Reply #28: I took care of one 26 year old autistic adult in the early nineties.

[truedelphi]

His home was among the most toxic home I have ever been in.

His parents had huge decks that surrounded their home on all sides. The dad religiously sprayed the crap out of the decks at least twice a year. He used such strong and toxic crap that even my husband was knocked to his knees when he came to visit A. and me. (Mark is a husky guy and a lot of times, the things that bother me, chemically speaking, don't affect him)

I found out that so many of the products that were on the market from the fifties on, contained lead, arsenic, copper and other really nasty crap. How a fetus would maintain its health if its mothers was ingesting that stuff I don't know. (The lead has been removed from these products nowadays, but back when Andrew was in utero, lead would have been in the mix.)

I also found the conclusion that the panel that the OP is talking about to be suspect. A peer reviewed study, in this day and age means nothing, and this panel of scientists basically said that an "average" based on the many peer reviewed studies they examined supports the notion that the vaccine process doesn't cause the autism.

Since industry controls most of the research labs, and financially supports most of the scientists now writing these peer reviewed studies, I don't find this proof of anything.

If this process of surveying the peer reviewed studies available had been the process by which the state of California determined the safety or the heavy duty risk and toxicity of MTBE, believe me, the state of California would still be allowing MTBE. There were dozens more studies from industry saying MTBE was safe, while there was only one study showing how toxic it was. But that one study was independent of industry, while the many studies were bought and paid for by industry.

If this is what passes for science, we are totally screwn.