THE ATLANTA MANIFESTO, PART 4

By Mark Blaxill and Barbara Loe Fisher

Editor's Note: This is the fourth of eight parts in our series outlining a new vision for transforming children's health policy in the United States. Written by Mark Blaxill, Age of Autism's Editor at Large, and Barbara Loe Fisher of the National Vaccine Information Center, it is titled From Hyping The Risk Of Infectious Disease To Facing The Reality Of Chronic Disease Epidemics. Blaxill and Fisher were part of a Blue-Ribbon Panel assessing vaccine safety convened by the CDC in 2004. Dissatisfied with the outcome, they wrote their own White Paper in response, which Age of Autism is proud to publish for the first time.

From Hyping The Risk Of Infectious Disease, To Facing The Reality Of Chronic Disease Epidemics

As the vaccine program expands and the complex assessment of marginal cost and benefits becomes more critical, the integrity of the analyses surrounding these assessments matters even more. A prior commitment to a strategy of program expansion casts suspicion on the CDC's internal analysis when the institutional proponents of the expansion strategy control the interpretation and dissemination of information and analysis. The obvious concern is that benefits may be overstated and that risks will be suppressed.

We see pervasive evidence of bias among CDC's analysts that lends credence to such concerns. Hepatitis B vaccine policy serves as useful first case in point.

CDC officials display a bias toward vaccine interventions. When the mandatory hepatitis B vaccination was added to the childhood immunization schedule in 1991, this new initiative was the outcome of years of policy discussions. CDC infectious disease specialists took a public advocacy stance in favor of "worldwide elimination of hepatitis B transmission," claiming "we have the way, we need the will." Oddly, for a disease transmitted primarily through promiscuous sexual activity and intravenous drug use, the strategy they chose was universal infant immunization, including a first dose immediately at birth. Yet claims supporting the wisdom of this "way" have been called into question by recent research showing that infant hepatitis B immunization provides protection for five years at most.

CDC models exaggerate the incidence of infectious disease. Promoting a short-lived intervention in populations far removed from the main source of the infection is odd enough, but the CDC felt obliged to defend the urgency of such an unusual choice by overstating the overall risks of this (largely adult) disease. Until the late 1990s, annual infections by hepatitis B virus (HBV) in the U.S. were routinely quoted at more than 300,000 despite the fact that CDC's own surveillance numbers showed far fewer cases, less than 10% of the quoted cases, and these case counts fell rapidly through the 1990s

CDC models overstate childhood disease risk to justify vaccine interventions. Defenders of the universal hepatitis B vaccine birth dose policy estimated that 25,000 HBV infections occurred annually in children prior to the introduction of the vaccine.  These calculations have not been challenged but are full of holes: surveillance reports of childhood infections have never reached even 1% of these modeled levels; the models that produce high infection estimates require large rates of horizontal transmission, transmissions that have never been reliably described; and distinctions between peri-natal transmission (where mothers could reasonably be offered a choice between vaccine exposure and maternal HBV testing) and childhood transmission (where vaccines provide unique benefits) have never been established. In evaluating a policy that requires annual immunizations of millions of newborns, rigor and accuracy in making such distinctions are critical, but such scrutiny has been forsaken in favor of salesmanship and hype.

We have by now become familiar with the fear-mongering that makes infectious disease a reliable news item. From the infamous swine flu to the West Nile virus, we have grown accustomed to seeing the threat of deadly infection on the front page and the evening news. Even with more legitimate threats like SARS, the reality of these threats consistently fails to meet the hype, yet spreading the fear of infection remains a reliable tactic. By contrast, chronic diseases--perhaps because they are judged to be less preventable, a matter for families to accept rather than a prevention opportunity — receive nowhere near the same attention or priority. Autism rates have increase tenfold but the CDC has not yet declared a public health crisis. Similar to the case of hepatitis B, autism provides a second case example of CDC policy bias.

CDC surveillance designs fail to specify chronic disease variants. The featured activity in CDC's autism surveillance activities is the Metropolitan Atlanta Developmental Disabilities Surveillance Program (MADDSP). Although only a single publication has been produced so far as an output of this effort, this publication revealed the manifold weaknesses of the program. The MADDSP approach fails to distinguish between the sub-categories of the Pervasive Developmental Disorders (PDDs) — autistic disorder, PDD not otherwise specified and Asperger's syndrome — an approach that makes it impossible to compare results of MADDSP with other studies around the world. MADDSP researchers place children in diagnostic categories based only on a records review and do not require standardized diagnostic interviews. Diagnostic precision is essential to effective surveillance (can you imagine hepatitis reports that fail to distinguish between viruses A, B and C?) yet the MADDSP program has abandoned any effort to institute such precision. Even so, the CDC now offers their approach as the model for other states to follow. Lack of diagnostic precision may provide a deliberate refuge for analysts who are not interested in obtaining good facts, but makes for poor health policy in the long run.

