“Polio-like” Cluster in California Has Eerie Echoes
Child in “Polio-like Cluster” Linked to California’s Winemaking Industry

Dachel Media Review: Autism Lottery, Toxins & Repro Health

Online newsBy Anne Dachel

Read Anne's comments and view the links after the jump.

Feb 25, 2014, Augusta (GA) Chronicle: Autism fight continues

Feb 25, 2014, ABC News: Royal Caribbean Is Latest Entrant into Autism-Friendly Travel

Feb 24, 2014, Kansas City Star: What's so funny? Plenty for parents of autistic kids

Feb 24, 2014, Salt Lake Tribune: Bill to grow Utah's autism lottery edging closer to passage

Feb 24, 2014, Los Angeles Times: The rights of the unvaccinated child: The legal view

Feb 24, 2014, Fox News: Environmental toxins can be destructive to women's reproductive health

 

Augusta (GA) Chronicle

The war on autism is being fought mainly on the home front - in the homes of tens of thousands of affected families. They are leading the way to an understanding of what the illness really is - not a mental disorder but a neurological and metabolic one.

However, the war is lasting longer. In 2013, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention declared it was affecting one in every 31 boys.

The war is dragging on because mainstream doctors, government health officials, politicians and the media don't listen to what the struggling families are telling them. For whatever reasons, they seem to have their own agenda and refuse to study these sick children.

Maurine points out the simple reality that autism is an epidemic and we're doing nothing about it. There are no national figures out there sounding any alarm over autism and calling for a plan of action. Autism Speaks finally got around to calling autism crisis and calling for a national plan in 2013, and they were immediately attacked by all kinds of people. The comments on Maurine's letter are similar. She's criticized for calling these children sick.

I posted two comments.

ABC News

Royal Caribbean is riding high on the waves after a leading travel organization distinguished it as the first official autism-friendly cruise line. The announcement is the latest acknowledgement of a growing number of autism-friendly travel offerings industry wide.

"When you think about accessibility on a cruise line, you often think about physical, visual and hearing disabilities," said Ron Pettit, manager of ADA and Accessibility Compliance for Royal Caribbean International. "But we want to make sure we are offering services to all of our guests. When we noticed a trend a while back with land-based hotels and movie theaters offering more autism-friendly programs, we immediately wondered, 'well, what can we do about this here?'"

 ABC News isn't worried about autism. Let's face it, the market is there. Something that affects 2 percent of kids would have lot profit potential. I'm sure we'll be hearing about all kinds of places that are "autism friendly" as we celebrate "April--Autism Awareness Month." People need to stop complaining about autism.

Kansas City Star

There's nothing funny about autism.

Wait a minute. Yes there is - especially when Chris Long tells the "boob" story.
But let's back up.

Earlier this month several area parents - coached by local comics - practiced routines about the humorous side of living with autistic kids. On Friday they'll take the stage for real at the Mission Theatre for the all-in-fun, over-21 autism fundraiser "An Evening With the 'Rents," (short for parents). The show benefits Camp Encourage, a local summer program for autistic kids.

As music played, Long walked to the mic in a lime-green hoodie. She told a story about visiting McDonald's with her husband, Scott, and their 11-year-old autistic son, Dakota. While Dakota doesn't talk, Long explained, he does love to rub people's skin. . . .


"People with autism just process the world a little differently," said Keenan Stump, a therapist who works with autistic kids in their homes.

I'm sure this is cathartic for autism parents dealing with behavior and health problems that typical parents can't possibility imagine. I can think back to lots of obsessive compulsive behaviors that were humorous and frustrating. However the reality is that autism is a serious disability.

This piece is about children who don't talk or understand appropriate behavior. These children are not leading normal lives. No one addresses this as a national crisis. No one. Not in Washington or in Atlanta. And all these children will be adults someday. This behavior will not be considered amusing when they're grown up.

There won't be an audience like this when the parents are no longer here.

I did not post a comment.

