Meet Charlie

A boy with autism born in the 1950’s.

The link is here.

This is a haunting story. Some points that leap out at me:

  1. Parents being afraid that the child with autism would harm younger siblings (I’ve heard similar stories from families I know).
  2. The bad advice given by the doctors — “put your kid in an institution”
  3. The way that this advice affected the parents, who were haunted by their decision. The mom on her deathbed asking about the child with autism rings true.
  4. The short lifespan of Charlie. Apparently he was well cared for but did not live a full life in the institution.

Read this story, and perhaps you’ll understand why people like me are so desperate for a cure to autism. At a minimum, we should be preventing it to the greatest extent possible.

The Reality of Autism

Another heartbreaking story, taken right out of the news.  Please read it if you would like to know what the reality of autism is for actual families.  For those who read this and know me personally, you know that I will never stop protecting and helping my son Matthew with everything that I am.  But if we were gone, then what?

The article is here.

 

Most families hide their plight out of love and respect and even fear of making the dark side of autism public. Parents are beaten, siblings cower in fear, families face collapse. This is the side of autism you rarely see or her about. Except at Age of Autism, and we take a drubbing for it. We don’t care…..

Here’s the looming pandemic conveniently ignored for the present. Will officials be holding daily updates on the number of young adults descending on the welfare system?

Jul 13, 2020, (Canada) CBC: Winnipeg woman beaten by 16-year-old son with autism says she can no longer care for him

A Winnipeg woman says she’s no longer able to care for her 16-year-old son, who has autism, because of his violence toward her.

She wants to surrender guardianship to Winnipeg Child and Family Services — but the agency says he needs to stay with her. 

CBC News is not identifying the woman or her son to protect their privacy. We’ve given her the pseudonym of Olivia and her son the pseudonym of Noah.

Noah has been diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder and suffers from anxiety. 

“He is strong. He can throw me. That’s a bad day, Bruises. Lots of bruises, and just anger.… I think I’ve lost consciousness one time,” Olivia said….

Olivia said there have been numerous instances when she’s locked him out of the house and called police after he’s beaten her.

Police have been able to calm him down, she says, but in a few days, he’d act violently again. Officers have asked her to file a formal complaint, but she refused.

Noah is nearly six feet tall. He’s talented, smart and can come across as a “know-it-all,” his mother said. He has been home-schooled all his life. …

Olivia said her son was apprehended by Winnipeg’s Family and Child Services last December, when a pediatrician notified CFS after hearing about Noah’s violence. 

Noah was placed into the agency’s Emergency Placement Resource program — where he was  temporarily housed at shelters and hospitals. But Olivia said on June 15, a court ordered Noah to live with her permanently — a decision she said is not realistic. …

Dr. Jennifer Frain, a clinical psychologist and the executive director of New Directions — an organization dedicated to providing services for people with disabilities — said violence from people with autism results from lacking other means to express themselves.

“Autism is sensory and behavioural. The world is not processed in the same way as for other folks,” Frain said. ….

Frain said a long-term solution needs to be put in place for Noah, including a specialized placement, such as a group home, with staff trained to work with people with disabilities. Staff could also work with his mom to ensure they have a healthy and strong relationship. 

Olivia said the court order also asked her to contact Youth Mobile Crisis Services, CFS and police immediately should a physical assault happen. But Olivia said there have been times when her son would prevent her from using her phone, making it impossible to call anyone.

“The violence just keeps escalating. He punches and he kicks. And he’s really strong. I can’t defend myself, and if I do defend myself, it enrages him more,” she said. …

Olivia said since Noah was placed in the Emergency Placement Resource program in December, he ran away from shelters and hospitals about a dozen times. 

Police were called in, and searches were escalated because he’s considered a vulnerable person….

The Department of Families said the emergency placement program is only used when it is unsafe for a child to remain where they are residing and no other placement options are available….

Specialized placements lacking 

Frain and Penrose believe a child like Noah should be put into a specialized placement, where he can have access to trained professionals and services.   

“Pivoting toward specialized placements is the most appropriate thing to do when dealing with any type of child with a significantly high need and where their self-regulation can become quite aggressive,” Penrose said. …

But specialized placements, which are individually customized, are hard to come by.

“In the CFS system … we don’t have a lot of extra resources or extra space,” she said. 

“It’s oftentimes that I need to develop or define a [placement],” Frain said. “But there’s often a waiting list for those kinds of specialized beds, and they’re more expensive than a regular foster home.” 

Frain said New Directions has opened four homes for children with autism, who were languishing in the shelter system. Those homes remain full today, as the children mature into adulthood. …

She said it’s concerning to hear Noah will remain living with his mom, especially when she feels unsafe. 

“When the system is taxed the way it is, perhaps that’s the best solution that they understand, but I believe there can be collaborative solutions that don’t include leaving it up to the parent who’s already in active burnout.”

Respite not enough, says mother 

Since June 26, Noah has been staying at his mom’s house. She said CFS staff fear that if he was placed at a shelter and ran away, his safety would be jeopardized because of the heat. 

Olivia was granted respite care for four hours a day two weeks ago, but said it doesn’t help much.

“I’m exhausted,” she said. “I’m old. I can’t take this any more.” 

She said she’s made it clear to CFS she wants to surrender guardianship. 

“I love him dearly. There’s nothing I wouldn’t do.… I would die for this child if his life could just be made better. But I’m also realistic.”

A Parent’s Assessment of Son-Rise

autism treatement

When it comes to autism, one thing is most certainly true:  Parents are desperate and frantic to help their children.  This has been true since before autism rates began to skyrocket in the 1990’s.  One of the oldest programs in existence is the “Son-Rise Program for Autism” which is offered through the Autism Treatment Center of America (ATCA, as it’s known).

Who is the Son-Rise Program?

It’s a group of folks who live and work at the Center, a 100-acre compound in Sheffield, MA, in western Massachusetts.  Several buildings are set in a wooded, remote area, with meeting rooms, training rooms, and living areas.  The proponents of the Son-Rise technique are Bears and Samahria Kaufman, along with their son Raun.  According to the website, Raun, was diagnosed as severely and incurably autistic. Although advised to institutionalize him because of his “hopeless, lifelong condition,” the Kaufmans instead designed an innovative home-based, child-centered program in an attempt to reach their little boy. The Kaufmans’ unique program, which marked a complete departure from existing methods of treatment, transformed Raun from a mute, withdrawn child with an IQ of less than 30 into a highly verbal, socially interactive youngster with a near-genius IQ.

The program has several other folks who live/work at the ATCA compound, performing training and doing other tasks related to the mission.  You’ll see them in some of the Son-Rise Youtube videos.  It began in the 1970’s making it nearly 45 years old at this time, far older than most any other autism program in existence.

What does the Son-Rise program promise?   

The unmistakable promise is that if you use this program, you child will completely recover from autism.  This is the message of the program itself, which touts that Raun “bears no traces of his former condition.”  It’s also the message of the 1970’s movie that bears the name The Son-Rise Program® – A Miracle Of Love (available to watch for free on Youtube).  The movie tells the story of the Kaufmans and concludes with a lady telling Raun that he emerged from autism, and that Raun “was born perfect.”  Videos on the site have titles such as “Fully Recovered From Autism: Jake’s Son-Rise Program Journey.”  These messages give you the hope that your child with autism can also emerge perfect, with a full recovery.

The website is clear, however, that there are no promises or guarantees.

What sort of Evidence Supports the Son-Rise Program?

