Tuesday, May 30, 2017


Multiple Studies Find Ketogenic Diet Helps Reverse Autistic Symptoms


May 28th, 2017
Contributing writer for Wake Up World
In late 2015, results from a National Health Interview Survey regarding the rate of autism in the United States sent shockwaves across the nation. Contrary to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) official estimate that 1 in 68 American children are now autistic, the new data found 1 in 45 children, ages 3 through 17, have been diagnosed with the disorder. While the new numbers were calculated from a parental survey and aren’t an official replacement for the CDC estimate, the agency admits its data has limitations and could very well have underestimated the prevalence of autism in the U.S.
Regardless of which estimate is considered correct, the fact remains that parents, physicians and researchers have all seen a disturbing upward trend in autism over the last several decades. The debate continues as to why autism is on the rise, but there are no easy answers. Many within the medical and scientific community, as well as resourceful parents, have turned their attention instead to finding treatments and therapies that help ease, if not entirely erase, hallmark symptoms of the disorder. One approach which has shown promise is the use of a ketogenic diet.

A High-Fat Solution For Neurological Issues
For nearly 100 years, ketogenic diets have been prescribed to treat epilepsy patients — largely children — with great success. The high-fat, moderate protein, low carbohydrate diet has also in recent years been used effectively in slowing the onset of neurodegenerative disorders. And now researchers are finding the diet can help autistic individuals.
Conducted by a team of international scientists and led by Susan Masino, professor of psychology and neuroscience at Trinity College, Connecticut, the team was able to establish several beneficial aspects of a ketogentic diet for autistic symptoms.
“Although treatment strategies for children with autism spectrum disorders are under development, the ketogenic diet is available now and could offer multiple benefits,” Masino noted. “For example, children with autism and uncontrolled seizures have few options, and this research suggests a ketogenic diet could reduce seizures and improve behavior.” [source]
A ketogenic diet is used under medical supervision and was originally developed as a way to reduce seizures, especially in children. Since the diet significantly restricts carbohydrates and limits proteins, the body is forced to use fat instead of glucose for energy, which produces a metabolic state similar to fasting.
About a decade ago, a small study found autistic children who used an intermittent ketogenic diet experienced a considerable reduction in autistic symptoms, but the findings didn’t lead to controlled clinical or animal studies. That is, until Masino and her team began studying the affect ketogenic diets have on a range of neurological disorders, including autism.
The team used a mouse strain called BTBR that exhibits multiple characteristics of autism — like low sociability, poor perception of social cues and highly repetitive behaviors. When fed a normal diet, the mice displayed classic behavioral symptoms of autism.
But when a matched group of mice were given a ketogenic diet for three to four weeks, their autistic behaviors reversed to the point where the BTBR mice behaved like normal mice. They were more social and successful at perceiving social communication cues regarding food choice. The mice also groomed substantially less, indicating a reduction in repetitive behavior.
“Together, these behaviors represent the complement of core symptoms used to diagnose autism, and all were reversed by the ketogenic diet,” said Masino.
Since seizures are common in autistic individuals, the researchers needed to establish if the effects were linked with a ketogenic diet’s ability to treat epilepsy. Using a variety of tests — such as EEG recordings — the team found BTBR mice are not prone to having epilepsy or seizures. From this data, the researchers determined that the beneficial impact of a ketogenic diet on the symptoms of autism were independent of any anti-seizure effects.
According to a press release by Trinity College:
“Based on previous research on the ketogenic diet and on the causes of autism, multiple possible cellular changes may underlie these behavioral improvements. In addition to Masino’s hypothesis regarding adenosine, inflammation is emerging as an important factor in causing autism: a general decrease in inflammation due to the ketogenic diet could underlie its effectiveness against autistic symptoms. In a prior paper in PLOS ONE, Masino’s laboratory showed for the first time that a ketogenic diet can reduce inflammation in rats. Inflammation, adenosine, and other possible mechanisms are under investigation by several research groups.”
An earlier study in 1999 — by a different research team and involving 30 autistic children from Crete — found 26.66% of the participants benefited significantly from an intermittent ketogenic diet. The diet was followed in four week increments, with two weeks off where the children’s diet wasn’t restricted, for a total of six months. From this experiment, the researchers discovered a ketogenic diet increases levels of the calming neurotransmitter GABA.
“The increase of ketone bodies maintains the synaptosomal content of ?-aminobutyric acid (GABA) at a higher level, a phenomenon that may contribute to the beneficial effect of a ketogenic diet in children with epilepsy and perhaps children with autistic behavior. Other researchers, in an attempt to clarify the manner in which ketone bodies increase the synaptosomal content of GABA, showed that the metabolism of ketone bodies to acetyl coenzyme A results in a decrease of the pool of brain oxaloacetate, which is consumed in the citrate synthetase reaction. As less oxaloacetate is available for the aspartate aminotransferase reaction, thereby lowering the rate of glutamate transamination, more glutamate becomes accessible to the glutamate decarboxylase pathway, thus favoring the synthesis of GABA.” [source]
Moreover, this paper paper published in SAGE journals found a gluten-free, casein-free ketogenic diet substantially improved the Childhood Autism Rating Scale score of a autistic girl with epilepsy — with a decrease of 49 to 17 — representing a change from severe autism to non-autistic and an intelligence quotient increase of 70 points. Fourteen months after initiating the diet, she was also seizure-free.
Article sources:
N. B:  We have no access to Seafood nowadays, since the Fukushima event. 