Salt Lake Tribune

A bill that would make permanent Utah's experimental autism "lottery" is speeding through the Legislature.

The $2 million measure, HB88, would continue the program in perpetuity, providing about 270 autistic children annually access to Applied Behavioral Analysis (ABA) therapy through Utah's Medicaid program and a charitable fund fed with private contributions from major employers, such as Zion's Bank. The bill would also require the insurer for state employees, Public Employee Health Plan (PEHP), to cover ABA therapy.

The lottery was created a year ago in lieu of a mandate requiring state-regulated insurers to cover ABA therapy - and has, by all measures, been a success.

Helping 200 to 300 children with a lottery in a state where one in 47 kids has autism is described as being "a success."

Does Utah allow insurance companies to ignore the needs of children with other disabilities? Something that would never happen to children who are blind or deaf, is commonplace if the disability is autism.

How can a wealthy country like the U.S. do nothing about a significant portion of disabled children? How can a medically advanced country like the U.S. do nothing to address a health care crisis that didn't exist 25 years ago?

The Seattle Times  reports that there is no funding available for hundreds of autistic children.

If states can't provide for those with autism when they're children, how bad will things get when they're adults and dependent on the taxpayers for all their support and care?

Los Angeles Times

In light of what's starting to look like a surge of measles cases spread by unvaccinated carriers, Hastings Law professor Dorit Rubinstein Reiss offers some welcome insights into the legal rights of unvaccinated children.

The first two installments of Reiss' five-part series are up at the website shotofprevention.com, with the rest due over the next couple of weeks. Reiss provides a tour of the legal landscape via case law and legal principles, but her core finding is that parents are responsible for weighing the pros and cons of vaccination for their children, and the pros far outweigh the cons.

She writes: "By rejecting the abundant data that proves that the risk of not vaccinating is greater than vaccinating, and by purposely leaving a child at the mercy of vaccine-preventable diseases, parents can legitimately be seen as violating a child's right to health and life."

Whether parents have immersed themselves in the anti-vaccination literature available at the far fringes of science, and sincerely believe it, doesn't matter.

According to Reiss and the LA Times, an unvaccinated child has no rights. 

I can see the end to exemptions. It's that simple. Individual rights can't compare to protecting the herd. I posted a comment, but the LA Times usually won't post mine. 

Fox News

Do you know what toxins are lurking in your environment? The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Society for Reproductive Medicine issued a joint committee opinion paper in September requesting policy changes by the government after uncovering evidence that environmental toxins are increasingly becoming a high-level threat to female reproductive health.

In a case study of the manufacturing and processing industries over the last seven years, researchers estimated that 84,000 chemicals are currently in use and 700 new chemicals are added every year in the United States. And, unfortunately, many of these chemicals are released for use without adequate research to determine their impact on the health of any living thing - humans, plants or animals.

Exposure to toxic chemicals is difficult to avoid. These chemicals end up in the air, water, soil, food and even household products. Research has shown that numerous chemicals impact individuals of all ages, causing behavioral disorders and hormonal imbalances. In the last several years, consumers have been warned by environmental and health advocates to heed caution when it comes to toxins in their environment. The rise in environmental chemicals directly correlates with the rise in certain conditions and diseases - such as breast cancer, autism and infertility.

Actually it's more than just autism. She advises that moms should avoid chemicals and go organic---all the while saying nothing about a horrendous dose of mercury in the flu vaccine.

I posted comments--photos are up on them!