In a word:  testimonials.   The ATCA website is replete with them.  Videos (slick productions on their website & YouTube channel), written statements without names.  A lot of hype and excitement, but nothing that can be independently verified.

What is missing from the testimonials about the Son-Rise Program are full names, locations, and ways of reaching out to verify these stories.

Another disturbing fact about the Son Rise testimonials is that they are generally taken from you while you are in Sheffield, MA, at the program, not a year or more afterwards.

What does Son-Rise Therapy Look Like?

Put simply:  The approach focuses on loving your child, and joining him in his world.  By showing your love and acceptance, your child will see that you love him, and then allow you to lead him out of the world of autism.  If your child is rocking back and forth, or spinning plates, you should join in with these actions as well, rather than discouraging the stims.   What this looks like is to bring your child into a “playroom” shut off from distractions.  This should be done for most of the day:  no exit from the playroom except to eat, sleep, and use the bathroom.  The ATCA actively encourages parents to take their kids out of school to pursue this play-based therapy.  The ATCA  also discourages other modes of treatment, such as ABA therapy, which it claims is akin to making kids into robots.

Therapy goes on for several hours per day, of course.  You are encouraged to be happy and enthusiastic with your child.  “Thank you for Looking at me!” is an exclamation that is used a lot, to encourage eye-contact and the child’s improved attention.  Main techniques include wearing silly hats, speaking imaginatively, and trying to make the time fun when the child shows interest in you.   When the child is withdrawn into a stim or self-isolated, then you should join the child by doing the same thing that the child is doing.  You’ll need to recruit several volunteers to help with this program, as nobody can play constantly for the entire day.

Having had nearly 20 volunteers over the years, I can say that most of these people are big-hearted and willing to help.   Some are trying to get in community service hours (as required at certain school programs for teens).  These folks deserve praise for giving their unpaid time to strangers for the purpose of helping a kid to recover from autism.  The downside is that volunteers tend to be unreliable, and we have never had a volunteer work with us for more than a few months, which is not enough time to really learn the Son Rise program.  And we’ve had incidents in which a volunteer showed up and was an elderly lady with a car completely filled with trash, and other such situations that are clearly unacceptable.  Would you really want anyone to work with your child with autism, who cannot speak for him/her self?

The Kaufmans promote the Option Method, a self-help movement built on the idea that people can change their feelings by changing their beliefs.  If you truly love your child, you can lead them out of autism.  And of course, the un-spoken threat is that if your child does not recover from austim, then you don’t love your child enough.

Sounds Great!   What does it Cost?

Tens of thousands.  Most of the programs are a week long.  There is the startup program, and then several follow ups.  The tuition is a bit over $2000 per parent per week.  This does not include transportation costs, so for an out-of-area couple to go for a week would cost at least $5,000, just for the first session.

Other avenues include a weeklong session where you bring your child, and also opportunities to have Son-Rise trainers come to your house for a few days to train you and your volunteers.  They even have an online training course you can take at home.  Prices vary.  Some families have spent as much as $50,000 on the ATCA programs over the years, some even more.  Families are encouraged to fund-raise, crowd-fund, and do whatever it takes to get the tuition available.  After all, what could be more important than the future of your child?

What do other people say about the Son-Rise Program?

If you only look at the Son-Rise program’s website (https://autismtreatmentcenter.org/), you’ll probably join other parents in thinking that it’s the best hope for your child.  There is much enthusiasm in the program, and the website and materials look very professional.

If you really want to evaluate something, you need to look at it from multiple angles, ESPECIALLY critics.  Here is what was I found from three prominent accounts about the Son-Rise program:

  1.  Brendan Borrell wrote THIS very insightful piece for Slate in 2017.   It’s worth a read.  Some of the highlights include the quasi-religious nature of the Son-Rise program, its rigidity, and its focus on absolute loyalty to the Kaufman family.  It mentions the budget of the ATCA, which was about $6 million a year back in 2017.  It also demonstrates how lacking the Son-Rise program is in serious evidence for its effectiveness.  The Son-Rise program has no proof beyond testimonials by people who are not fully named (other than Raun Kaufman).  Attempts to study its effectiveness are nearly non-existent, which is shocking for a program that is over 40 years old.  No evaluation of how families are feeling about it years after attending the training, and whether they believe their kids are better off or worse.  The Son-Rise program is also willing to sue others who are infringing on their turf, as this Slate article describes.  Hardly the behavior I’d expect from an outfit dedicated to helping our disabled kids.
  2. The Autism Community in Action.  This is in contrast to other Autism related programs that exist in this world.  TACA, which I support heartily, is generally free.  They might charge you $5 for their guide, or $75 to attend a conference.  You get access to other parents at local groups that are generally free and run by parent volunteers who earn nothing.  At TACA, we name names.  Anyone who wants to reach out can often call other parents for support, or for ideas.  The import of this is that I had a talk with Glen Ackerman, one of the founders of TACA, a few years ago.  He’s a stand-up guy and husband to the heroic Lisa Ackerman.  He has met Raun Kaufman.  Glen’s opinion was that the Kaufman family was in it for the money, and that they do whatever they need to in order to get that money.  It was refreshing to hear a direct criticism like this.
  3. Craig Schulze.  Finally, if you really want to hear an honest review by two parents who went through the Son-Rise program, read the book “When Snow Turns to Rain“.   In it, he describes how he and his wife experienced the program in the early 1990’s.  He was taken in by a “place that advertises miracles” (p. 88).  He notes, however, that only Raun Kaufman, and an un-named Mexican boy, are the only children who Son-Rise had claimed to ‘cure’ at that time.
  4. Schulze describes how every staff member at Son-Rise is involved in a ‘conspiracy of celebration’ and bears an extremely sunny disposition.   He was hard-pressed, however, to pay the $4500 a week in tuition.  He writes: “there’s a ton of overhead here, even if they are paying their staff squat.”   He makes the best critique ever of the Son-Rise program (pages 95-97), when he argues:  “How likely is it that a child who makes minimal eye contact and has serious receptive language deficits is picking up subtle cues from the behavior of others” when they are ‘mirroring’?   The Schulzes are asked to give a review before they even leave the ATCA compound.  They go home to implement the program for about 6 months, giving it their all in every way possible, before realizing that it did nothing to improve their son.Capture

What do you think, Brian?

If you know much about me, then you know that the only way I talk it to tell the truth as straight as I can.   Here is the truth that I see, based on my wife’s attempts to work this program for Matthew starting back in late 2015 to the present.

  • The Son-Rise program is not a cure for autism.
  • There is no good evidence for the Son-Rise Program, and indeed the ATCA actively discourages the collection of accurate data, relying instead on testimonials that it controls.
  • The founders, mostly the Kaufman family, are completely dedicated to making as much money as possible, and supporting their lavish lifestyle on the 100-acre compound in western Mass.  This overshadows everything that concerns the ATCA and the Son-Rise Program.  Why else would they sue other people to try to stop them from helping kids (see the Slate article, above)?
  • All that being said, Son-Rise does encourage you to love and cherish your child, and to play with your child in a happy and enthusiastic way.  Clearly that is good.  Son-Rise has a few techniques that seem to work, somewhat.  I believe that the Hanen program for autism, is more effective than Son-Rise, and you can learn it pretty well  implement Hanen through buying a $10 book.  I also learned quite a bit from it by attending a free parent training that was held locally.
  • Son-Rise offers a simple solution to a complex problem.  It ignores the medical issues that underlie autism.  It focuses solely on its behavioral therapy, and the attitude of those who work with the child in the playroom.  Son-Rise is good, in that it emphasizes love and acceptance of your child, and the hope for a better future.  It’s bad because using one approach, the Son-Rise playroom approach, will not work by itself.  Son-Rise lies to parents claiming that it’s the only true path.  I also do not approve of the message that if you don’t follow Son-Rise, and pay tons of money to the ATCA, then you’re a bad parent who wants your child to end up in an institution.

