NYT Reports Preschool Flu Shot Mandate Shot Down by NY Supreme Court
Coming of Age with Autism

Weekly Wrap: “Vaccines Caused Payam’s Autism,” and a Drug Cover-up in Australia

AofA Red Logo Ayumi YamadaBy Dan Olmsted

These recent comments by Albert Enayati, an early vaccine safety advocate, to the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee are worth everyone's attention. "I think it may be beneficial to the other parents who say their children regressed to autism through childhood immunization," he says. We agree. The list of studies at the end is terrific.

==

“Vaccines Caused Payam’s Autism” --Testimony Presented By Albert Enayati, MSME, Research Scientist, Senior System Engineer. Father of Payam, who regressed into autism after his childhood vaccinations, Board Member of SafeMinds and APRC

E-mail: albert_enayati @msn.com

Before the  Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee (IACC). November 17, 2015. Bethesda MD.

My name is Albert Enayati. I am a board member of SafeMinds and APRC, both volunteer organizations focused on identifying and removing the harmful environmental agents contributing to the severe disability that frequently accompanies autism. Sadly, despite my 20 years of autism advocacy, we are still ignoring environmental risk factors, with no safe and effective medications or prevention strategy in sight. No conclusive biomarkers have been identified and no new treatments validated. Over the past seven years of IACC coordination, Federal agencies have spent 1.6 billion dollars in many fields of autism research, but environmental research has been underfunded and autism prevalence continues unabated, including severely disabling cases.

It is time to dedicate resources to a more fruitful path; environmental causation of autism. Within this field, a topic in need of funding is the role of vaccines in autism etiology.. Please take note that a recent study among parents by the Simons Foundation found that 42% of parents felt vaccines contributed to their child's autism.1, The IACC should not ignore this large segment of the community and observations by so many parents regarding their children's developmental history.

In 2009 the National Vaccine Advisory Committee (NVAC) 2, 3, 4 recommended to this committee a number of feasible research proposals on vaccines and autism.  Not a single one has been implemented.

My son Payam regressed after his vaccinations. He is suffering from his autism and breaks my heart piece by piece. He has serious self-injurious behavior. He has run away, ended up in the emergency room, and been tased by law enforcement. His finger was nearly amputated because he cannot communicate his pain from infection. His medications don't help. Meanwhile, the main decision-makers on autism research, here at the IACC – the NIH, CDC, Autism Speaks and the Simons Foundation - have been discriminating against children like my son and many children across the country whose parents report regressions after their childhood immunizations.  Even if it is “unpopular”, it is ethically imperative that we investigate these reports and study these children.  Public health is not simply freedom from infectious disease.  Autism is not always a gift or alternate way of being. It often comes with a great cost. My son deserves to have attention paid to him and research done to help him have a better quality of life.

On many occasions Dr. Insel informed me that “science does not support my point of view”.  In fact, very little meaningful science has been done on vaccines and autism, only a small fraction of possibilities have even been looked at, and the studies that have been published are riddled with conflicts of interest, data manipulation and in the case of Dr. Thorsen, indictment for financial research fraud.  In addition, Dr. William Thompson, a senior researcher at the CDC who has whistleblower status, has reported dumping inconvenient data in a garbage can, along with colleagues, to avoid reporting an increased risk of autism in African American boys who received MMR vaccine.

A 2011 study by the Institute of Medicine's Immunization Safety Review Committee5 evaluated the evidence on possible causal associations between immunizations and certain adverse outcomes.  In 135 of 158 pairs evaluated, they found that “evidence is inadequate to accept or reject a causal relationship”.  They found no relationship between MMR and autism, but given that their evaluation included studies like the one where data was dumped, the safety of our children demands that we allow for future research to inform the questions.

Even the package insert for DTaP6 vaccine suggests that we need further study. Here’s a quote from 2005: [emphasis added]

“Adverse events reported during post-approval use of Tripedia vaccine include idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura, SIDS, anaphylactic reaction, cellulitis, autism, convulsion/grand mal convulsion, encephalopathy, hypotonia, neuropathy, somnolence and apnea. Events were included in this list because of the seriousness or frequency of reporting.”