TEST YOUR BODY FOR TOXINS

toxicology-testing-yellow-background


Roundup Gave Us Cancer

roundup glyphosate toxicity

Story at-a-glance

  • More than 800 people with cancer are suing Monsanto, the maker of Roundup, over claims the glyphosate-based herbicide caused non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma
  • Decades ago, Monsanto was able to persuade the EPA to change the classification of glyphosate from a Class C Carcinogen (suggestive carcinogenic potential) to Class E, which means there is evidence of non-carcinogenicity in humans
  • New research revealed a strong connection between large-scale Monarch butterfly deaths and glyphosate application
By Dr. Mercola
More than 800 people with cancer are suing Monsanto, the maker of Roundup, over claims the glyphosate-based herbicide made them ill — and Monsanto did little to warn the public, despite knowing cancer risks existed.1 In 2015, glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup, was determined to be a "probable carcinogen" by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), which is the research arm of the World Health Organization (WHO).
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), rather than taking immediate steps to protect Americans from this probable cancer-causing agent, decided to reassess its position on the chemical and, after doing so, released a paper in October 2015 stating that glyphosate is not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.2
In April 2016, the EPA posted the report online, briefly, before pulling it and claiming it was not yet final and posted by mistake. The paper was signed by Jess Rowland (among other EPA officials), who at the time was the EPA's deputy division director of the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention and chair of the Cancer Assessment Review Committee (CARC).

EPA Official Helped Stop a U.S. Investigation Into Glyphosate

Email correspondence showed Rowland helped stop a glyphosate investigation by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), which is part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, on Monsanto's behalf.
In an email, Monsanto regulatory affairs manager Dan Jenkins recounts a conversation he'd had with Rowland, in which Rowland said, "If I can kill this I should get a medal,”3 referring to the ATSDR investigation, which did not end up occurring. Jenkins also noted that Rowland was planning to retire in a few months and "could be useful as we move forward with ongoing glyphosate defense."4 And it gets even worse. According to The New York Times:5
“Court records show that Monsanto was tipped off to the determination by a deputy division director at the E.P.A., Jess Rowland, months beforehand. That led the company to prepare a public relations assault on the finding well in advance of its publication.”
The court records also show that in making the decision that glyphosate does not cause cancer, the EPA used two studies that had been ghostwritten by Monsanto’s toxicology manager but were published using names of academic researchers.6 Timothy Litzenburg's law firm represents more than 500 people with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma who are suing Monsanto. He told CNN he expects the number of lawsuits to keep rising:7
"It would not surprise me in the least if there are 2,000 to 3,000 cases by the end of the year … This is the most-used herbicide in the world ... from the largest farm operations to backyard gardens. It's ubiquitous."