Brian, March 2020.

 

 

 

 

Vaccine Conflicts of Interest

Conflictsss

 

Let’s start by telling a little story.  Recently, I was at a public event, and ran into someone at a table selling CBD oil (CBD is all the rage).  I am interested in this subject and wanted to find out more.  After the conversation, the only new thing that I learned was that this salesman wanted me to buy his company’s CBD oil.  The moral of the story:  A salesman who is trying to sell you something is probably not the best source of information about that thing.  The problem at the root of this situation is a conflict of interest.  The salesman only makes money by selling to me.  He does not make money by giving me impartial, evidence-based information.

This conflict of interest problem is systematic on the subject of vaccines.  Here are some specific ways this is the case:

The US Government’s Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Centers for Disease Control (CDC) are the two main agencies that work on vaccines.  These agencies work hand in hand with industry.  Funding of these agencies is much as 75% of their budget in the form of “user fees”.” These user fees are derived from the pharmaceutical industry and vaccine sales.  So here’s the conflict of interest:  On the one hand the FDA and CDC are responsible for insuring the safety of vaccines, but on the other hand these agencies get their funding from the Pharma corporations that provide 75% of agency funding.  Would an agency be willing to say that a Pharma product is unsafe, knowing that by doing so it would reduce its own funding?

US Government agencies, mostly the FDA or National Institute of Health (NIH) also hold as many as 155 patents that are related to vaccines, for which the US Government receives royalties.  Guess what?  These governmental agencies have an interest in increasing their funding, and this is best accomplished by increasing sales of the vaccines for which the US Government holds patents.  Increased funding is not achieved by doing a thorough and impartial investigation into vaccine safety, which may result in limiting or even withdrawing vaccines, and thus reducing money received.  And here is a shocking fact:  There are government officials who directly benefit, financially, from vaccine sales.

The end result is that governmental agencies including the FDA, NIH, and CDC become “Captured Agencies.”  That is, they operate “essentially as advocates for the industries they regulate,” neglecting their duty to act in the public’s interest.  The CDC and FDA spend millions of dollars annually encouraging the public to get vaccines.  But they spend very little on vaccine safety.  They do not warn the public about the 400 deaths per year reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).  Such a warning might decrease vaccine sales, and thus agency revenue.

And here’s another way that conflicts of interest arise:  The Revolving Door.  To take one glaring example, Dr. Julie Gerberding was the head of the CDC and approved vaccines during a time when the schedule of recommended shots exploded from 12 to 72 immunizations for kids by the time they turn 18 years old.  In 2009, she left the CDC and became president of Merck & Co Inc’s vaccine division.  In her new position at Merck, she earns an estimated $10 million per year, a sum she has received annually since 2009.  Do you think that Dr. Gerberding was a vigorous advocate for public health during her time as head of the CDC, or do you think that she may have bent the rules a bit to please Merck & Co.?  Even a small tilt of the scale could have disastrous results on the health human beings in the US and around the world.

And there are hundreds of Julie Gerberdings out there, rotating between industry and government, with very little ethical oversight of the fact that money will corrupt their public decision making.  As another example, consider the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).  This is the governmental agency that decides whether or not to approve vaccines for the recommended schedule.  Many participants are members of the industry that is regulated.  Many are people who hold patents on the vaccines, either personally or through their employer.  People on this panel only get paid if they increase vaccine profits.  Will they be looking out for the people or will they be pushing vaccines as much as possible to make money for themselves?

Here is another area where a conflict of interest hurts the public.  The US Government is supposed to protect the people.  But under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (aka “Vaccine Court), if you are injured by a vaccine,  you are not allowed to sue doctor or the maker of the vaccine.  Instead, you must go to Vaccine Court where the US Department of Justice provides an attorney who will fights against your claim.  It’s estimated that less than 1% of vaccine injuries are ever reported.  And even less than that 1% ever result in claims in Vaccine Court.  And yet there have been thousands of claimants and over $4 billion in damages paid out to injured parties by Vaccine Court.  The conflict of interest is that the US Government sheds its role as protector of the people, and instead uses its resources to fight against vaccine injury claimants (the people, in other words) on behalf of itself and the pharma industry.

Many more examples exist.

  • Medical journals get guaranteed ad revenues from Pharma, which means they are highly motivated to suppress any research that questions vaccines and thus hurts pharma profit.

 

  • Research studies are almost always funded by industry.  This puts a great deal of pressure on researchers to produce results that are favorable to industry.

 

  • And here’s a frightening conflict of interest:  Under a “Pay for Performance” model, some Doctors only get paid if they fully vaccinate all patients in accordance with the CDC’s schedule.  They have no incentive to warn patients who may be susceptible to injury, and indeed cannot be liable if a patient is injured.

 

 

An example of a pay-for-performance model is the Michigan Blue Cross Blue Shield “Performance Recognition Program,” which uses “meaningful” payments to reward Blue Care Network HMO providers “who encourage their patients to get preventive screenings and procedures.”  For vaccination, providers receive $400 for each eligible two-year-old who has received all 24-25 vaccines by that age (including flu shots)—but only if the provider manages to administer each and every shot to at least 63% of his or her patients. Pediatricians who achieve the 63% threshold stand to make an additional $40,000 in bonus payments for every 100 fully vaccinated two-year-olds.  Industry gives doctors an incentive to push vaccination on patients.  This turns the professional and moral obligation of the doctor towards the patient on its head, and makes the doctor push patients to do what will make the most money for the doctor.  And remember, under the NCVIA, the doctor cannot be liable if a vaccine injures a child, so there is no dis-incentive to push vaccines.  As a lawyer, I can assure you I’d be dis-barred if I gave bad advice to a client because someone else promised to pay me to give that bad advice.  At a minimum, I’d be required to disclose the financial conflict of interest and obtain the full informed consent of my client in anything like this situation.

 

So who is looking out for the people?  Since the passage of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, it’s definitely not the US Government.

What is the solution?  There are two big ones.  It’s easy to say what they are, but hard to implement in the real world:

  1. An agency that is funded by the public (not industry) to monitor and improve vaccine safety. This should be a US Government institution that is fully transparent and free of conflicts.  A lifetime ban on its members from ever working for industry on the one hand or vaccine claimants or trial lawyers on the other hand.
  2. Elimination of the NCVIA so that vaccine makers can be sued. This would put a big incentive on industry to make its products safer.

 

I realize that there are those of my friends who disagree with me on vaccines and accept the slogan that all vaccines are safe and effective all the time.  You have the right to your beliefs.  But even the most staunch pro-vaccine believer should also favor elimination of the obvious conflicts of interest noted above, and be in favor of doing work that makes vaccines safer.  Removal of obvious conflicts of interest would go a long way to promoting safety in vaccines, which is a goal everyone should support.

Even Brian Deer, a fierce critic of Andrew Wakefield and “anti-vaxxers,” admits that there should be an independent agency that is dedicated only to vaccine safety, rather than both safety and promotion of vaccines.    He said exactly this in a recent BBC documentary, “the Vaccine Wars.”

deer

Deer’s words were:  “There is a very valid criticism of CDC in that it is both a cheerleader, the preeminent cheerleader, for immunization and it also plays a major role in safety research. I think the only way to resolve that is for vaccine safety issues to be moved to a separate entity that does nothing but, if you like, find fault with vaccines.”