Yet, there are no studies looking specifically at autism and receipt of DTaP vaccines.

In a recent study of 100 published papers analyzed by Science magazine7, only 39% of published articles could be replicated unambiguously. We need to keep an open mind and start actually funding unbiased research into vaccines and autism.  A recent paper indicates that aluminum in vaccines may have direct association with the increased rate of autism8. Another paper found increased risk of autism from the birth dose of Hepatitis B.9 The Vaccine Injury Compensation Program has compensated at least 83 cases with autism or autism-like conditions.10 Vaccines have been found to increase the risk of seizures, tics and mitochondrial collapse, all of which commonly co-occur in autism.11,12,13

A controlled study has not been done of autism risk among children given the recommended vaccine schedule compared with those not so vaccinated.

Autism can no longer be considered a purely heritable, genetic disorder. Several studies suggest that as much as 50% of risk may be due to environmental factors.  It is imperative that the non-genetic causes of autism be investigated. Unbiased research on the role of vaccinations needs immediate support. Our children are too important to let even a controversial stone go unturned.

Sincerely and respectfully

Albert Enayati, MSME

Board Member, SafeMinds and A.P.R.C

  1. Goin-Kochel RP, Mire SS, Dempsey AG.. Emergence of autism spectrum disorder in children from simplex families: relations to parental perceptions of etiology. J Autism Dev Disord. 2015 May;45(5):1451-63. doi: 10.1007/s10803-014-2310-8.
  2. http://archive.hhs.gov/nvpo/nvac/documents/NVACVaccineSafetyWGReport041409.pdf
  3. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/cdc-to-study-vaccines-and_b_837360.html
  4. https://snt153.mail.live.com/mail/ViewOfficePreview.aspx?messageid=mgTej-OXeB5RGKhgAhWtgZSg2&folderid=flinbox&attindex=0&cp=-1&attdepth=0&n=34466307
  5. http://iom.nationalacademies.org/Reports/2011/Adverse-Effects-of-Vaccines-Evidence-and-Causality.aspx
  6. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/biologicsbloodvaccines/vaccines/approvedproducts/ucm101580.pdf
  7. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/349/6251/aac4716
  8. http://www.oapublishinglondon.com/article/1368
  9. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21058170
  10. Mary Holland, Louis Conte, Robert Krakow, and Lisa Colin, Unanswered Questions from the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program: A Review of Compensated Cases of Vaccine-Induced Brain Injury, 28 Pace Envtl. L. Rev. 480 (2011) Available at: http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/pelr/vol28/iss2/6
  11. http://www.webmd.com/children/vaccines/news/20110223/small-seizure-risk-with-flu-pneumococcal-vaccines
  12. http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/thimerosal/environmental-exposures.html
  13. http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/thimerosal/environmental-exposures.html

--

In other, analogously indefensible news: "Defence Force Accused of Massive Coverup Over Anti-Malarial Drug":

“December 4 -- The Australian Defence Force (ADF) has acknowledged for the first time that a number of its past and present members have suffered severe side-effects from the use of an anti-malarial drug known as mefloquine or Lariam.

Key points:

  1. Mefloquine or lariam is one of three anti-malarial medications approved by the Therapeutic Goods Administration
  2. Estimates up to 1,250 current and former ADF members have brain injuries from the medication
  3. ADF maintains less than 1 per cent of members receiving mefloquine

The medication has led to permanent psychological damage, anxiety attacks, nightmares, suicidal thoughts and hallucinations in some people.

Defence personnel have previously complained that their concerns about the drug were not taken seriously by the ADF.”

So yes, health bureaucracies can turn against the people they serve and, in particular, deny the effects of toxic drugs they recommend. We see that with vaccines, and I've seen it over many years with Lariam, which caused mayhem (by which I mean murder, suicide and permanent psychosis) in the U.S. military. That's what got me interested in vaccines. Now, in Australia as well as America, we're seeing the "side effects," so to speak, of denying the truth about toxic medicine.

 

--

Dan Olmsted is Editor of Age of Autism.

