Thimerosal Did Not Cause Autism

1
147

Thimerosal Did Not Cause Autism – The anti vaccine movement is something that has really grown in the last decade. After a number of studies were published that linked vaccines to higher rates of Autism and other disorders in young children, many people began to boycott the vaccines, only injecting their child with vaccines that were proven to be safe and necessary. In a case that had pitted individuals who felt that the mercury contained in many vaccines had caused the Autism in their children against the government in hopes of receiving funds from the federal vaccine injury fund. This fund exists because each and every vaccine that is taken is taxed up to a dollar. Normally these funds are used to pay the families of victims who suffer an allergic reaction to the vaccine.

However, three separate judges ruled today that the preservative called thimerosal, which is supposedly the preservative that contains the mercury, was not the cause of the autism in these individuals. With a stern look on his face, the judge who made the King ruling told the family that it was “highly unlikely” that the vaccines had anything to do with their sons autism and that they had no proof to back up their findings.

Individuals who argue for vaccine usage celebrated today. This was seen as a victory, while those who were against vaccine usage dismissed the ruling as another failure by the system to address what they perceive to be a very large issue that has gone unnoticed for quite some time now. One thing is certain here, and that is that using vaccines on infants is a touchy subject for many different people, whether they believe one way or another. However, without more conclusive evidence one way or the other these cases will likely persist through the justice system.

1 COMMENT

  1. Well their legal highnesses in all their cleverness are as wrong as it is possible to be. Stern posture or not ‘highly unlikely’ doesn’t sound like a legal term to me. Especially when applied to a negative conclusion. History is littered with such highly unlikelies and thousands are in their graves because in the event it wasn’t unlikely at all it was deadly! Now did the judges say for example that the second most toxic material of all when injected directly into the bloodstream of a small infant is actually beneficial? If it is only ‘highly unlikely’ to cause harm (in the opinion of a spectacularly underinformed elderly gent)there must surely be a powerful reason why it is administered in the first place.

    I challenge the judge or judges to publicly debate the possible link between thiomersal and autism in a public arena anywhere at my own expense. God save us from ‘judges’.

    Tony Bateson, Oxford, UK.

LEAVE A REPLY