Особенно прошу уделить внимание статье тем, кто тут недавно пытался всех убедить, что ДОКАЗАНО отсутствие связи аутизма с вакцинацией.Источник: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20049118-10391695.htmlИ еще одна статья на эту тему.  Источник: Douglas Reports.  Сама статья ниже:Human DNA in shots causes brain damageHooooo-boy -- the drug industry's pro-vaccine cheerleaders are going to have a hard time shouting this one down.A retired Big Pharma bigwig has looked at all the published research on autism since the condition was first identified in 1943 and -- wouldn't you know it -- found that vaccines may be responsible in at least some cases.Just not how you might think.I'm sure you've heard the theory that blames thimerosal, the mercury-based compound used in vaccines until recent years -- a theory I'm on record as saying I don't fully buy.Well, Dr. Helen Ratajczak, a highly respected senior scientist formerly with Boehringer-Ingelheim, has a different theory: human fetal tissue used in vaccines.You read that right -- some vaccines are actually grown in cells from aborted fetuses.And if that's not ghoulish enough, consider this: Ratajczak believes human DNA that remains in the vaccine can cause the body to attack its own brain cells, leading to the inflammation linked to autism -- especially in kids already prone to the condition.To back her theory up, Ratajczak points to spikes in autism rates when human DNA was added to the MMR II vaccine in 1983, again in 1988 when a second MMR II shot was added for some kids, and yet again in 1995 when they began using a chicken pox vaccine grown in human fetal tissue.She also points to similar patterns overseas.If Ratajczak's theory is right, don't expect the autism epidemic to slow anytime soon -- human tissue is now part of at least 23 vaccines.Naturally, since the mainstream can't fight Ratajczak with science, they're attacking her instead.Shoot the messenger with a DNA-laced needle!One critic says Ratajczak's experience in the drug industry doesn't automatically make her an expert -- which is a lot like saying someone's experience in the National League doesn't make him a ballplayer.Another griped that she's "only" been involved in four published studies over the past decade -- ignoring the dozens she authored or co-authored in the preceding years.Ratajczak, for her part, told CBS News that she was restricted in what she could publish before she retired.But it looks like there'll be no stopping her now.Sounds like my kind of gal.