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Linda

I was curious to see what Dr. Cunningham is up to these days and a quick search showed him mentioned in an article "Vaccines and Genetic Mutation" by Harold E. Buttram, MD et al.http://vran.org/about-vaccines/vaccine-ingredients/biological-ingredients-2/vaccines-and-genetic-mutation/

Edda West published an addendum to this article (at the end) which further makes the point:

"The human infant’s vulnerability to infection hinges on whether or not he/she is breastfed. Breastfeeding adds the most essential and powerful immune dimension which protects the newborn and young baby from a myriad of infectious disease. Many years ago, medical researcher Dr. Alan Cunnigham, MD found that breastfed babies have a more than 12 fold reduced risk of infectious diseases, particularly the big killers which are respiratory and gastrointestinal diseases. (1)

New Zealand researcher, Hilary Butler has written extensively about the newborn immune system being skewed towards TH2, a necessity so that the mother’s body does not reject the fetus. After birth however, the baby’s immune system starts to shift to cell mediated TH1. THE MAJOR factor enabling this transition is breastfeeding, which provides the baby with a highly complex protective immunological ecology (2)

Therefore, although the infant is born with an immature and vulnerable immune system, breastfeeding provides the crucial immunological bridge insuring that the neonate has the following: a plentiful supply of cell mediating secretory IgA; tremendous amounts of macrophages, which engulf and destroy pathogens the infant may be exposed to; and a highly complex enzyme system that provides appropriate nutrients, and functions in multiple immune capacities. An example of this is lactoferrin, the remarkable iron-binding protein that insures iron remains unavailable to bacteria, hence minimizing risk of infection. (3)

Fundamentally, human milk insures continuing oral passive immunity as it lays down essential gut protection that prevents enteroviruses from taking hold. It also maintains gut impermiability so that antigens can’t seep through the gut wall triggering allergic mechanisms. Breastmilk is the most vital element by which immune strength and integrity is built. It sets the immune foundation for life!

While doctors pay lip service to the advantages of breastfeeding, little is done to teach parents the profound and far reaching immune benefits of it. If every mother could understand her body’s capacity to provide her baby with the means to build a strong and disease resistant immune foundation, one could venture to predict that the fear of this or that disease would be dispelled, along with the idea of the necessity of vaccinations.

Addendum References
Dr. Alan Cunningham, Comparison of hospital admissions of breastfed & bottle-fed babies at The Mary Imogene Bassett Hospital, Cooperstown, N.Y.- letter to U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1980
Hilary Butler, Position Paper on the Role of Vaccines in SIDS, February, 2000
Derrick B. Jelliffe, MD, Human Milk in the Modern World, Oxford Medical Publications"

Linda

Hi Kapoore,

Breastfeeding might make children more able to tolerate toxins, but I agree that it isn't going to prevent vaccine poisoning (it didn't with mine either - but I can't say definitely what the differences are). When people talk about the high infant mortality rate at the beginning of the 20th century, most people don't realize that many of those deaths were from malnutrition and infection from not being breastfed. In 1918 there was a poster to educate parents about the value of breastfeeding, which stated that the mortality of bottle fed infants was 7 times higher than that of breastfed infants. But the vaccine ideologues hold up the mortality rates of that time and claim all the improvement since then is from vaccines. Rarely do you hear anyone acknowledge the inappropriate and poor quality slop (a far cry from Carnation evaporated milk and Karo syrup) that was put into bottles at that time that caused illness and death. Today, formulas are better than what babies were fed in the early 1900s (but still not close to human milk, as the AAP clearly states), and since their advent antibiotics have been used extensively in an attempt to make up for the lack of broad immune protection and the other numerous shortcomings in formula.

Shallow lip service is given to the superiority of human milk for infants and toddlers among most MDs, while they aggressively continue to push formula. Most MDs have received the bulk of their minimal training in infant nutrition from Pharma. It's all they know. The AAP statements on breastfeeding go back decades and started with a small group of MD breastfeeding activists (Ruth Lawrence, Alan Cunningham, et al) who attempted to bring the profession into line. The statement, although powerful, as far as I can tell, is largely ignored. The statement says that the 6 month exclusive breastfeeding rate in the US is 13%. Not great, and it's because there is so little education and protection of the process, amidst an abundance of formula promotion.

