What causes autism?

For the record: I don't know. 

I do think it is likely multi-factoral with many variables influencing risk of developing autism (with some more heavily weighted than others). 

I also think it is unspeakably arrogant to dismiss vaccines as a variable, especially because the kind of study that would, with greater certainty, identify if vaccines are (or are not) a variable has not been done - namely, a long-term study comparing the health of a group of vaccinated people compared the health of a group of unvaccinated people (with unvaccinated defined as not having received any vaccines of any kind - not simply not receiving whatever vaccine is being studied). 

An prospective observational study would be a start, but ultimately it will be necessary to do a randomized, controlled, double-blind study comparing vaccinated with unvaccinated children. The real challenge would be finding a group of parents who are pro-vaccine but also willing to forgoe them if they randomized to the no vaccine group. There would be no point in approaching those who are "vaccine hesitant" because the vast majority who are in this group got there due to previous negative experience with "coincidence" (aka: a bad experience with vaccination - the adverse events that the pro-vaccine crowd loves to dismiss as never happening). 

There are a multitude of studies touted as "proving" vaccines do not cause harm - yet when one looks at the methods of those studies you see the common problem with study design
that limits (or prevents) such studies from proving vaccines are, or are not, a potential variable in a variety of acute and chronic health issues. And there in lies the problem - those who love vaccines interpret such studies with rose-colored lenses while those who are "vaccine hesitant" have a far different analysis of these same studies. Oddly enough, "pay to play" comes to mind as it seems so many of those who advocate for vaccines can be rightly accused of conflict of interest as they benefit financially through said advocacy while those who are more critical of vaccines generally do not benefit financially from them. 

Financial carrots and sticks are now increasingly used as a way to control both patients and providers - and vaccine status is a variable in this calculus. 

Medicine has a long history of barging ahead with a minimum of information (aka: evidence) and ultimately pulling back as additional information came to light (just in obstetrics: overuse of episiotomy, "once a cesarean section, always a cesarean section", there are a multitude of other examples in other specialities). And this pattern continues unabated. It is my opinion, and my hope, that we will soon recognize this is true of vaccines as well. 

Vaccinosis is recognized in animal medicine. The list of symptoms is shockingly similar to the types of adverse events (aka: "coincidences") people report following vaccination in humans. This kind of cognitive dissonence serves no one and certainly does not help any individual or group achieve better health. 

Because we do not have adequate safety studies for vaccines we cannot rationally evaluate if they do more good than harm. It is possible there is benefit to contacting the diseases for which we now vaccinate - because the odds of recovery are (generally) good and the likelihood of permanent harm is low, while the cost of vaccinating (fiscally - because this must be done repeatedly to maintain suppression of disease) may be much higher than previously calculated. Yes - it costs money when someone is sick (in lost work and/or in seeking medical care during the illness) - yet if getting sick once results in robust life-long immunity the one time cost must be weighed against the cost of continuously vaccinating throughout a persons lifetime to maintain suppression of disease while also calculating the financial cost of any adverse effects of vaccination (once we have more reliable information about this because we have looked at the long-term health comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated). 

Are you "vaccine hesitant"?

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) routinely surveys its membership regarding their perceptions of parents acceptance of vaccines (or lack thereof) with anything other than full acceptance of the "recommended" vaccine schedule being described as "vaccine hesitancy". Here is a link to the abstract of the survey results (the full article is behind a paywall and/or available only to AAP members). 

As a survey of its members this is a convenience sample - and those pediatricians who are members of the AAP are (in this writer's opinion) more likely to be biased in favor of vaccination. After all, their headquarters were built (in part) with donations from vaccine makers and they continue to receive large sums of money from industries on a yearly basis. What some might refer to as **conflict of interest** the AAP seems to think of as "just another day that ends in 'Y'". 

Here's a facinating nugget from the AAP press release regarding this article:  

“The perceived rise in refusals and delays does not seem to be solely attributable to any one vaccine, because pediatricians reported increased rates of parents who refused just one vaccine and those who refused more than one immunization,” said study author Catherine Hough-Telford, MD, FAAP. This supports prior research findings that suggest the public’s collective memory of vaccine-preventable diseases may be fading, she said. “Clearly, though, additional research is needed to evaluate vaccine hesitancy and how it relates to different vaccines,” she said.