Thirty-Year Glyphosate Cancer Cover-Up Revealed

Monsanto has used the EPA’s supposedly-not-final report in court hearings to suggest glyphosate is safe, but the plaintiffs’ attorneys asked for documents detailing Monsanto’s interactions with Rowland to be released. In March 2017, a judge unsealed the documents, which revealed disturbing information.
According to Sustainable Pulse, Monsanto was able to persuade the EPA to change the classification of glyphosate from a Class C Carcinogen (suggestive carcinogenic potential) to Class E, which means there is evidence of non-carcinogenicity in humans.8 The change occurred while Monsanto was creating Roundup Ready genetically engineered (GE) crops.
The news outlet also uncovered 1991 EPA documents detailing a Monsanto-funded study that found it may cause cancer. They reported, “[The study] was ‘reviewed’ again until it mysteriously showed no carcinogenic potential.” What’s more, the late Dr. George Levinskas, Monsanto’s former director of environmental assessment and toxicology, was reported involved in covering up the cancer risks of both PCBs in the ‘70s and, later, glyphosate in the ‘80s:9
“He wrote an internal company letter in 1985 stating the following: ‘Senior management at the EPA is reviewing a proposal to classify glyphosate as a class C ‘possible human carcinogen’ because of kidney adenomas in male mice. Dr. Marvin Kuschner will review kidney sections and present his evaluation of them to the EPA in an effort to persuade the agency that the observed tumors are not related to glyphosate.’”

California Labels Glyphosate as a Chemical Known to Cause Cancer

Meanwhile, while the federal EPA is allowing glyphosate usage to continue unchecked, California's Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) announced in 2015 that they intended to list glyphosate as a chemical known to cause cancer under Proposition 65, which requires consumer products with potential cancer-causing ingredients to bear warning labels.
Monsanto then filed formal comments with OEHHA saying the plan to list glyphosate as a carcinogen should be withdrawn. When they didn’t give in, Monsanto took it a step further and filed a lawsuit against OEHHA in January 2016 to stop the glyphosate/cancer classification. OEHHA filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, and a Fresno, California superior court judge ruled on their behalf in February 2017.
This means new lables will be appearing in California that include a cancer warning on Roundup and other glyphosate-containing weed killers, including Ortho Groundclear, KleenUp, Aquamaster, Sharpshooter, StartUp,Touchdown, Total Traxion, Vector and Vantage Plus Max II and others. Nathan Donley, a senior scientist at the Center for Biological Diversity and a former cancer researcher, told the Press Banner:
“When it comes to Roundup, California has become a national leader in flagging the very real danger posed by this vastly over-used pesticide … The state based its decision on the findings of the world’s most reliable, transparent and science-based assessment of glyphosate.”10

Scotts Pushes Cancer Chemical

Many people believe Scotts Miracle-Gro is owned by Monsanto. This isn’t true, but the two companies do have a close link. Scotts is the exclusive marketer of Roundup and generates about $154 million in total sales from the herbicide.11 With Monsanto’s reputation quickly tanking, however, The Motley Fool pointed out, “it's clear the Scotts Miracle-Gro name is getting besmirched by its association, and that … is tough to put a price tag on.”
While Monsanto brought in more than $3.5 billion from herbicide (primarily Roundup) sales in 2016, this pales in comparison to the $10 billion generated by Monsanto’s seed and genomics sector. Monsanto profits not only off the sales of Roundup but also, and more so, off the sale of the GE Roundup Ready seeds to go with it.
Scotts, on the other hand, enjoys no such double-dipping, but still paid Monsanto $300 million in 2015 to gain the rights to sell Roundup in China, Latin America and other markets.12 Another blow to their joint reputation occurred in 2003 when, with the permission of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Monsanto and Scotts performed a field trial of experimental GE grass which, like Roundup Ready crops, is impervious to Monsanto's Roundup herbicide.
The grass, a type of GE creeping bentgrass that was being designed specifically for use on golf courses, turned out to be extremely hardy, so much so that the test plot was shut down and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns that the grass could negatively affect endangered species in Oregon. But by then it was too late.
The grass had already spread beyond the test plot, including into a nearby national grassland preserve. More than a decade later, the invasive GE grass is still a problem in Oregon. This certainly didn’t help Scotts’ reputation, and some, including The Motley Fool, have suggested the company should simply stop selling Roundup:13
“It's hard to quantify exactly how many sales Scotts Miracle-Gro foregoes because of this partnership, and it is possible Roundup sales actually outweigh those lost, but there is still harm to the brand reputation, which seems like a preventable forced error. It might be one the lawn-care specialist would be better off not committing simply by not having Roundup in its portfolio.”