Comments

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

Ronald Kostoff

Rouleur,

When I did the SARS study in the 2009-2010 time period, I retrieved and examined every record on SARS published from ~2003 until ~2009. I am familiar with all the arguments relative to SARS vaccines and the relation to immune system issues. We can go back and forth on the details ad infinitum, as in fact the main researchers were doing at the time to ascertain the immune system deficiencies.

Your bottom line seems to consist of the following two statements:

1. "SARS is a contagious disease with a high mortality rate, it can cause long-term severe problems even among survivors, and there are few good clinical options for those infected. Under these circumstances, it seems irresponsible to dismiss efforts at developing a safe and effective vaccine and to instead a adopt a "let nature take its course" approach and vaguely urge people to "strengthen their immune systems.""
2. "A course of prevention that includes safe and effective vaccines seems a prudent course to pursue in addition to outbreak monitoring and containment measures and improved clinical care of those exposed."

First, 800 deaths in a global pandemic, while unfortunate, is not a major health issue. In the USA in 2013, 611,000 people died from heart disease, 585,000 died from cancer, 149,000 died from chronic lower respiratory disease, 129,000 died from stroke, and so on. The latter should be the major focus of our attention.

Second, I checked on the Web, and could not find any examples of SARS cases/outbreaks since the end of the pandemic in 2003. Not exactly the type of crisis to warrant anything near your recommendations for vaccine development. Put more bluntly, it's a non-issue.

Third, you state: "No, I don't propose throwing 320,000 or so viruses against the wall and seeing what sticks, and it's ludicrous to think that researchers would propose such an approach either." Nobody is proposing throwing something against a wall to see what sticks. If there are 320,000 viruses with the potential to cause the same type of zoonoses as SARS, vaccines would need to be developed for many if not most of them for prevention, if in fact they offer such prevention in the real world. One could prioritize vaccine development for the viruses most likely to cause a zoonotic pandemic, and perhaps limit them to the top 10,000. But, if one wanted a vaccine-based strategy to prevent the possibility of zoonotic epidemics, that's what's required. Yes, it sounds ludicrous, and it is ludicrous, but you're the one pushing a vaccine-based approach, not me.

Your bottom line seems to be vaccines are valuable, and need to be developed. I get that; it was clear from the correspondence you had with Linda1, and it's crystal-clear from your recent correspondence with me. Why not just state that, and avoid these tortured arguments? However, trying to promote vaccines on a blog where many of the commenters have real-world (highly negative) experience with the consequences of some of these vaccines doesn't seem to me to be a cost-effective strategy.

My bottom line is that there are major non-communicable diseases, and probably many communicable diseases as well, that can be prevented/halted/reversed by taking active measures to eliminate the contributing factors to those diseases. Taking these steps will strengthen the body's ability to ward of myriad diseases. The SARS history shows the main factor in surviving was having a sufficiently strong immune system with the attendant low co-morbidities to neutralize the effects of the SARS coronavirus.

I identify the major pervasive contributing factors to all diseases in my book, and offer suggestions how to eliminate them. If treatments are needed, they can be identified using the same methods I used to identify contributing factors/causes. In my CKD paper, I identified both contributing factors and treatments; that method can be easily extrapolated to all diseases.

I recognize the vaccine manufacturers and other 'healthcare' suppliers will not get rich from my approach, and that the numbers of people willing to make such radical lifestyle changes are small. I get that! But, for those few who are interested, like the Terri Wahls and Dale Breseden examples in my book, major health improvements are possible, if irreversible damage has not already been done and genetic predispositions are not dominant.

Rouleur

Mr Kostoff,
That's a remarkably flimsy strawman argument you posit about SARS vaccine development. No, I don't propose throwing 320,000 or so viruses against the wall and seeing what sticks, and it's ludicrous to think that researchers would propose such an approach either. There are focused, ongoing investigations into SARS vaccines underway based upon what virologists and immunologists have learned about the structure and behavior of the coronavirus vaccine and on the clinical experiences of those previously infected. Some of those investigations are mentioned and cited in Oh, et al., "Understanding T-Cell Immune response in SARS Coronavirus Infection," Emerging Microbes and Infections (2012). The role of T-cell response to SARS infections suggests a vaccine based on enhancing the T-cell response. Zhao, et al. "Evasion by Stealth: Inefficient Immune Activation Underlies Poor T-Cell Response and Severe Disease in SARS-CoV-Infected Mice," PLOS Pathogens (2009).