I find this quote very telling in how it frames their conclusions for two reasons: 
       1) The perception that the problem is a collective loss of memory of "vaccine-                            preventable" diseases and that
      2) more research is needed about why people are "vaccine hesitant". 

In some ways I think they are indulging in "blaming the victim" - this convenient projection keeps the group in power from doing any sort of introspection and self examination so they have no reason to consider how they may be contributing to "vaccine hesitancy" - by perhaps, refusing to acknowledge that vaccines can, and do, harm (indeed kill) people (both children and adults). 

Yes, because of widespread use of vaccines - people may not have many memories of children spontaneously contracting (and generally recovering without ill effects) a variety of temporary, generally benign infections. But this void in their memory banks is being filled with memories of their own children's reactions and responses to vaccines - not all of which are temporary, or benign. Or of watching what happened to the children of family members and friends. Or of recognizing that there are so many children who are now chronically ill (ie: not healthy in spite of being "up to date" on their vaccinations) ... or seeing how many people have life-threatening allergies to ordinary substances and food stuffs (like peanuts). 

It is interesting that the study author thinks it is necessary to study "vaccine hesitancy" yet she does not call for studies of vaccines themselves. If she wants to know why I am far more vaccine hesitant than ever before - it is because of the lack of real, true, genuine, double-blind, randomized controlled trials involving vaccines that also track not just short-term outcomes, but long-term outcomes between populations that are vaccinated and unvaccinated (the definition of unvaccinated meaning "not having received any vaccines" as opposed to "not receiving the vaccine being study but receiving all other vaccines instead"). 

This is what used to be refered to as "science" - positing a null hypothesis and designing a study that would reveal the answer to the THAT question rather than rigging a study to give the desired results (better called post-normal science where the desired outcome is first determined and then the study is jerry-rigged to provide results that support these results - a fine example of this is what the CDC Whistleblower, Dr. Thompson described as occuring for the 2004 study that was intended to refute any association between autism and vaccines, yet when the results showed an association the results were dumped - quite literally in a gargage can and the authors started over and changed study protocol until they got the results they wanted). 

The authors of this article are very interested in gaining greater understanding of those who are "vaccine-hesitant" when perhaps it is themselves they need to study - and why they hold so tightly to a rigid paradigm of vaccination at all costs for infections that were (and still are) generally self-limiting, temporary (but I repeat myself) and nearly always benign - seldom causing death or long-term serious sequelae. They **think** this is true of vaccines, but because of the lack (as in zero) of studies that might actually provide evidence for this belief their paradigm is really rather shaky. Those who are "vaccine-hesitant" are rattling their cage. They are trapped in this paradigm - and want to close the door on any others who dare to leave the reservation - hence the increase in pediatricans who refuse to provide care to families who do not vaccinate their children on schedule - who do not comply with their paradigm. 

I am hesitant to trust a paradigm that has a faulty foundation - one in which "evidence" is cooked up and "no-cebos" are used instead of placebos (a no-cebo being a false placebo, a fake placebo ... that means a placebo that is not inert but actually contains substances that are biologically active which would of course affect results making study conclusions less robust and trustworthy). 

The purpose of science should be building a foundation of factual information from which we can draw conclusions - so conducting the kind of investigation that would provide this type of information should not be threatening. It is bizarre that those who advocate vaccines do not support this as if their paradigm is true the results of the type of study I have called for would strengthen their case against the "vaccine-hesitant". It is all the more telling that they dance around the subject saying it would be "unethical" (to not forcibly and coercively) vaccinate people. 

Interestingly enough, this is what was once said of studying vaginal birth after cesarean ("once a cesarean section, always a cesarean section") or of determining the necessity of routine episiotomy ... yet when the studies were finally done - the results were somewhat surprising (and might I add, paradigm breaking) as they did not support the widely accepted notions that vaginal birth after a cesarean was unsafe or that routine episiotomy benefited women. 

Since the ranks of the "vaccine-hesitant" seem to be growing there is an ever larger cohort of people who could be studied to provide some comparisons between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated. The excuses need to stop. The studies (real ones) need to be done. 

The approval process: Women's Health Devices and Vaccines - Some Similarities

Some residents from Northwestern University recently published a study examining the approval process for various devices commonly used in or on women for various conditions which revealed some serious concerns about the process the FDA uses for new devices. 

As I read the description of the study's results (I did not have access to a full-text version) I was struck by some similarities in the deficiencies of the approval process between vaccines and the medical devices their study delineates. 