The bottom line is that this heavy handed attempt to mandate any and all vaccines under threat of litigation and worse, while allowing the war on breastfeeding to be waged against women and children worldwide BY THE SAME ENTITIES PUSHING THE VACCINES, is the height of hypocrisy. I didn't even mention that women who breastfeed have significantly lower rates of ovarian and breast cancer, and rheumatoid arthritis, among other things. Dorit Reiss and her mentor Paul Offit, and all their friends in the Vaccine Dinner Club should be deeply ashamed of themselves.

Kapoore

I am all for breastfeeding, and I breastfed both my children; but I don't think it is going to prevent a vaccine injury. (I breastfed one child for 15 months and the other for 2 years) Back in the bad old days when formula was made of evaporated milk, karo syrup, and water, moms had a lot more children and they survived amazingly well. I had a relative who raised five children on goat milk fresh from a goat in her backyard (sometimes there were hairs floating in the bottle) and all of them grew up strong, healthy, and disease free-- probably because they never went to a doctor. On the other hand I did everything "right" including breastfeeding and taking my children to the pediatrician and my daughter has an autoimmune disease, my son skin cancer at a young age. (Oh and that autoimmune disease brought with it dyxlexia, ataxia, failure to thrive, anorexia, and 20 years of chronic illness)

I'm so glad that researchers and doctors are getting on board in promoting the benefits of breastfeeding. I only wish more doctors would be open to a debate about vaccines. Children seem to be able to survive on practically anything except heavy doses of toxins injected into their tiny bodies.

jen

Yes I see your point, Linda. I think we should all link this article on threatening parents with litigation -written by Dorit -far and wide. People need to know what they/Dorit are up to. Link to it often in comments etc. We'll see how the majority like this... I don't think they're gonna like it.

Linda

Yes, Jen, but if the wicked witch of the west coast wants to shove unlimited, untested, unsafe vaccines down the throat of every American under threat of litigation, under the claim that those not partaking are negligent, then the same case could be made, credibly, that feeding a child Pharma's formulas is negligent when there is any possibility of feeding human milk and that the health care system's removal of that possibility for any child through harmful interference in the process, is negligent and grounds for litigation. If she wants to prop up the vaccine profit machine, we can drive a stake through the heart of Pharma's favorite cash cow, the very lucrative formula industry, using her own offensive logic.

Kapoore

I think it will be hard for California to get rid of its religious exemption because more than vaccines ride on that... there is also the Jewish religion which narrowly missed from being banned from San Francisco when the right to circumcize was practically taken away. I think Miss Reiss (who sounds Jewish) might want to reconsider the consequences of taking away the freedom of religion in California. I personally think that Gov. Brown upheld the religious exemption for vaccines because he had just upheld the religious right to circumcize and if one goes out the window so does the other. These rights have broad implications.

I am appalled by this "preventable disease" ethos--that would trade a 10 day case of the measles for a lifetime of neuroglcal disability. What is so horrific about measles? Is it worse than autoimmune disease, seizure disorder, and autism? No... I only wish my daughter had had the measles rather than the shot. Even though she doesn't have autism it's been one very long rocky climb out of illness. And she'll never be able to be free of special diets and supplements....

jen

Re. Dorit's LA Times piece- if this is where she is heading- to courts forcing vaccination then there will be a revolution. I mean can you imagine people like the Trumps etc. being forced to do this? Not a chance. How would this be enforced? No, this will be their big mistake- I see even more home-schooling and revolution in general.

jen

Of course you're right, Linda, but Dorit is beig paid to promote this either in cold hard cash or with the promise of some kind of job down the road.

Bob Moffitt

"In light of what's starting to look like a surge of measles cases spread by unvaccinated carriers, Hastings Law professor Dorit Rubinstein Reiss offers some welcome insights into the legal rights of unvaccinated children."

It must really be hard for Reiss to continue down this well-worn troddened path of misinformation .. as it is widely known .. all the kids who got mumps during recent outbreak of mumps on Rutgers University were "fully vaccinated" .. as well as .. all the kids who got "polio-like disease" in California were .. also .. "fully vaccinated".