While there is good evidence suggesting that the severity and mortality of SARS cases is often related to a deficient cellular immunity response, there remains significant debate about whether the SARS virus itself causes the disregulation in a previously robust immune system, or whether the virus takes advantage of a pre-existing immune system deficiency. See, e.g., Zhao, "Is the Immune System Impaired in Patients with SARS?" Clin.Infec.Dis. (2004) 38(6):921-922 (comment)("Clinically, there is no evidence that the onset of SARS is associated with impairment of the immune system").

SARS is a contagious disease with a high mortality rate, it can cause long-term severe problems even among survivors, and there are few good clinical options for those infected. Under these circumstances, it seems irresponsible to dismiss efforts at developing a safe and effective vaccine and to instead a adopt a "let nature take its course" approach and vaguely urge people to "strengthen their immune systems." The historical experience is that when nature takes it course, people get sick and many of them die. Science-based prevention matters, and your suggestion contains neither an ounce of prevention nor a pound of cure.

Ronald Kostoff

Barry,

You initially raised the specific question: "Are you actually suggesting that doctors are aware that they are injuring their own patients , and are choosing to do it anyway"? My response was, and is, they do it all the time. Injuring the patient is not their main objective. Improving the patient's health is the main objective, and the increased risk of injury (side-effect) is the price they (and an appropriately informed patient) are willing to pay by agreeing to the treatment.

"Are you actually drawing a parallel between immunosuppressants for people who receive life saving organ transplants, and risking brain damage in toddlers, for a medication that may or may not prevent ….. measles????"

Showing some generically common features is not the same as drawing an equivalence. The purpose of the immunosuppressants in the case of organ transplants is to (hopefully) prevent life-threatening rejection of the organ. The purpose of the e.g. measles vaccine is to (hopefully) prevent measles, according to its proponents. Both types of medications don't always achieve their main objectives. Additionally, both types of medications have side effects, and from that perspective, both groups of doctors are increasing the risk of injury to their patients. They rationalize each medication by the benefits outweighing the costs. Whether we choose to believe these rationalizations is another story, especially given the manufactured and distorted research results that infest the biomedical literature.

Barry

I did not address motivation or intent, as your question implies. However, much medical practice involves doctors 'injuring their own patients, and are choosing to do it anyway'. It's known as 'side-effects'. Surgeons do transplants all the time, and give immunosuppressants to insure the organ is not rejected.

************

I don't need you to explain side effects to me. If anything, I should probably be explaining what they are to you.

Are you actually drawing a parallel between immunosuppressants for people who receive life saving organ transplants, and risking brain damage in toddlers, for a medication that may or may not prevent ….. measles????

Ronald Kostoff

Rouleur,

Not true. Your statement that: "there is evidence that mortality was actually higher among those with the more robust immune responses" completely distorts what happened. There was some debate in the research community about the nature of the specific immune response deficiency, but the consensus seemed to be that the switch from innate to adaptive immunity was overly delayed. Essentially, the people were dying from the consequences of extended chronic inflammation. When I use the term 'strengthen the immune system', it involves producing not only adequate numbers of immune system components, but also insuring that the system switches from innate to adaptive immunity appropriately. That was not the case with SARS, and it was the opinion of this researcher that the immune system was overwhelmed dealing with the co-morbidities present to be able to handle the additional coronavirus stimulus adequately.

Near the end of the pandemic and afterwards, some researchers/clinicians re-examined blood samples taken from their patients in pandemic outbreak areas who did not present with SARS, and who had come for other problems, including routine examinations. They found a number of cases where patients exhibited SARS coronavirus antibodies in the serum, but these patients exhibited no overt symptoms of the SARS disease. That's what a truly healthy immune system can do, if a person adopts a lifestyle that will strengthen their immune system. Additionally, such an approach will avoid the short and long-term side-effects of such vaccines. As we have seen in the case of the MMR vaccine, the shorter-term side-effects have been deliberately suppressed (if Thompson's allegations are correct), and the long-term side-effects (including the potential for transgenerational) have not been reported. Why would we think the example of the MMR vaccine is unique, rather than the norm?