Of note, one device (now being investigated due to patient reports of complications post-approval) was approved on after "short-term evidence". This is similar to vaccines where most surveillance for adverse reactions is collected after short-term follow up. 

Here's an example: 

Hiberix Package Insert - see pages 6&7 (Section 6) where you will find that the longest (reported) follow-up was 31 days. 

Section 14 (starting on page 10) - Immunological studies - the approval was based on a randomized controlled study - though none of this is defined and what is most telling is the lack of blinding and in fact you can read on page 12 that at least one of the studies was open-label. 

Table 3 on page 11 shows antibody response 1 month following administration - the table describes this as "Seroprotection Rate" though I would describe this as an example of "science" (scare quotes deliberate) by proxy - in other words, not real science as science requires direct observation of an effect, not an inference of a desired result (reduced incidence of "x" infection) by indirect measurement of something else (mounting an antibody response). Measurement of an antibody response is not a randomized double-blind controlled trial. 

On page 11 you will see that data regarding race/ethnicity was incomplete (" ... among subjects for whom information on race/ethnicity was available ...") but that most of those were White/Anglo - what factors were "controlled" in this study? The age of children ranged from 12 months to 23 months - a 12 month old infant is far different from a 23 month old toddler immunologically! If age was not controlled, nor was race, and apparently data collection on at least one demographic variable was spotty (race) - just what exactly was "controlled"? 

Here's a pertinent quote: 

“Devices are a huge part of the medical care that we provide women on a daily basis,” said study first author Jessica Walter, MD, a resident in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology. “We found that there’s an opportunity to increase the burden of proof required for a device to be approved for public use.” 

I think you could easily substitute "Vaccines" for "Devices" and "people" for "women" in the above quote ... and that there is likewise the same "opportunity" in regards to strengthening the evidence needed for a vaccine's approval prior to use by anyone - child or adult. 

The article by Northwestern University connected the dots between what this study revealed and a law being considered in Congress - the 21rst Century Cures Act, which if passed would reduce regulation of medical devices and "broaden" the definition of scientific evidence used by manufacturers (this includes vaccines). In other words, this bill, if passed, would codify into law post-normal science. 

We all deserve so much better. And researchers are capable of so much more, as are companies making (and profiting) from medications and devices.   

With valid concern about the quality of research undergirding approval of vaccines it is reasonable and prudent for there to be great freedom in personal choice regarding their use. Even if the research were stronger no one should be forced or manipulated into the use of any medical procedure. 

Vaccination through the generations

The picture shown below gives a visual image of how the number of vaccinations have increased over the years (it is used with permission).  

This is 4 generations of women: great-grandma through great-grandchild. 
From 1rst to 2nd generation vaccines increased 3.5 fold. 
From 2nd to 3rd generation vaccines increased 2 fold. 
From 3rd to the 4th generation they increased 4.9 fold. 
From 1rst to 4th they increased 34.5 fold. 

Please note, 69 vaccines is just what is required for childhood - this does not include the additional doses one would receive if you continue to receive all recommended vaccines throughout your life according to "the schedule". 

What is unknown is how many more vaccines will be added to the "schedule" (there are currently >200 in development). It is no surprise that there was such a large increase between the 3rd and 4th generation as it was since the 3rd generation was born that anything related to vaccines (from manufacturers to those who recommend or require them to those who order/administer them) received blanket immunity from liability related to any adverse reactions that may occur as a result of vaccination (though how that would happen when a product is "safe and effective" is anybody's guess). 

Vaccines are categorized by the FDA as "biologics", and as such, their approval process is different from other drugs. They are not required to undergo randomized, double-blind trials to demonstrate either safety or efficacy. 

Do we know how many are safe or if it is safe to combine vaccine antigens in one shot or if it is safe to give multiple vaccines at one time? No. These questions have never been asked in research. Have vaccines been studied? Oh yes, exhaustively. But science has gone post-modern, and no where more so than when the issue in question is vaccines. The answer is pre-determined and the study is designed to provide the desired answer. We have yet to do the type of study that would provide some very interesting and very important answers - namely, a long-term study comparing health outcomes in vaccinated individuals with unvaccinated individuals. Unvaccinated defined as having never received any vaccine - not having not received the vaccine in question!! Vaccinated being defined as having received >0 vaccines. In these studies health needs to be defined more broadly than not getting "x" disease or infection. 