Very sensible words from one of the chief figures of the “Pro-Vaxxer” side.  So if you want to know why I and millions of others are skeptical about vaccine safety claims, then consider these well-founded objections based on conflict of interest.

The Top 5 Autism Triggers

Capture

This video sums up the best thinking I’ve ever seen on the subject.  Folks:  We are facing a crisis of autism.  2% of kids are being diagnosed with autism.  They may never get a job, get married, or participate fully in life.  It’s a crisis.

To me, this raises two questions:

  1. What can we do to prevent autism?
  2. How can we recover kids who already have autism?

The first question is what we’re dealing with here.   Have a watch of this:

TOP 5 AUTISM TRIGGERS

To sum up quickly, here are the five things that are working together to cause autism:

  1. Mercury from coal-fired plants & diesel trucks.
  2. Ingredients in plastics
  3. Pesticides & herbicides
  4. EMF & RFR’s, Cell phones/ wifi radiation, etc.
  5. Pharmaceuticals, specifically Tylenol, SSRI anti-depressants, and vaccines.

These are creating the total toxic load on kids.  Reducing this load would lead to a reduction of autism.

One very easy step would be to ban Tylenol or SSRI use in pregnant women.  This does not mean that pregnant women must have headaches, they could use aspirin or motrin, just not Tylenol which is well associated with increased risk for autism.

This is the most sensible talk I’ve seen yet on how to address the root cause of autism.  Mainstream medicine is giving us nothing, and the ideas here are worth a look.

My thanks to Political Economist, Toby Rogers, for giving this talk.

Living With Autism

What’s it like to live with Autism?  Really live with it?

Most of you, my friends and family, will never know.  You might spend a little time hanging out with me & Matthew.  But you’ll have no understanding of the way it works 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, on into months and years.

To get a glimpse into the life of a family with a child who has autism, please consider watching this 28-minute video, or even just 5-6 minutes in the middle of it:

The video was produced by a show called The Highwire.  It contains many criticisms of vaccines.  I realize vaccination is a controversial topic.  Try to put aside whether or not you agree with the criticism of vaccination, and the thousands of other parents who watched their kids turn from normal to autistic after vaccination.  Yes, that is a controversial subject.  What is not subject to dispute is how difficult life can be with autism.

The subject of this video, Brandon, is now 25 years old.  He is much worse off than my Matthew.  Completely non-verbal, not toilet trained and still wearing a diaper, and subject to seizures and a host of other self-injurious behavior.   But the life that this family lives is very similar to mine.  One quote:  Every time you come back home, autism slams you in the face.  The impact on the marriage, and the life of the other child in the house, all are very truthfully described in this video.

So ignore the accusations against vaccines.  Just watch the video to see a small section of what life is really like with autism.   Consider the fact that 80 years ago, there was not a single person on earth who had the autism symptoms found in Brandon and shown on this video.  Yes, people were able to observe childhood disorders and write about them 80 years ago, there is nothing like this anywhere  in history.  Today approximately 2% of the kids being born are affected by autism according to the US Centers for Disease Control.

After watching it, you may not find it funny that people in this world put on Halloween costumes like the one worn by this lady:

caryzila

We Can Handle The Debate

This is a very good summary of where we are today in the USA on the subject of vaccines.  It’s written by Bobby Kennedy, Jr., a well respected Democrat and a guy who has long stood up for the people.   Well worth a read.  The original link is HERE

 

Americans Can Handle an Open Discussion on Vaccines—RFK, Jr. Responds to Criticism from His Family

CHD NOTE: In early May 2019, Politico Magazine published an article written by three of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s relatives, criticizing his advocacy for safe vaccines. After numerous requests, Politico magazine has refused to publish his response. 

By Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.  

Three of my Kennedy relatives recently published an article criticizing my advocacy for safe vaccines. Our contentious family dispute highlights the fierce national donnybrook over vaccinations that has divided communities and raised doubts about the Democratic Party’s commitment to some of its defining values: abhorrence of censorship, wariness toward excessive corporate power, support for free speech, religious freedom, and personal sovereignty over our bodies, and the rights of citizens (codified in the Nuremberg Codeand other treaties to which we are signatories) to decline unwanted government-mandated medical interventions. The debate has also raised questions about the independence of our press and its role as a champion of free speech, and First Amendment rights as a bulwark against overreaching by government and corporations.

I love my family and sympathize with their anxieties when I call out government officials for corruption. The Kennedys have a long, close, and continuing relationship with public health agencies so it is understandably difficult for us to believe that powerful regulators would lie about vaccines. “All issues are simple,” the saw goes, “until you study them.”

Those conflicts motivate them to recommend ever more vaccines with minimal support from evidence-based science.

My skepticism

I’ve arrived at my skepticism after 15 years spent researching and litigating this issue. I have watched financial conflicts and institutional self-interest transform key sectors of our public health bureaucracies into appendages of the very pharmaceutical companies that Congress charged them to regulate.

Multiple investigations by Congress and the HHS Inspector Generalhave consistently found that an overwhelming majority of the FDA officials directly charged with licensing vaccines, and the CDC officials who effectively mandate them for children, have personal financial entanglements with vaccine manufacturers. These public servants are often shareholders in, grant recipients from, and paid consultants to vaccine manufacturers, and, occasionally, patent holders of the very vaccines they vote to approve. Those conflicts motivate them to recommend ever more vaccines with minimal support from evidence-based science.

HHS partners with vaccine makers to develop, approve, recommend, and pass mandates for new products and then shares profits from vaccine sales.

The pharmaceutical industry also enforces policy discipline through agency budgets. FDA receives 45% of its annual budget from industry. The World Health Organization (WHO) gets roughly half its budget from private sources, including Pharma and its allied foundations.  And CDC, frankly, is a vaccine company; it owns 56 vaccine patents  and buys and distributes $4.6 billion in vaccines annually through the Vaccines for Children program, which is over 40% of its total budget. Further, Pharma directly funds, populates and controls dozens of CDC programs through the CDC foundation.  A British Medical Journal editorial excoriates CDC’s sweetheart relationship with pharma quotes UCLA Professor of Medicine Jerome R. Hoffman “most of us were shocked to learn the CDC takes funding from industry… It is outrageous that industry is apparently allowed to punish the CDC if the agency conducts research that has potential to cut into profits.”

HHS partners with vaccine makers to develop, approve, recommend, and pass mandates for new products and then shares profits from vaccine sales. HHS employees can personally collect up to $150,000annually in royalties for products they work on. For example, key HHS officials collect money on every sale of Merck’s controversial HPV vaccine Gardasil, which also yields tens of millions annually for the agency in patent royalties. Furthermore, under the 1986 Act that created the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, HHS is the defendant in Vaccine Court and is legally obligated to defend against any claim that a vaccine causes injury. Despite high hurdles for recovery, HHS pays out hundreds of millions of dollars annually (over $4 billion total) to Americans injured by vaccines. Hence, if HHS publishes any study acknowledging that a vaccine causes a harm, claimants can use that study against HHS in Vaccine Court. In June 2009, a high-level HHS official, Tom Insel, killed a $16 million-dollar budget item to study the relationship between vaccines and autism by the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee. Insel argued that petitioners would use these studies against HHS in vaccine court.

