each new species of human. Evolution goes forward. It says here:
'Charles Darwin simply brought something new to the old philosophy -- a plausible mechanism called "natural selection." Natural selection acts to preserve and accumulate minor advantageous genetic mutations. Suppose a member of a species developed a functional advantage (it grew wings and learned to fly). Its offspring would inherit that advantage and pass it on to their offspring. The inferior (disadvantaged) members of the same species would gradually die out, leaving only the superior (advantaged) members of the species.'
http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/
Having autism puts people at a disadvantage. I'm not talking about aspergers syndrome or high functioning autism, where the person can basically live a normal life (my own daughter was strangled on her cord in a hospital delivery, born blue, was different from birth and diagnosed with aspergers which I believe was caused by suffocation, yet she now lives a normal life). I'm talking about full blown autism where the child has no communication, has no bowel control, has seizures, developmental arrest, abdominal disease causing constant pain. A lot of these children are mentally disabled. None of these things are advantagious to the species. They can't grow up, lead independent lives, have jobs, get married etc and they require round the clock care. If they were in the wild like other animals are, they would be eaten.
I'm not being remotely discriminatory to disabled people, I am one (cerebral palsy and osteoarthritis and sensory processing faults), but the fact remains if I had to live in the wild I would not be able to hunt and I would probably be killed by other animals.
Genetic evolution would not go backwards and create lots of children who are unable to fend for themselves. Neuro diversity would go forward and instead create super smart humans.
Comment Reply
Well, Geier has testified in 90 medical damage hearings and only been dis-allowed for 10, according to a Wikipedia smear article against him. He's been studying these issues since 1971 so I'm sure he's more qualified than even you to talk on this issue.
They are going to crack down on him because they do with any doctor who questions vaccines on any level. Practically every doctor that I have heard about who publically supports families of vaccine damaged children, has an investigation opened on them. They welcome people in to be vaccinated and say you are a good parent for doing it but when something goes wrong they slam the door in your face.
Today's 'science' is not really science because real science is re-evaluated constantly, ideas are openly discussed and debated, that is the nature of science. But with this particular issue there is no room for debate or discussion of any kind. Opposing evidence is ignored or explained away, those presenting with injuries are treated with contempt because their very presence challenges the status quo, doctors who dissent (and there are MANY) are struck off or they attempt to strike them off. The government took liability for MMR after the first brand caused outbreaks of meningitis in Canada. The drug manufacturer told them they wanted immunity if they wanted to market it in the UK. Is that really the actions of a community that wants to help children? So the pluserix MMR then caused meningitis in the UK and was withdrawn again. If anything is found wrong with vaccines, it's the government who is liable, not the vaccine companies and I think that's one of the reasons why scientific debate is no longer allowed. This is political.
As for 'neuro diversity', I don't believe in that theory (although I do intend to write an article on it even so). It runs contrary to the theory of evolution. Since humans first developed we have become progressively more advanced, we developed walking upright and speech and better cognitive function and have improved with each new species of human. Evolution goes forward. It says here:
'Charles Darwin simply brought something new to the old philosophy -- a plausible mechanism called "natural selection." Natural selection acts to preserve and accumulate minor advantageous genetic mutations. Suppose a member of a species developed a functional advantage (it grew wings and learned to fly). Its offspring would inherit that advantage and pass it on to their offspring. The inferior (disadvantaged) members of the same species would gradually die out, leaving only the superior (advantaged) members of the species.'
http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/
Having autism puts people at a disadvantage. I'm not talking about aspergers syndrome or high functioning autism, where the person can basically live a normal life (my own daughter was strangled on her cord in a hospital delivery, born blue, was different from birth and diagnosed with aspergers which I believe was caused by suffocation, yet she now lives a normal life). I'm talking about full blown autism where the child has no communication, has no bowel control, has seizures, developmental arrest, abdominal disease causing constant pain. A lot of these children are mentally disabled. None of these things are advantagious to the species. They can't grow up, lead independent lives, have jobs, get married etc and they require round the clock care. If they were in the wild like other animals are, they would be eaten.
I'm not being remotely discriminatory to disabled people, I am one (cerebral palsy and osteoarthritis and sensory processing faults), but the fact remains if I had to live in the wild I would not be able to hunt and I would probably be killed by other animals.
Genetic evolution would not go backwards and create lots of children who are unable to fend for themselves. Neuro diversity would go forward and instead create super smart humans.
September 26, 2011 - 1:38amThis Comment
Reply