The number of vaccines that are necessary should be determined by the person receiving them (or the minor child's parents) - not by government, not by a school system, nor an employer. 

If you think vaccines are the "bomb", you just might be right!

There are many who believe vaccines are one of the greatest public health "wins" ever - practically the best thing since sliced bread, or "the bomb" in more recent linguistic slang might glowingly (as in nuclear?!) describe them. 

As we continue to (finally) learn the intricacies of how our immune system works there is reason to believe that perhaps vaccination is, quite literally, an immunological bomb. The manner in which it is done bypasses the typical route by which we are exposed to proteins or antigens (typically the respiratory tract or the GI tract - in other words, mucous membranes) as they are generally injected into a muscle giving direct access to the circulatory system via the capillary bed. 

What's more, virtually all vaccines have adjuvents (aluminum or squalene are examples) in order to potentiate the immune response to obtain the "desired" effect - an antibody response. Indeed, without the adjuvent many vaccines won't "work".

As written by Celeste McGovern (© [May 17, 2016] GreenMedInfo LLC. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of GreenMedInfo LLC. Want to learn more fromGreenMedInfo? Sign up for the newsletter here http://www.greenmedinfo.com/greenmed/newsletter): 

Imagine the immune system as a border guard. If a guard at the Canada-US border pulled every vehicle that drove up to his checkpoint aside, emptied the suitcases, called in the sniffer dogs, strip-searched the occupants and called for the SWAT team, things would get ugly pretty fast. Most of the time, border guards are alert but passive. Our immune system is the same way with foreign proteins.

So vaccine manufacturers pepper vaccines with adjuvants -- crude extracts of mycobacteria, toxins such as mercury, aluminum salts, or mineral oils to force the reluctant immune system to go into attack mode - from passive border guard to hypervigilant nutter pulling a gun on a granny.  Celebrated Yale immunologist Charles Janeway called this “immunologist’s dirty little secret” underlying vaccination.

 “Adjuvants expand, potentiate, and increase immune responses,” explains Kanduc. “Such hyperactivation has a price: the loss of specificity. The hyper-stimulated immune system does not discriminate any more between foreign proteins and self-proteins…Adjuvants render the immune system blind. Human proteins that share peptide sequences will be attacked.”Kanduc likens immunotolerance to a protective wall. “The dam is demolished by the adjuvants and the cross-reactivity flood can crush and alter human proteins.” This might also cause numerous cross-reactions, manifested as a wide variety of autoimmune attacks.

Western, conventional medicine has a long history of going to far, even if the motive was right (and there is so much COI embedded in vaccination that there is plenty of reason to doubt motives!) - this is why it is so important for all to be free to make their own decisions regarding what interventions they do or do not accept, including vaccinations. 

Pitiful, Pathetic Pan - A gold in the Olympics of truth avoidance

Like so many politicians, California State Senator Richard Pan is a flaming, stinking hypocrite - and a coward to boot! He imposes responsibility on citizens (SB277) while running from it. 

On Mon May 9, Del Bigtree (Producer of Vaxxed) and Polly Tommey (mother, featured in Vaxxed) went to Sacramento California in an attempt to engage California State Senator Richard Pan in a debate. Crazy hijinks ensued: 

I am quite sorry that those who made this video associated Pan with the Pink Panther - that 

character has hallowed place in my family and I hate to see it linked with the likes of Pan, but I'll try to consider that no more than a nit pik in the bigger picture. 

If he is so certain of the validity and rightness of the vaccine mandates his legislation imposed upon the people of California, why would he sprint from a conversation with a citizen of California? What, exactly, is he afraid of? 

He should change his name - to Peter (as in the perpetual child)! 

Wakefield: His story isn't complete

This brief (22 minutes) video is of Andrew Wakefield discussing various issues that have dogged him since a paper of which he was one of 13 authors was published in 1998 in the Lancet (since retracted). Here he defends himself (as well as in the movie Vaxxed, though he is not the subject of the documentary - it is about allegations of fraud within the CDC) - but others have also defended him (Dr. David Lewis, in his book "Science For Sale" (not an affiliate link). 

Watch for yourself: 

I think he, and many others who do not toe the line to the conventional wisdom concerning vaccination, have suffered from the "Semmelweis Effect" - see also "Is Dr. Andrew Wakefield a Victim of Sham Peer Review?"  

For everyones sake, let us hope that truth will prevail, not agendas driven by conflict of interest.