Such conflicts are a formula for “agency capture” on steroids. “Instead of a regulator and a regulated industry, we now have a partnership,” says Dr. Michael Carome, a former HHS employee who is now the director of the advocacy group Public Citizen. Carome says that these financial entanglements have tilted HHS “away from a public health perspective to an industry-friendly perspective.”

In 1986, Congress—awash in Pharma money (the pharmaceutical industry is number one for both political contributions and lobbying spending over the past 20 years) enacted a law granting vaccine makers blanket immunity from liability for injuries caused by vaccines. If vaccines were as safe as my family members claim, would we need to give pharmaceutical companies immunity for the injuries they cause? The subsequent gold rush by pharmaceutical companies boosted the number of recommended inoculations from twelve shots of five vaccines in 1986 to 54 shots of 13 vaccines today. A billion-dollar sideline grew into the $50 billion vaccine industry behemoth.

Since vaccines are liability-free—and effectively compulsory to a captive market of 76 million children—there is meager market incentive for companies to make them safe. The public must rely on the moral scruples of Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi, and Pfizer. But these companies have a long history of operating recklessly and dishonestly, even with products that they must market to the public and for which they can be sued for injuries. The four companies that make virtually all of the recommended vaccines are all convicted felons.  Collectively they have paid over $35 billion since 2009 for defrauding regulators, lying to and bribing government officials and physicians, falsifying science, and leaving a trail of injuries and deathsfrom products they knew to be dangerous and sold under pretense of safety and efficacy.

Doesn’t it require a kind of cognitive dissonance to believe that vaccines are untainted by the greed, negligence, and corruption that bedevil every other pharmaceutical product?

For American kids born in 1986, only 12.8% had chronic diseases. That number has grown to 54% among the vaccine generation (those born after 1986) in lockstep with the expanding schedule.

No safety testing

Such concerns only deepen when one considers that, besides freedom from liability, vaccine makers enjoy another little-known lucrative loophole; vaccines are the only pharmaceutical or medical products that do not need to be rigorously safety tested. To win an FDA license, companies must safety test virtually every other drug for years in randomized comparisons against an inert placebo. Yet, not a single vaccine currently on the CDC schedule was tested against an inert placebo. Without placebo testing, regulators have no capacity to assess a medicine’s risks. During a January 2018 deposition, Dr. Stanley Plotkin, the world’s most influential vaccinologist, acknowledged that researches who try to ascertain vaccine safety without a placebo are in “La La land”. According to Dr. Drummond Rennie, Deputy Editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association, “It is the marketing department, not the science, that is driving the research.”  It seems plain wrong to me that Democratic-controlled legislatures across the country are frantically passing coercive mandates for pharmaceutical products for which no one knows the risks.

Furthermore, safety testing, which typically requires five or more years for other medical products, often lasts only a few days with vaccines—not nearly long enough to spot cancers or chronic conditions like autoimmune disease (e.g., juvenile diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis), allergic illnesses (e.g., food allergies, allergic rhinitis, eczema, asthma), or neurological and neurodevelopmental injuries (e.g., ADD, ADHD, narcolepsy, epilepsy, seizure disorders, and autism). Manufacturers’ inserts accompanying every vial of mandated vaccines include warnings about these and over 400 other injuries including many serious immune, neurological, and chronic illnesses for which FDA suspects that vaccines may be the cause. Federal law requires that the package insert for each vaccine include “only those adverse events for which there is some basis to believe that there is a causal relationship between the drug and the occurrence of the adverse event.”

Many of these illnesses became epidemic in American children after 1986, coterminous with the exploding vaccine schedule. For American kids born in 1986, only 12.8% had chronic diseases. That number has grown to 54% among the vaccine generation (those born after 1986) in lockstep with the expanding schedule.  Evidence including HHS’s own surveillance reports, manufacturers’ inserts, and peer-reviewed studies link all of these injuries to vaccines. However, the associations are not definitive because CDC has failed to conduct the necessary randomized studies to prove or disprove causation.

HHS has directed the Institute of Medicine (IOM, now the National Academy of Medicine) to oversee the CDC’s vaccine safety science. IOM has repeatedly rebuked the agency for failing to study whether vaccines are causing these epidemics. In my experience, vaccine proponents rarely cite specific peer-reviewed studies to support their assertions that all vaccines are safe, relying instead on appeals to authority; CDC, FDA, WHO, or the AAP. My relatives, for example, argue that vaccines are safe because WHO, HHS, CDC, and FDA say so. But HHS designated the IOM as the ultimate arbiter of vaccine safety. And IOM says that the existing scientific literature does not support these claims.  Despite requests by the IOM, CDC has steadfastly refused to perform safety studies.

In total, three IOM reports (19911994, and 2011/2012) investigated 231 adverse events associated with vaccines. For 34 conditions, IOM found that the evidence supported a causal connection between the vaccine and the adverse event. But for 184 adverse events, fully 80% of the conditions reviewed, the IOM found that HHS’s evidence was inadequate to accept or reject vaccine causation. How can our public health officials claim safety when there is no follow-up research on reported adverse events?

… the  IOM [Institute of Medicine now the National Academy of Medicine] study and the follow-up HHS study in 2014 both say that CDC has never performed a study to support CDC’s claim that DTaP does not cause autism.

Autism and vaccines

Let’s drill down on bedrock dogma that science has thoroughly debunked any links between autism and vaccines. That assumption is so engrained that media ridicules anyone who questions this orthodoxy as a dangerous heretic. But, look for a moment, at the facts. In 1986, Congress specifically ordered CDC to determine if pertussis-containing vaccines (DTP, later DTaP) were causing autism.  Then, as today, many parents with autistic children were claiming that vaccines were a cause of their child’s autism and DTP/DTaP vaccines were/are a popular suspect.

On its website, CDC declares that, “Vaccines don’t cause autism,” citing IOM’s comprehensive 2011/2012 literature review of vaccination safety science. However, the IOM study and the follow-up HHS study in 2014 both say that CDC has never performed a study to support CDC’s claim that DTaP does not cause autism.  The same is true for Hep B, Hib, PCV 13, and IPV. The only vaccine actually studied with regard to autism is MMR, and a senior CDC scientist claims the CDC did find an increased rate of autism after MMR in the only MMR/autism study ever conducted by the CDC with American children. Moreover, HHS’s primary autism expert recently provided an affidavit to the DOJ explaining that vaccines can cause autism in some children.

Autism has grown from about 1 in 2,500 prior to 1986 to one in 36among vaccine generation children today. Why are we content with the CDC’s claim that the exponential explosion of autism is a mystery? CDC spares no expense systematically tracking the source of 800 measles cases. But when asked about the cataclysmic epidemic of upwards of 68,000 new autism cases annually, CDC shrugs. Why are we not demanding answers? “CDC is paralyzed right now when it comes to anything to do with autism,” explains former senior vaccine safety scientist Dr. William Thompson, who is still a CDC employee. Thompson told Congressman Bill Posey under oaththat CDC bigwigs ordered him to destroy data that showed a link between autism and vaccines and to publish a fraudulent study dismissing the link. Today, he is remorseful, “When I see a family with a child with autism, I feel great shame because I have been part of the problem.”

… there are a hundredfold more adverse vaccine events than are reported.

We are killing children

HHS has also ignored its statutory obligations to study vaccine injuries and improve vaccine safety. In 1986, Congress—recognizing that drug companies no longer had any incentive to make vaccines safe—ordered HHS to study vaccine injuries, work to improve vaccine safety, and report to Congress on its progress every two years. A year ago, I brought a lawsuit that forced HHS to admit that in 36 years it had never performed any of those critical studies.