Roundup May Be Killing Butterflies

Numbers of Monarch butterflies have decreased by 90 percent since 1996. As usage of glyphosate has skyrocketed, milkweed, which is the only plant on which the adult monarch will lay its eggs, has plummeted.
In 2013, it was estimated that just 1 percent of the common milkweed present in 1999 remained in corn and soybean fields and, tragically, while milkweed is not harmed by many herbicides, it is easily killed by glyphosate.14 A 2017 study published in the journal Ecography further noted a strong connection between large-scale Monarch deaths and glyphosate application.15,16 Sarah Saunders, Michigan State University integrative biologist and lead study author said in a press release:17
“Our study provides the first empirical evidence of a negative association between glyphosate application and local abundance of adult monarch butterflies during 1994-2003, the initial phase of large-scale herbicide adoption in the Midwest."

2,4-D Is Another Toxic Agricultural Chemical

2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) is one of the ingredients in Agent Orange, which was used to defoliate battle fields in the jungles of Vietnam, with horrendous consequences to the health of those exposed.
It’s also a common ingredient in “weed and feed” lawn care products, because it kills weeds without harming grass, fruits or vegetables, the latter of which makes it very popular among farmers. It’s also very popular among backyard gardeners, however, and this population may spread it on even heavier than farmers do on their crops. As reported by KCET news:18
“In several studies, 2,4-D was the most common herbicide found in suburban areas, and other studies have detected the herbicide in two-thirds of interior air samples taken from households. The herbicide breaks down in around a month in rich, moist soils but can linger indefinitely in other settings, for instance as a constituent of household dust.
An Ohio study found 2,4-D in 98 percent of the homes tested, though just one of the homeowners reported having used the herbicide in recent weeks.”
This is concerning because, like glyphosate, IARC ruled 2,4-D a possible human carcinogen in 2015, and there is concern it may increase the risk of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and soft-tissue cancer known as sarcoma. Further, it’s an endocrine-disrupting chemical that may negatively affect thyroid hormones and brain development.
It may also be associated with birth defects, reduced fertility and neurological problems. Despite this, in 2014 the EPA approved the use of Enlist Duo — an herbicide manufactured by Dow Chemical that combines 2,4-D with Roundup, to be used on corn and soybeans genetically engineered to tolerate both 2,4-D and glyphosate.
“The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that by 2020, the use of 2,4-D on America's farms could rise between 100 percent and 600 percent now that it has been approved as part of Enlist Duo,” the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) stated, continuing:19
“According to [NRDC staff scientist Kristi] Pullen, ‘When you combine increased use with the potential for increased developmental, cancer, and other health impacts, you could create a perfect storm of hazard and exposure coming together.’”

Test Your Personal Glyphosate Levels

If you’d like to know your personal glyphosate levels, you can now find out, while also participating in a worldwide study on environmental glyphosate exposures. The Health Research Institute (HRI) in Iowa developed the glyphosate urine test kit, which will allow you to determine your own exposure to this toxic herbicide.
Ordering this kit automatically allows you to participate in the study and help HRI better understand the extent of glyphosate exposure and contamination. In a few weeks, you will receive your results, along with information on how your results compare with others and what to do to help reduce your exposure. We are providing these kits to you at no profit in order for you to participate in this environmental study.
In the meantime, eating organic as much as possible and investing in a good water filtration system for your home are among the best ways to lower your exposure to glyphosate and other pesticides.
In the case of glyphosate, it’s also wise to avoid crops like wheat and oats, which may be sprayed with glyphosate for drying purposes prior to harvest. As for the collusion between Monsanto and EPA, the lack of independence among regulators and promoters and distributors of health information has become of tremendous concern.
Due to a dramatic rise in scientific fraud and rampant conflict of interest, it's more important than ever to be able to gain access to the full set of data on research studies and identify potential conflicts of interest, as well as seek opinions from experts you know and trust, before making or taking a health recommendation.