Yo .. Dorit .. not an "unvaccinated" child in the whole lot.

Linda

I want to say a few more things about what I just posted. Someone said (Laura?) recently that no one who is informed about vaccination gives consent (or something like that). The same is with breastfeeding. The information is largely hidden from the public and so watered down that parents think that formula is equivalent to human milk. That is not by accident. That's why I made a more detailed list and spelled it out. There are only a handful of doctors (Sears, Gordon, etc.) who will educate parents about breastfeeding and long before pregnancy, girls and boys are indoctrinated to view bottle feeding as the norm. Please, for anyone who didn't breastfeed for whatever reason, I wasn't attacking you and I don't think you should feel guilty. Not wanting to make parents feel bad is the reason typically given for keeping the information out of public view, which perpetuates the crime of undermining breastfeeding generation to generation.

Linda

(continued)

"Allergic Disease

There is a protective effect of exclusive breastfeeding for 3 to 4 months in reducing the incidence of clinical asthma, atopic dermatitis, and eczema by 27% in a low-risk population and up to 42% in infants with positive family history...

Celiac Disease

There is a reduction of 52% in the risk of developing celiac disease in infants who were breastfed at the time of gluten exposure.31 Overall, there is an association between increased duration of breastfeeding and reduced risk of celiac disease when measured as the presence of celiac antibodies....

Inflammatory Bowel Disease

Breastfeeding is associated with a 31% reduction in the risk of childhood inflammatory bowel disease....

Obesity

...there is a 15% to 30% reduction in adolescent and adult obesity rates if any breastfeeding occurred in infancy compared with no breastfeeding....

Diabetes

Up to a 30% reduction in the incidence of type 1 diabetes mellitus is reported for infants who exclusively breastfed for at least 3 months... A reduction of 40% in the incidence of type 2 diabetes mellitus is reported, possibly reflecting the long-term positive effect of breastfeeding on weight control and feeding self-regulation.43

Childhood Leukemia and Lymphoma

... A reduction of 20% in the risk of acute lymphocytic leukemia and 15% in the risk of acute myeloid leukemia in infants breastfed for 6 months or longer.45,46 Breastfeeding for less than 6 months is protective but of less magnitude (approximately 12% and 10%, respectively)..."

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/129/3/e827.full:

So, should we sue parents for not breastfeeding? Should those with obesity, diabetes 1 or 2, lymphoma, bowel disease, recurrent infections, celiac disease, asthma and other severe allergies who were not breastfed at all or long enough, even though their mother was able, should they be able to sue their mother for damages? If an employer made it impossible for a working mother to successfully save her milk for her baby, should the baby or parents be allowed to sue for damages? If a doctor or nurse or hospital interferes with breastfeeding in any way (as happens all the time), either by giving the mother incorrect advice, or by discouraging her or by neglecting to refer her to an expert if she needs help, or by inappropriately giving her free formula samples known to interfere with breastfeeding and against the AAP's recommendation to exclusively breastfeed for the first 6 months, should the parents or child be able to sue? Should bottle fed children with all their infections be allowed in daycare or school?

What about the economic cost? The AAP states that if 90% of American women breastfed exclusively for 6 months, $13 billion would be saved. "The savings do not include those related to a reduction in parental absenteeism from work or adult deaths from diseases acquired in childhood, such as asthma, type 1 diabetes mellitus, or obesity-related conditions."

The so-called benefits of vaccinating pale in comparison to those of breastfeeding. Should society tolerate medically unnecessary formula feeding?

But even though the AAP states that "exclusive breastfeeding for 6 months and weaning after 1 year is the most effective intervention, with the potential of preventing more than 1 million infant deaths per year, equal to preventing 13% of the world’s childhood mortality", amazingly, when you go into CVS or Walgreens, there are no signs reminding you to breastfeed. There are only signs everywhere selling flu and other shots. Why? Because breastfeeding is F R E E and the same companies that sell the flu and other shots, sell the formula - the same formula that COMPETES TO REPLACE the mother's milk that has the potential to decrease worldwide childhood mortality by 13% a year (I know, I repeated it several times. It bears repeating.)