Post-licensure vaccine safety surveillance is also in shambles. The CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), to which doctors and patients may voluntarily report adverse vaccine events, received 58,381 reports in 2018, including 412 deaths, 1,237 permanent disabilities, and 4,217 hospitalizations. An HHS-funded review of VAERS concluded that “fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported” to VAERS. This suggests that there are a hundredfold more adverse vaccine events than are reported. The CDC has nonetheless refused to mandate or automate VAERSreporting.

Dr. Aaby was one of five co-authors of a 2017 study of the diphtheria tetanus, and pertussis (DTP) vaccine, the most widely used vaccine on earth, which found that children who received DTP had ten times the risk of dying compared to DTP-unvaccinated children.

On March 9, 2019, Dr. Peter Aaby issued a scathing rebuke to the world’s public health agencies for continuing to allow pharmaceutical companies to sell vaccines without proper safety testing.  Dr. Aaby, who has authored over 300 peer-reviewed studies, is one of world’s foremost authorities on WHO’s African vaccine program and the winner of Denmark’s highest honor for health care research. Dr. Aaby was one of five co-authors of a 2017 study of the diphtheria tetanus, and pertussis (DTP) vaccine, the most widely used vaccine on earth, which found that children who received DTP had ten times the risk of dying compared to DTP-unvaccinated children. For thirty years, doctors, including Aaby, never noticed the danger because vaccinated children were succumbing to illnesses and infections apparently unrelated to the vaccine. It turns out that while the vaccine protected children from diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis, it so badly weakened their immune systems that they were dying in droves from unrelated infections. The researchers concluded: “The DTP vaccine may kill more children from other causes than it saves from diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis.”  In March, an alarmed Aaby plead for a policy change, “Most of you think we know what our vaccines are doing. But we don’t…. We are killing children.”

The world’s most aggressive vaccine schedule has not given our country the world’s healthiest children. We now rank 35th in overall health outcomes—just behind Costa Rica, making the U.S., by most measures, including infant mortality, the sickest in the developed world. In addition to those 400 chronic diseases and injuries that FDA suspects may be vaccine related, the vaccine generation suffers unprecedented levels of anxiety and depression and behavioral disorders running the gamut from aggression to anorexia. Peer-reviewed animal and human studies have linked all these symptoms to vaccines. The present generation is the first in a century to lose I.Q., having suffered an extraordinary drop of seven points.  Researchers concluded that some environmental cause is the trigger. In the U.S., SAT and, more recently, bar exam scores are plummeting. Could these declines be the outcome of injecting virtually every child with multiple doses of two of the world’s most potent neurotoxins—mercury and aluminum—in bolus doses beginning on the day of birth? Shouldn’t we be doing the research to reject this hypothesis? The logical approach to doing so would be to compare health outcomes between vaccinated and unvaccinated children. For years, public health officials, including the IOM, have urged CDC to conduct such studies.

In 2013, the IOM found that, “No studies have compared the differences in health outcomes… between entirely unimmunized populations of children and fully immunized children…. Furthermore, studies designed to examine the long-term effects of the cumulative number of vaccines or other aspects of the immunization schedule have not been conducted.” In a 2008 interview, former NIH Director Bernadette Healy explained that HHS refuses to perform safety studies out of fear that they will expose dangers, “that would scare the public away” from vaccines.  Healy continued, “First of all, I think the public is smarter than that… I don’t think you should ever turn your back on any scientific hypothesis because you’re afraid of what it might show.”

… the absence of press scrutiny leaves industry no incentive to improve vaccine safety.

Media malpractice

The suppression of critical safety science documented by the IOM would not be possible without a mass epidemic of media malpractice. Mainstream and social media outlets which collectively received $9.6 billion in revenues from pharmaceutical companies in 2016 have convinced themselves they are protecting public health by aggressively censoring criticism of these coercively mandated, zero liability, and untested pharmaceutical products.  But, the absence of press scrutiny leaves industry no incentive to improve vaccine safety.  Muzzling discussions of government corruption and deficient safety science and abolishing vaccine injuries by fiat is not a strategy that will solve the growing chronic disease epidemic.

The children who comprise this badly injured generation are now aging out of schools that needed to build quiet rooms and autism wings, install wobble chairs, hire security guards and hike special ed spending to 25% to accommodate them. They are landing on the social safety net which they threaten to sink. As Democratic lawmakers vote to mandate more vaccines and call for censorship of safety concerns, Democratic Presidential candidates argue about how to fix America’s straining health care system. If we don’t address the chronic disease epidemic, such proposals are like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. The good news for Pharma is that many of these children have lifelong dependencies on blockbuster products like Adderall, Epi-Pens, asthma inhalers, and diabetes, arthritis, and anti-seizure meds made by the same companies that made the vaccines.

My uncle and my father argued that in a free and open society, the response to difficult questions should never be to shut down debate.

My belief that all or some of these injuries might be vaccine related has been the catalyst that wrenched so much of my focus away from the environmental and energy work that I love, and prompted me to become an advocate for vaccine safety. I have sacrificed friendships, income, credibility, and family relationships in an often-lonely campaign to force these companies to perform the tests that will definitively answer these questions.

People will vaccinate when they have confidence in regulators and industry.  When public confidence fails, coercion and censorship became the final options.  Silencing critics and deploying police powers to force untested medicines upon an unwilling public is not an optimal strategy in a democracy.

My uncle and my father argued that in a free and open society, the response to difficult questions should never be to shut down debate. What we need is science, not censorship. I am not anti-vax. I am pro-safety and pro-science. I want robust, transparent safety studies and independent regulators. These do not seem like the kind of radical demands that should divide our party or our families. As Americans and Kennedys, we ought to be able to have a civil, science-based debate about these legitimate concerns.

Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. CHD is planning many strategies, including legal, in an effort to defend the health of our children and obtain justice for those already injured. Your support is essential to CHD’s successful mission.

40 Questions: Can You Answer Them?

This was written by Cathy Jameson.  Well worth a read:

When I saw this image and the accompanying questions a few weeks ago, I immediately shared it with my circle of family and friends. Many of them could easily answer the 40 questions. I’d be more curious if their doctors could. I’d guess a handful of them could. I wonder how many could do so without looking any of the information up though.

Forty questionsI was told at a young age when I started school that no question was a dumb question. I believe that to be true still today, especially when the question pertains to vaccines. Every question I saw on @chemfreekids’ page are important ones to ask. Even if someone isn’t contemplating vaccines, knowing each of the answers is important, too. Vaccines are no longer a private topic. They’re now part of everyday discussions and have become a weapon of choice for legislators. I’m all for discussing liability-free vaccines, but I can’t support vaccine mandates some legislators are vehemently pushing. I can never support withholding education or denying employment based on someone’s vaccine status either. But that’s what’s happening here in the U.S. Before more people lose their rights, it’s time to become familiar with accurate vaccine information. I think reviewing and being able to answer the following questions is a good place to start:

“How much do you know about vaccines? Here are 40 solid questions to ask before you move forward with any vaccine.