Shocking New Low in Vaccine Debate — Boston Herald Calls for Violence Against Those Who Question Vaccine Safety

boston herald vaccine safety

Story at-a-glance

  • Measles outbreak in Minnesota is being blamed on the largely unvaccinated Somali community. Of the 51 documented cases, 47 were unvaccinated; 46 were Somali
  • Only 42 percent of the Somali population in Minnesota received the MMR vaccine in 2014. Many Somalis have rejected the MMR vaccine suspecting the community’s higher than average autism rate is related to vaccine damage
  • Boston Herald’s report on the measles outbreak concluded with a statement calling for those spreading “lies” about vaccines causing autism to be hanged
By Dr. Mercola
The vaccine industry, public health organizations and many media outlets parroting the pre-established talking points insist that the science on vaccines is settled: Vaccines are safe and the childhood vaccination schedule is scientifically sound. End of story. According to some, the matter is so settled that anyone questioning the data or pointing out inconsistencies and/or research showing harm should be executed as punishment for “lying.”
This despicable call for violence came from editorial staff at the Boston Herald. The whole nasty mess started with a measles outbreak in Minnesota, the blame for which has been placed on a large Somali community where vaccination rates have declined in recent years due to parents’ concerns about vaccine safety.

Measles Outbreak Blamed on Unvaccinated Somalis

According to reports, of the 51 documented measles cases in Minnesota, 47 were unvaccinated; 46 were Somali. In all, only 42 percent of the Somali population in Minnesota received the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine in 2014, down from 87 percent in 2005 and 2006.
The reason for the decline in MMR vaccination is easy enough to understand. Research has demonstrated that Americans of Somali descent have nearly double the rate of autism than the general public, and personal experiences with their children’s health deteriorating after vaccination have raised serious questions and suspicions in the Somali community that the MMR vaccine might play a role. As reported by Inquisitr:1
“In 2013, a report from the University of Minnesota estimated that about [1] in 32 Somali children ages [7] through [9] … had been diagnosed with autism in 2010 …
The lack of vaccination in the Somali community in Minnesota led to a report in [The] Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine.2 That paper indicated that most parents in the Somali community refused vaccines because they believed that vaccines caused autism.
When asked why they felt that vaccines cause autism, every single one of the parents reported that they feel that vaccines cause autism ‘because they knew a child who received the MMR vaccine and then got autism.’ One-fifth of the Somali Minnesotan parents had researched the topic themselves ‘and believed that science supports the connection’ between autism and vaccines.”

Boston Herald Takes Cyberbullying to a Whole New Level

In what has been called a “scalding anti-anti-vax op-ed,”3 the Boston Herald’s May 8 report on the Minnesota measles outbreak concluded with the following statement:4
“These are the facts: Vaccines don’t cause autism. Measles can kill. And lying to vulnerable people about the health and safety of their children ought to be a hanging offense.”
This obnoxious paragraph led to hundreds of angry comments, at least one of which pointed out the hanging threat was an open violation of Massachusetts’ 2014 law against cyberbullying.5,6 Others rightfully suggested that if lying to the public about health was a hanging offense, then many high-ranking health officials, researchers and drug manufacturers would earn a place at the front of the line.7
As extreme as the Boston Herald’s comment is, it’s not the first time mandatory vaccination proponents have made callous calls for violent action against those questioning vaccine safety. As noted by The Vaccine Reaction, published by the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC):8
“In March … Scientific American published an article by Peter Hotez, M.D,. of Texas Children’s Hospital, also inciting violence against people who do not agree with current government vaccine policies. Dr. Hotez stated: ‘An American antivaccine movement is building and we need to take steps now to snuff it out.’
In 2015, USA Today published a column by Alex Berezow advocating that ‘anti-vax’ parents should be imprisoned. At the time, that seemed to be a draconian proposal, but certainly less so compared to today’s calls for execution.”

Claims of Coincidence No Longer Hold Water

Vaccine injuries are becoming like cancer — the prevalence is so high, most people know someone who has suffered a serious side effect from a vaccine. And, as vaccine injuries multiply, claims of "coincidence" are getting increasingly harder to swallow.
This is precisely what we’re seeing among Minnesota’s Somali community, where many now reject the MMR vaccine based on the community’s firsthand experiences. Another example is Mississippi. It has one of the highest vaccination rates in the U.S. It also has one of the highest autism rates.9 Another coincidence?
In the absence of firm proof either way, many parents call for the legal right to make voluntary decisions about which vaccines their child should receive and if or when they should be given. Indeed, being able to exercise informed consent to medical risk-taking, including making voluntary decisions about vaccination, is one of the most basic human rights we have.
The numbers of children suffering with chronic illness and disability, including autism spectrum disorders, are increasing. Of this there is no doubt. The numbers of children and adults who have experienced serious vaccine reactions are also increasing. Of this there is no doubt either.