So, what do you think Dorit? You want to sue parents for not vaccinating? How about we change your statement to read:

"By rejecting the abundant data that proves that the risk of not breastfeeding is great, and by purposely leaving a child at the mercy of diseases preventable by breastfeeding exclusively for the first 6 months of life and continuing with other added foods for at least the first 12 months, parents can legitimately be seen as violating a child's right to health and life."


Linda

Re the rights of the unvaccinated child...Warning, I'm about to go off. I've had just about enough of Ms. Reiss.

If she wants to set the precedent of suing parents for not vaccinating, I would like to suggest that she should include suing parents for not breastfeeding (not really, please bear with me). There is no doubt anywhere that breastfed babies are significantly healthier throughout their lives. It is also a fact that unless they are tripped up somewhere along the line, that it is rare for a woman to be unable to breastfeed. From the AAP's position paper on breastfeeding (note that only 13% of American women breastfeed exclusively, as recommended, for the first 6 months):

"Respiratory Tract Infections and Otitis Media
The risk of hospitalization for lower respiratory tract infections in the first year is reduced 72% if infants breastfed exclusively for more than 4 months...Infants who exclusively breastfed for 4 to 6 months had a fourfold increase in the risk of pneumonia compared with infants who exclusively breastfed for more than 6 months... The severity (duration of hospitalization and oxygen requirements) of respiratory syncytial virus bronchiolitis is reduced by 74% in infants who breastfed exclusively for 4 months compared with infants who never or only partially breastfed.16
Any breastfeeding compared with exclusive commercial infant formula feeding will reduce the incidence of otitis media (OM) by 23%.13 Exclusive breastfeeding for more than 3 months reduces the risk of otitis media by 50%. Serious colds and ear and throat infections were reduced by 63% in infants who exclusively breastfed for 6 months.17

Gastrointestinal Tract Infections

Any breastfeeding is associated with a 64% reduction in the incidence of nonspecific gastrointestinal tract infections, and this effect lasts for 2 months after cessation of breastfeeding.13,14,17,18

Necrotizing Enterocolitis

... feeding preterm infants human milk is associated with a significant reduction (58%) in the incidence of necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC).13 A more recent study of preterm infants fed an exclusive human milk diet compared with those fed human milk supplemented with cow-milk-based infant formula products noted a 77% reduction in NEC.19 One case of NEC could be prevented if 10 infants received an exclusive human milk diet, and 1 case of NEC requiring surgery or resulting in death could be prevented if 8 infants received an exclusive human milk diet.19

Sudden Infant Death Syndrome and Infant Mortality

...breastfeeding is associated with a 36% reduced risk of SIDS... A proportion (21%) of the US infant mortality has been attributed, in part, to the increased rate of SIDS in infants who were never breastfed.21 That the positive effect of breastfeeding on SIDS rates is independent of sleep position was confirmed in a large case-control study of supine-sleeping infants.22,23
IT HAS BEEN CALCULATED THAT MORE THAN 900 INFANT LIVES PER YEAR MAY BE SAVED IN THE UNITED STATES IF 90% OF MOTHERS EXCLUSIVELY BREASTFED FOR 6 MONTHS. ... IN THE 42 DEVELOPING COUNTRIES IN WHICH 90% OF THE WORLD'S CHILDHOOD DEATHS OCCUR, EXCLUSIVE BREASTFEEDING FOR 6 MONTHS AND WEANING AFTER 1 YEAR IS THE MOST EFFECTIVE INTERVENTION, WITH THE POTENTIAL OF PREVENTING MORE THAN 1 MILLION INFANT DEATHS PER YEAR, EQUAL TO PREVENTING 13% OF THE WORLD'S CHILDHOOD MORTALITY. 25

(continued)

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)