CDC studies avoid the assessment of chronic disease trends. When CDC studies have embraced a more rigorous approach to PDD classifications, they have still failed to report accurately on time trends. The autism prevalence researchers in Brick Township, NJ provided accurate estimates of autism rates in a well-defined study population. Yet they suppressed important evidence on changes in autism rates over time, reporting rates by only two large age groups. More disturbing, these authors failed to publish autism rates by birth year, rates that would have demonstrated clear and compelling evidence of an increasing time trend in autism rates. Safe Minds has obtained these rates, and they contradict the CDC authors' claims that "prevalence rates for the two [time periods] were not different." We cannot help but wonder how the surveillance disciplines, so well developed in infectious diseases, break down so completely in chronic diseases like autism. Yet they do.

When increasing trends are acknowledged they are dismissed with speculation. When discussing the undeniable increases in reported autism rates, CDC officials profess little concern and offer unsupported hypotheses that attempt to play down the likelihood of any real increase. The NCBDD web site on autism offers the following account.

"The studies that have looked at how common ASDs are often used different ways to identify children with ASDs, and it is possible that researchers have just gotten better at identifying these children. It is also possible that professionals know more about ASDs now and are therefore more likely to diagnose them correctly. Also, a wider range of people are now being classified as having ASDs, including people with very good language and thinking skills in some areas who have unusual ways of interacting or behaving."

In the face of the spectacular rise in reported autism rates, speculations like these cry out for scientific support. Yet there is no scientific evidence of any kind that supports a single one of these speculations. How is such carelessness allowed?

Taken together, these tendencies form a pernicious pattern of misinformation and deception. The favored diseases and interventions are supported, while the inconvenient trends and anomalies are suppressed. Responsible public health management demands a clear-eyed view of the current health reality, one based on high-quality data, sound analysis and rigorous logic.  It is time to start facing this reality without further delay.

Next: Part 5

Comments

[Twyla]

That is very interesting. I did not know that wheat and peanut oil are used in vaccines.

I was amazed to read recently that some of the microbes in the DPT vaccine are raised on Casein hydroloysate:

www.emdchemicals.com/analytics/Micro_Manual/TEDISdata/prods/1_02245_0500.html
"Casein hydroloysate (acid hydrolyzed) is obtained by digesting casein with hydrochloric acid, the conditions are such that a proportion of the Vitamins and growth-promoting substances are retained. It therefore acts as a good nutrient substrate and is especially suitable for the large-scale cultivation of microorganisms (e.g. of diphtheria bacteria, tetanus bacilli and streptococci in the production of toxins and streptase)."

www.mpbio.com/product_info.php?products_id=101290
"Description: Casein hydrolysate enzymatic is a pancreatic hydrolysate of casein. This hydrolysate contains, in the form of mixed amino acids and peptides, all amino acids originally present in casein."

It's no wonder that many kids with vaccine reactions/autism do better on a gluten-free & casein-free diet.

Besides the fact that these substances are directly injected and thus bypass being broken down by the digestive system, they are accompanied by adjuvants such as aluminum which are used to increase the immune system's response.

[bfg]

Theory: Vaccinations are the primary cause of food allergies. Infant formula, infant vitamins, and antibiotics that contain peanut products directly or indirectly may be secondary causes.

BACKGROUND: This study began as a "wild idea" that vaccinations or medicine could be causing peanut allergy. It soon turned into a horrible realization. A very small amount of food proteins from many sources are considered inert ingredients that fall under trade secret protection and are not on the vaccine inserts. Various studies have shown that injecting an animal with protein is one method of inducing an allergy. Every study done of food allergy that could be located does not disprove this theory. There was a study done on Indonesian and Thai children that has been frequently quoted as saying that there are no peanut allergies in Thailand or Singapore in spite of the high consumption of peanuts. Evidence was presented that Singapore has a major problem with peanut allergy. The study itself says that many children reacted to peanuts in a skin prick test and that it eliminated a number of children from the study. The "hygiene theory" was examined and found to have no merit. Evidence of a long list of food protein that can be used in vaccine production has been found in various patents on-line. The increased childhood vaccination schedule coincides with the increase in food allergies in industrialized nations. The lower incidence of food allergies in less industrialized nations also coincides with a lower vaccination rate. The lower incidence of food allergies in the Hispanic population of the United States also coincides with a lower vaccination rate. The evidence of food allergy in animals has only been found in vaccinated animals. Evidence of ingredients that can be one of the patented adjuvants with various food oils has been presented. Evidence that "pharmacy grade" peanut oil still contains peanut protein has been presented. Package inserts have been examined and found to have ingredients that do not disclose its actual composition. EVERY SINGLE FOOD ALLERGY THAT I HAVE FOUND, I HAVE ALSO FOUND THAT FOOD LISTED AS AN INGREDIENT IN A VACCINE OR MEDICAL PRODUCT.