Boston Herald, Retract Your Hate Speech

To simply turn a blind eye to these phenomena would be foolish in the extreme. Threatening violence in an effort to scare people away from looking at the possible links, if anything, should be deemed a criminal offense. Barbara Loe Fisher, president and co-founder of the NVIC, has warned for many years:
“If the State can tag, track down and force individuals to be injected with biologicals of known and unknown toxicity today, then there will be no limit on which individual freedoms the state can take away in the name of the greater good tomorrow.”
Considering we’re now seeing rhetoric calling for the killing of anyone advocating for safer vaccines, more humane vaccine policies and informed consent protections, it seems reasonable to say we’ve entered some very frightening territory. If leading news outlets are allowed to call for lethal action against people accused of “lying” about vaccines when they are more likely simply reporting facts and raising concerns that contradict the official rhetoric, then what comes next?
Most states don’t even allow capital punishment for mass murderers, yet Boston Herald editors want to hang people for bringing up the possibility that vaccines might do harm?! I join neurodevelopment disorder researcher James Lyons-Weiler,10 author of “The Environmental and Genetic Causes of Autism,” in calling for the Herald to retract the editorial and issue an apology for its inflammatory comments. This kind of hate speech cannot be tolerated.

Fact on Legal Record: Vaccines Are Unavoidably Unsafe

In 1986, Congress passed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, a law that includes provisions shielding vaccine manufacturers and doctors from liability when a vaccine causes a permanent disability or death.11
The reason drug makers and doctors were granted wholesale immunity against liability was because Congress and the Supreme Court concluded that government licensed vaccines are “unavoidably unsafe,”12 and vaccine makers therefore should not be held liable for vaccine injuries and deaths resulting from government mandated vaccines.
Remember that Supreme Court ruling whenever drug industry bobbleheads insist that the science is settled and vaccines are “safe.” Government licensed vaccines have been declared unavoidably unsafe, and that’s a matter of legal record.13,14 More importantly, the science is still wide-open with regard to whether or not vaccines cause autism.

Recent Research Reopens Vaccine-Autism Question

A paper15 published in the peer-reviewed, open-access Journal of Translational Science on April 24, 2017, is a cross-sectional study of 6- to 12-year-olds exploring the association between preterm birth, vaccination and neurodevelopmental disorders, using data from both vaccinated and unvaccinated populations.
Preemies receive the same vaccines and number of doses recommended by the federal childhood vaccination schedule as full-term babies, and on the same time schedule, and the impact of vaccines on preemies has never been evaluated. Premature birth is a well-known risk factor for neurodevelopmental problems. However, here they found that when premature infants were not vaccinated, the association between preterm birth and neurodevelopmental disorders was nonexistent. They also found that:
  • Term birth with vaccination was associated with a 2.7-fold increase in the odds of neurodevelopmental disorders compared to unvaccinated full-term babies
  • Preterm birth with vaccination was associated with a 5.4-fold increase in the odds of neurodevelopmental disorders compared to the odds of neurodevelopmental disorders given term birth and vaccination
  • Preterm birth with vaccination was associated with a 12.3-fold increased odds of neurodevelopmental disorders compared to preterm birth without vaccination
So, is the science truly settled when one of the first studies of its kind — one that actually compares vaccinated versus unvaccinated populations —finds vaccination increases a child’s odds of a neurodevelopmental disorder such as autism by 270 percent?
I’m not saying “vaccines cause autism.” I’m saying it’s unscientific to say “vaccines don’t cause autism.” Overwhelmingly, the evidence tells us that scientists still do not know for sure either way — which is why we so desperately need more and better quality research. In the meantime, death threats for reporting on and investigating these controversies are what really needs to be “snuffed out.”