1. Name 5 vaccine ingredients.
2. What is MRC-5?
3. What is WI-38?
4. What is vaccine court?
5. What is the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program?
6. What is the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act?
7. How has the CDC schedule changed since 1986?
8. How much money has been paid out by vaccine injury court?
9. How many doses of how many vaccines are in the CDC schedule between birth and age 18?
10. Do vaccines contain aborted fetal tissue? If so, which vaccines? And how many aborted babies were needed before they found one with the virus necessary to create the vaccine?
11. Do any vaccines contain dog, monkey, pig, and human DNA?
12. What is an adjuvant?
13. What is an antigen?
14. Which arm of the immune system do vaccines stimulate?
15. Which arms of the immune system do natural diseases stimulate?
16. What is transverse myelitis?
17. What is encephalopathy?
18. What is the rate of autism in 2017, what was it in 2000? What was it in 1990?
19. What is glyphosate and is it in vaccines?
20. If your child is injured, who will take physical, emotional, and financial responsibility?
21. What was the Supreme Court’s statement on vaccines in 2011?
22. Can you provide a study showing vaccinated vs. unvaccinated health outcomes?
23. Can you show me a safety study proving it is safe to inject multiple vaccines at one time?
24. What is shedding?
25. Do vaccines shed? Which vaccines can shed for up to 6 weeks?
26. Which vaccines are live virus vaccines?
27. What is the VICP?
28. What is SV40?
29. What is MTHFR (methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase)?
30. What is an acceptable amount of aluminum to ingest per day and how much is injected via the hep B vaccine on day one of life?
31. Can someone who was vaccinated for pertussis still spread pertussis after being exposed to it? If so, for how long?
32. What is the death rate from measles in the US from 2005-2015? From the MMR vaccine in same time frame?
33. What does attenuated mean?
34. Where can I find information about vaccines?
35. Are there vaccine consent forms?
36. Can the vial stopper cause allergic reaction?
37. Can there be serious reactions to vaccines?
38. What is NVIC?
39. Is there any compensation for physicians who have a certain percentage of their patients vaccinated?
40. What is VAERS?”

How’d you do?

I can answer all but one of those questions above.

I’m hoping that those new to vaccines will be inspired to continue to read and learn as much as they can before they find themselves face-to-face with their child’s doctor. Vaccine choice doesn’t exist like it used to, and parents need to know that sooner rather than later.

I wish that I had been asked just one of those questions before my child was vaccinated. I’d imagine one questions could’ve sparked my curiosity to read about vaccines. It wasn’t until after my son was vaccine injured did I bother to do that. Now, after reading and pondering those 40 questions, I could think of a few more that I’d want a new parent to think about. Surely some of you have thought of other questions as well, so leave that thought in the comments also. It’s through others’ stories and through shared resources that I’ve gained the knowledge that I have. I know that’s true for many of us.

To those who constantly question, who bravely answer, and who continue to educate the public and the media about the risks that liability-free vaccines carry, thank you.

A Letter to My Liberal Friends

love liberals

I’m a conservative Republican.  But I don’t hate Liberals or Democrats.  Some people take politics way too personally.  Not me.  I like liberal Democrats, and think that all sides of the political spectrum offer something useful, even if I don’t agree with them.  And if I had a choice between voting for an honorable Democrat or a crooked Republican, I would surely vote for the Democrat.  I like Liberals and Democrats, and am happy to socialize with them and call them friends and family.  You’ll never see me screwing up a Thanksgiving dinner by debating politics in a way that is intolerant to anyone’s beliefs.

So it’s weird to see things happen in the vaccine debate that turn everything on their head.  In national politics, there are presently several debates over vaccine exemptions for kids who go to school.  Typically, the Democrats line up in favor of mandatory vaccination laws.  Republicans are much more divided on this issue.

Here are some examples of how the Liberal/Democratic side seems conflicted on this issue:

Liberals are in favor of bodily autonomy.  “Our body, our choice” is a mantra, and abortion is considered an absolute right on the grounds of giving individuals control over their own bodies.  Liberals believe that people should have not only this autonomy, but that all medical procedures should be done with full informed consent.

But on the subject of vaccines, Democrats are suddenly saying that government health officials should be able to tell parents what they must do with their children.  It’s beyond question that there are risks with vaccines.  Over 400 people per year in the USA alone die from vaccine complications, thousands more are injured, and the government has paid out $4 billion in compensation for vaccine injuries.  Why is it that Democrats are lining up to make vaccines mandatory to attend school, and giving up their position in favor of bodily autonomy and free choice?

It can’t be because of public health.  Any kid who wants to be vaccinated can be, so why is an un-vaccinated kid a threat to a vaccinated kid?  And adults have no vaccine mandates, which means that teachers, administrators, janitors, and anyone else in contact with kids has no requirement for vaccination, and so there is no “herd immunity” that is being achieved by vaccine mandates.  Indeed, the immunity conferred by the measles vaccine wears off after 10 years at best, so very few adults have protection against measles.  Liberals are mysteriously in favor of forcing families to choose between having kids attend school, or being vaccinated with a product that could permanently injure or kill (with no informed consent) and often in violation of sincere religious beliefs.

Liberals are Against the Power of Corporations to Bias Media.  Did you know that among industrialized countries, only the USA and New Zealand allow pharmaceutical advertisements?  The reason almost every other country bans pharma ads is because these ads tend to drive a wedge between doctors and patients when drugs are pushed on either side by the company that is making profits off the drugs.  Payouts to doctors who recommend drugs, vacations and conferences, and other gifts are considered unethical and illegal, but they still happen.  And we still allow nearly 70% of advertising in our media (in non-election years) to come from Pharma.

This has another perverse effect, which is that when television, radio and other media entities derive so much of their ad revenue from Pharma, they are less likely to question Pharma companies.  Liberals generally decry the effect of money in politics and media.  Liberals want journalists to be hard-hitting truth tellers, just like the heroes who broke the Watergate cover-up.  But on the issue of Pharma companies, the media has been persuaded to muzzle itself to keep the Pharma ad revenue flowing.  Rarely will you see reporting that is negative to Pharma.  Never will you see scientific research reported if it is negative to vaccines.

And guess what?  The same thing can be said about the power of Pharma Corporations to control our politics.

Liberals are Against Government/Corporate Conflicts of Interest.  It used to be that Liberals would see the effects of corporations controlling government and be aghast.  They railed against the “Military Industrial Complex,” and rightly so.  Sometimes this happens, for example Senator Warren took aim at former FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, HERE.

But on the subject of Vaccines, Liberals see no problem.  In 2009, Julie Gerberding stepped down as the head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC, where she was in charge of vaccine safety) and then immediately took a $10 Million per year job to preside over vaccine development at the drug giant Merck.  There are many other Gerberdings in the world, who are moving from industry to government and back.  Government officials are blinded to their duties by the incentive to get lucrative private employment after they leave government.  The people who are making vaccine recommendations for the government should be the most intelligent, ethical, conflict-free, scientists possible.  Sadly, this is not the case.  Not even close.  Nobody should be recommending vaccines to mandatory government schedules when there is any possibility that they or anyone in their family could possibly benefit financially from such a recommendation.  Liberals used to be against such government/industry conflicts of interest.  Not any more.

To read more, view this REPORT  by Children’s Health Defense to see how corrupt the vaccine industry has become.

Liberals are in Favor of Free Speech and Against Censorship.  Not any more.  I just wrote about this a few months  ago, and the post is HERE.  If you don’t feel like reading the link, then the quick summary is:  Liberal Democrats are pushing to shut down websites, YouTube channels, Google search results, and to otherwise halt media coverage that is un-favorable to vaccines.  I thought Liberals would want people to have free flowing information, rather than have the government decide what the truth is.