Many of these pages were copied from my blog. The blog grew too big and was too hard to follow. The links listed below link to the article in my blog. Use the buttons to the right to go to the article on this website. If you'd like to leave a comment, you can do so on the blog or you can e-mail me by way of the contact page- bfg

1. Vaccines are given to create an immune response from the body. It only makes sense that the body treats anything in the vaccine as an invader that needs to have an antibody created to combat it. That is why we give vaccines. But if the vaccine has a trace of food in it such as egg or peanut, it only makes sense that the vaccine can cause a food allergy.

2. Peanut oil is used in vaccines in adjuvants or as a vaccine carrier. The ingredients of adjuvants or vaccine carriers are not listed individually on the package insert. So the physician would have no way of knowing that there was peanut oil in the vaccine. The ingredients of adjuvants is considered a "trade secret" and has the protection of many governments not to be revealed.

3. Peanut allergy decreases in populations that have decreased percentage of vaccinated children. There are a number of studies that link vaccinations to allergies.

4. Peanut allergy is almost unknown in Israel. The population eats lots of peanuts. Israel produces sesame oil. Israel manufactures its own vaccines. Sesame is a major allergy there. Hypothesis: Sesame oil is used instead of peanut oil in the vaccines used in Israel.

5. Study that is frequently cited saying that Indonesia and Thailand people do not suffer from peanut allergies was erroneous. Many children in the study reacted to peanuts in the skin prick test. The study relied on parents of report food reactions. I found a Thai parent quoted on the Internet saying that her child had a peanut allergy. I also found a physician from Singapore stating that peanut allergy is a major problem there.

6. The “hygiene” theory points out that there is less food allergy in underdeveloped countries. They speculated that the people and environment is less clean so it is the early exposure to bacteria, etc. that protects against allergies. However, children as young as 8 months have been diagnosed with peanut allergy and it is only since 1990 that peanut allergies have become a huge problem. The populations in the underdeveloped countries are also not as compliant with childhood vaccinations which would account for less peanut allergy.

7. The United States and China are major producers of peanut oil and vaccinations. There are many patents for products used in vaccines that contain peanut oil.

8. The secondary causes of peanut allergy are due to young children having a “leaky gut”, immature digestive system. Introducing foods too soon can lead to allergies. Medicines given with traces of peanut protein could lead to an allergy. Also antibiotics kill off good bacteria as well as bad and can lead to an overgrowth of yeast which can cause food allergy type problems. I don’t know if any infant formula in the United States contains peanut oil. One website said it was more of a problem in Europe.

9. Our vaccinated animals are getting food allergies Dogs are allergic to peanuts. Searching the Internet - I found a wild elephant allergic to wheat; the elephant had been immunized. (Wheat germ oil is used as a carrier of vaccines. Wheat protein is used to manufacture vaccines/medicines.)

10. The statistics for allergies is appalling!! The allergy epidemic increased with every new mandate for more childhood immunizations.

11. How pure can we make peanut oil? I assume it is highly refined but it only would take a teeny weeny bit of peanut protein in a vaccine to create a problem. That is, of course, assuming that it is ONLY the peanut protein that causes the allergy. Using my “guessing” math, only 1 shot out of 1680 would need to be contaminated to create a peanut allergy in 1 in 70 people in Great Britain.

12. Vaccine adjuvants/ vaccine carriers contain many other oils/ingredients. These other ingredients could account for allergies to other foods. Fish oil is used. Shellfish can be mixed in with the fish by-products which are used to make fish oil. Wheat germ oil, corn oil, soy oil are used. Milk and eggs are also used in the production of vaccines. I expect that the oils are mixed in the vaccines so that you might get a vaccine with peanut oil and soy oil in it or any number of other oils.

I keep looking but so far, I have been unable to DISPROVE my theory. And perhaps that is because VACCINES ARE A MAJOR CAUSE OF FOOD ALLERGIES!!