Joanna you claim to know nothing about Geier's treatment protocol yet you can write, "At least Geier is trying to help recover autistic children." So you are endorsing the behaviour of a man about whom you know nothing.
I called you an anti vaccine zealot because you are. Here is an anti vaccine blog you wrote. http://www.whale.to/vaccine/jones.html Here is the anti vaccine website you set up. http://www.vaccineriskawareness.com/
If we are to have a respectful debate it works both ways. You have dismissed every study or piece of evidence which I have presented, which contradicts your opinion, on the grounds that the authors are either politically motivated or in it for for the money. You respond to scientific arguments by traducing the scientists and doctors who carry out the studies rather than responding to the content of their papers.
You are writing a series of articles on "theoretical causes of autism." "Theoretical" implies biological plausibility and a modicum of research evidence to support your view. That used to be the case for vaccines ten years ago. It never made it as a theory because scientists looked and could not find any evidence. There is not even a plausible biological pathway for ultrasound and autism. Your article amounts to this:
"Radiation at sufficient intensity can damage tissues in the human body and cause neurological damage. Ultrasound is a form of radiation. We need more studies to investigate the possibility that the radiation in ultra sound scans might be causing autism."
I know what the FDA paper said about possible unknown risks. But that was in the context of commercial operators, possibly without proper training and using devices which had not had sufficient safety checks, using ultra sound at much higher levels of intensity and for much longer periods of time than is normal in clinical use. The same paper said that clinically indicated scans were carried out at much lower levels of intensity and for much shorter periods of time . The research evidence says they are safe. The only significant neurological effect that has emerged so far is handedness and that is a weak association that is challenged by some researchers.
So why are you writing about something that has a track record of safety, a good research basis and a proven benefit in the management of pregnancy?
Comment Reply
Joanna you claim to know nothing about Geier's treatment protocol yet you can write, "At least Geier is trying to help recover autistic children." So you are endorsing the behaviour of a man about whom you know nothing.
I called you an anti vaccine zealot because you are. Here is an anti vaccine blog you wrote. http://www.whale.to/vaccine/jones.html Here is the anti vaccine website you set up. http://www.vaccineriskawareness.com/
If we are to have a respectful debate it works both ways. You have dismissed every study or piece of evidence which I have presented, which contradicts your opinion, on the grounds that the authors are either politically motivated or in it for for the money. You respond to scientific arguments by traducing the scientists and doctors who carry out the studies rather than responding to the content of their papers.
You are writing a series of articles on "theoretical causes of autism." "Theoretical" implies biological plausibility and a modicum of research evidence to support your view. That used to be the case for vaccines ten years ago. It never made it as a theory because scientists looked and could not find any evidence. There is not even a plausible biological pathway for ultrasound and autism. Your article amounts to this:
"Radiation at sufficient intensity can damage tissues in the human body and cause neurological damage. Ultrasound is a form of radiation. We need more studies to investigate the possibility that the radiation in ultra sound scans might be causing autism."
I know what the FDA paper said about possible unknown risks. But that was in the context of commercial operators, possibly without proper training and using devices which had not had sufficient safety checks, using ultra sound at much higher levels of intensity and for much longer periods of time than is normal in clinical use. The same paper said that clinically indicated scans were carried out at much lower levels of intensity and for much shorter periods of time . The research evidence says they are safe. The only significant neurological effect that has emerged so far is handedness and that is a weak association that is challenged by some researchers.
So why are you writing about something that has a track record of safety, a good research basis and a proven benefit in the management of pregnancy?
September 29, 2011 - 2:17pmThis Comment
Reply