Liberals Support Lawsuits that Champion the Public Interest.  Except on the issue of Vaccines.  In 1986, Congress passed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, removing any legal liability from vaccine makers.  This also removed any incentive for industry to make vaccines safer.  No more pesky lawsuits against a vaccine maker who knowingly produces a defective product.  No need to conduct “discovery” where a lawyer can subpoena Pharma Corporate records or emails.  It can all be kept secret, and free from any liability.

There is no other product in the USA that is given this blanket of protection.  Why is it that Liberals would support such a corrupting law on the subject of vaccines?

 

Liberals are Against Demonization of Opponents.  Liberals, and also Conservatives, ideally should favor free speech and open debate.  It should be wrong to state that one side of an argument is not worthy of being heard.  But on the subject of Vaccines, both Democrats and Republicans are saying that nobody should question safety and efficacy.  Anyone who does is a bad person, looking to make money (it’s strange to hear this.  Who is making more money, the parents of injured kids or the vaccine manufacturing companies?).

The term “Anti-Vaxxer” is hurled at people in order to automatically shut them up.  Meanwhile, it’s undisputed that tens of thousands of people are being injured by vaccines, as shown by the government’s own Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (An average of 50,000 injuries, and 400 deaths per year, every year, for the last decade alone).  It’s weird and sad to see the left castigating parents of vaccine-injured kids, telling parents that they did not see injuries that happened to their own kids.

 

The Bottom Line, What Is Really Going On?  It’s money.  The influence of money into our politics and media.  The Democratic Party, and quite a few Republicans as well, are in the tank for the Pharmaceutical Industry because they get tons of money from Pharma.  If you told me that Republicans were being corrupted by money from corporate interests, I’d believe you in a heartbeat.  But the Democrats are no better, and the Liberal/Democratic side is taking a much stronger stance in favor of vaccines and against free choice, or policing conflicts of interest.  It’s strange to see Liberals saying “the Science is Settled” and refusing to look at facts that might undermine the national vaccine program.  The slogan “Question Authority” is one that I associate with a Liberal mindset, but this questioning is strangely absent on this one subject.

Is it something beyond money?  Maybe the Liberal/Democratic mind puts more faith in the power of government to make the world a better place.  So the idea of government officials deciding how everyone should vaccinate is appealing to this view.  Liberals in New York and California (both heavily Democratic states) are lining up in lock-step to force vaccine mandates onto the public.  This is a guaranteed money-maker for Pharma.  As for me, I prefer to look at facts myself.  I don’t need anyone to tell me how to think or what kind of medicines I must give my kids.  It used to be that Liberals would heartily agree with this, but on the subject of vaccines, the Liberal mindset has been turned upside-down.

Vaccine Safety Studies

placebo

 

This is a shocking point, but one which everyone should understand on the subject of vaccine safety.   There has never been a valid safety study done on any vaccine on the CDC’s present schedule (with one caveat, discussed below).

First of all, one needs to understand what a safety study is.  Normally when any drug or medication is considered for use in human beings, there must be a clinical trial comparing the drug against a “PLACEBO.”   A placebo is defined (on the CDC’s own website) as “A substance or treatment that has no effect on human beings.”  Two common examples are saline injections and sugar pills.   Having a true placebo is crucial, because it shows whether people improve from a condition simply by receiving a known, inert treatment.

The other part of a safety study is that is must be done “Double-Blinded.”  In other words, both the person getting the treatment is blind as to whether he is getting the drug or a placebo, and the person evaluating the effects on the patient does not know whether the patient has received treatment or is in the placebo/control group.  Both sides are blinded, to prevent any misleading results from the placebo effect.  The placebo effect is a well known psychological tendency for people to say that they are better even when they get treatments that could not possibly have had any medical effect, such as a saline injection.

Ordinarily, doing a full clinical study of a drug/treatment takes five to ten years, perhaps longer.  It must be done with a double-blinded / placebo vs. drug test, with large numbers of patients who are then evaluated over long periods of time.  Doing anything less is rightly considered unethical.  Even where patients are dying of cancer, and have only months to live, the US Government forbids them from taking part in studies unless the safety tests are strictly controlled.

Is this true of vaccines?  Sadly, no.  Almost every vaccine has never been through a safety study (again, defined as a placebo control study).  All that is done is to compare the vaccine against another vaccine, usually an older version of the same vaccine.  Of course, the problem with this is that by comparing vaccine to vaccine, you will never see the difference in health results that would be apparent when testing vaccine against a true placebo.

Why is this?  Well, vaccine advocates, including the US Government, claim that it would be unethical to deny the protection of vaccines to anyone, and so we must keep 100% of the population fully vaccinated to protect against disease.  This strikes false for two reasons.  First, we don’t allow even terminal cancer patients to get un-tested drugs unless there is a valid safety study, so why should a flu shot or chickenpox vaccine be afforded greater deference?  Second, how are we ever going to know if the vaccine is causing more harm than nothing if we fail to ever compare the vaccine to nothing?   Right now there are 450 people per year, every year, dying in the USA from vaccine related causes.  Surely we should be comparing vaccines to placebos (i.e., nothing), in order to determine if they are safe, and thus try to lessen the 450/year death rate from vaccine complications.

Capture

And to further damn the US Government’s sincerity with regard to its position on safety:  Consider Gardasil.  This is a fairly new vaccine, intended to stop the spread of the HPV virus in girls.  Nothing like this vaccine ever existed until 2009, when Merck invented the HPV vaccine.  Surely a brand-new vaccine should be compared with nothing but a saline injection, right?  Wrong.   Of all the thousands of trial subjects on the HPV vaccine, half were given the true HPV shot, half were given a shot containing Amorphous Aluminum Hydroxyphosphate Sulfate (AAHS).  Aluminum is a known toxin, it is not an “Inert” substance, and it clearly has an effect on human beings.  AAHS is also present in the HPV vaccine.  The reason behind it is that the more toxic the vaccine, the better the body reacts to it and develops immunity.  And behold, the results of the test showed a 2.3% rate of serious adverse reactions (including very disabling, lifetime autoimmune disorders) in both the girls who got the HPV shot, and girls who got the fake “Placebo” containing AAHS.   But wait, there were actually a group of 320 women who in fact did get a true saline placebo.  What was their rate of adverse reactions?  The answer:   0%.   This is the one case where there was a test of the HPV vaccine against a true, saline placebo.  The people who got the toxic, aluminum hydroxyphosphate HPV dose got sick at a rate of 2.3%, many times sick for life.  The girls who got saline placebo had indeed suffered no ill effects.

The HPV trials are a subject I never hear people on the “Pro-Vaccine” side talk about.  I understand, and vehemently disagree with, the ethical argument behind vaccines.  But how do they justify giving an AAHS shot and calling it a placebo when testing a brand new, never used vaccine to help protect someone from the HPV virus in 40 years?  It shows that the true intentions behind the vaccine industry, and the US Government lie somewhere other than in protecting the best interests of the patient.

Consider this carefully folks.   This is bigger than just the HPV vaccine that is at issue.  The US Government has never even done a safety study to compare health results for fully vaccinated kids against fully un-vaccinated kids, even though it already has the data to do so.   What does this tell you about the confidence you should place in the safety of vaccines?   It tells me:

  1.  There has never been a valid safety study
  2.  There has never been a “vax vs. un-vax” study
  3.  The US Government and Industry are more than willing to manipulate the results of what studies they perform

Think for yourself.  Don’t take Brian’s word for this.  Make your own decisions about vaccines, and learn as much as you can before putting these things into your body or the body of your child.