More Research Questioning Vaccine Efficacy

I recently interviewed Neil Miller, medical research journalist, on his outstanding book “Miller’s Review of Critical Vaccine Studies: 400 Important Scientific Papers Summarized for Parents and Researchers.” His book has two studies that he personally published that document serious concerns about vaccines.
Our fascinating interview will be posted later this year but in the meantime, I wanted to share the highlights of the interview by mentioning the two studies Miller published.
The U.S. requires infants to receive 26 vaccine doses, the most in the world, yet 33 nations have better infant mortality rates. His first study, published in 2011,16 analyzed the vaccination schedules of 34 developed nations and found a significant correlation between infant mortality rates and the number of vaccine doses infants receive.
Nations that require the most vaccines tend to have the worst infant mortality rates. The study found that developed nations that require the least number of infant vaccines tend to have the best infant mortality rates.
His second study, published in 2012,17 analyzed 38,801 reports in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) of infants who had adverse events after receiving vaccinations. Infants who received the most vaccines concurrently were significantly more likely to be hospitalized or die, compared to infants who received fewer vaccines concurrently.
This study was designed to determine a) whether infants who receive several vaccines simultaneously rather than fewer are more likely to be hospitalized or die, and b) whether younger infants are more likely than older infants to be hospitalized or die after receiving vaccines.

Not Knowing Whether Vaccines Cause Autism Is Not the Same as Being Sure They Don’t

In 2013, a physician committee at the Institute of Medicine (IOM), National Academy of Sciences, concluded that the current federally recommended childhood vaccine schedule for infants and children from birth to age 6 had not been adequately studied for safety,18 and that studies are needed to examine the:
  • Long-term cumulative effects of vaccines
  • Timing of vaccination in relation to the age and health of the child
  • Effects of the total load or number of vaccines given at one time
  • Effect of vaccine ingredients in relation to health outcomes
  • Biological mechanisms of vaccine-associated injury
More specifically, the IOM committee concluded there was insufficient scientific evidence to determine whether or not the numbers of doses and timing of federally recommended vaccines children receive in the first six years of life are associated with the development of chronic brain and immune system disorders that affect a child’s intellectual development, learning, attention, communication and behavior, such as ADD/ADHD, learning disabilities and autism.

There’s Not Enough Evidence to Confirm or Deny Causation

Before that, the IOM’s vaccine safety review, “Adverse Effects of Vaccines: Evidence and Causality,”19 published in 2011, which looked at eight specific vaccines, including the MMR, concluded there was insufficient evidence to either confirm or deny causation for most reported poor health outcomes — including autism — following receipt of these vaccines.
In other words, based on the scientific evidence, WE DO NOT KNOW whether vaccines cause autism. So again, when one-size-fits-all vaccine proponents claim to know the score and that “vaccines don’t cause autism,” they’re not telling the whole truth. Should they hang by the neck for that? Importantly, the IOM’s 2011 report also highlighted the fact that:
  • Some people are more vulnerable to suffering vaccine reactions and injury for biological, genetic and environmental reasons
  • In most cases physicians do not know what those individual susceptibilities are
  • It’s virtually impossible to predict ahead of time who will be harmed by vaccination

First Do No Harm

What this tells us is that we need to apply the precautionary principle of “first do no harm.” Insisting on a one-size-fits-all vaccine schedule guarantees that a certain number of people will be harmed, although we do not know exactly who or how many, since we still don’t know exactly why and to what extent some people are more susceptible to vaccine damage than others.
The issue of vaccine safety is truly one of epic proportions, because the side effects, when they occur, are typically lifelong or lethal. We cannot afford to abandon the conversation about vaccine safety out of fear of harassment (or the threat of hanging), because the issue of forced vaccinations is cropping up everywhere you turn these days.
For example, a recent bill before the Texas House of Representatives to reform the state's foster care system included a sneaky provision requiring foster children to get prompt medical exams.20
Suspecting the provision had the aim of forcing vaccinations, retired medical consultant Bill Zedler, R-District 96, introduced an amendment to prevent doctors from vaccinating foster children during these legally required medical exams, upholding parents’ rights to make vaccination decisions.

Public Health Measures to Prevent Disease Must Include Safeguards for All

We must continue pushing for greater safety for all children and adults, not just for those lucky enough to be free of individual susceptibility to vaccine damage. Human sacrifice is no longer a permissible religious practice. Why should it be permissible in medical practice? As noted in The Vaccine Reaction:21
“[E]ach of us has the basic human right to be informed about any medical intervention a doctor proposes to perform on us or our minor children, and we have the right to consent or not to consent to that intervention … According to Barbara Loe Fisher … informed consent is an ‘overarching ethical principle in the practice of medicine for which vaccination should be no exception’ …
‘We maintain this is a responsible and ethically justifiable position to take in light of the fact that vaccination is a medical intervention performed on a healthy person that has the inherent ability to result in the injury or death of that healthy person.’”