"A course of prevention that includes safe and effective vaccines seems a prudent course to pursue in addition to outbreak monitoring and containment measures and improved clinical care of those exposed." It has been estimated that there are at least 320,000 viruses that infect mammals (http://mbio.asm.org/content/4/5/e00598-13), with the potential of being transmitted from animals to humans (zoonoses, like the SARS pandemic). Are you going to inoculate people with 320,000 vaccines in the hopes of preventing the emergence of zoonotic disease? That would be a vaccine manufacturer's wet dream! Far better to strengthen the immune system (see my book for some recommendations), and let nature carry out the function for which it was designed.

Rouleur

Mr. Kostoff,

There is evidence that elevated cytokine responses were associated with mortalities among SARS cases, suggesting that maximizing the immune response in people who prospectively might be exposed to SARS will not help reduce mortality. SARS appears to be an infectious process that triggers cytokine "storms," which are the systemic expressions of healthy and vigorous immune systems that trigger the release of 150+ pro- and anti-inflammatory cytokines. See, e.g., Huang et al., "An interferon-gamma-related cytokine storm in SARS patients, J. Med. Virol. 2005 Feb; 75(2), 184-95. A vague call to "stronger immune systems" is hardly prescriptive based on the clinical evidence, especially when there is evidence that mortality was actually higher among those with the more robust immune responses.

A course of prevention that includes safe and effective vaccines seems a prudent course to pursue in addition to outbreak monitoring and containment measures and improved clinical care of those exposed. Ongoing research may lead to the development of safe and effective vaccines in anticipation of another SARS outbreak.

In addition, the association between HepB and SARS mortality suggests that HepB prevention, including vaccination, might decrease SARS mortality.

Jenny

Someone is finally trying to find ways to distinguish immune reactions to bacterial, viral, and vaccine germ exposures. I'm sure the devil is in the details: they don't talk about whether what percentage of which population "suffered" symptoms. But they say flat out, that no one has ever before found the correlation between natural immune reaction and vaccine immune reactions. CRAZY! Politicians trying to mandate a medical procedure that no one has understood before now. How is that entertained in anyone's mind as legal, moral, or anything less than being experimented on without full medical consent?

http://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2015/12/viral-infections-leave-a-signature-on-human-immune-system.html

John Stone

ATSC

Fascinating how remarks that go almost unnoticed end up resonating painfully.

Ronald Kostoff

ATSC,

"These children were obviously not healthy to begin with. Instead of inventing vaccines to vaccinate everyone to protect the minority, and inadvertently causing brain-damage to normal children, perhaps they should have been looking for the reasons only a minority of children suffer disease complications."

In 2011, I published a paper on treatments and preventatives for SARS [1], the pandemic of 2002-3 that started in China and swept through the world. Roughly 8,000 people presented with SARS, and roughly 800 died of SARS. Drugs, 'treatments', et al had no effect on the pandemic. It was stopped through isolation, improved hygiene, improved sanitation, etc.

In doing the background research, I found that the 800 who died were not representative of the total; they had numerous co-morbidities even before the pandemic started. Exposure to the SARS coronavirus was the 'straw that broke the camel's back'.

I started the study perhaps six years after the pandemic ended, and examined the literature on SARS since 2002. Much of the research (even during the pandemic but certainly post-pandemic) was focused on new vaccines against the disease. As I concluded in the paper, the rational approach would have been to strengthen the immune system to ward off the disease, so if the virus makes another round, the response would be mild or no symptoms. Or, if another virus surfaces, we will be in the same position as we were with the SARS coronavirus, since the immune system of some people will not be able to handle it, and there wouldn't be sufficient time to develop a credible vaccine. The only hope for prevention in general was to strengthen the immune system to the maximum extent possible. Otherwise, we will end up with Offit's 10,000 vaccines to protect against any credible virus, with who knows how many side effects from the combination.

But, isn't that the problem we have with not only vaccines for infectious disease, but drugs in general for chronic disease? The rational and long-lasting approach is to take those steps that will strengthen the immune and other critical systems, to ward off disease of any type. Unfortunately, most people don't want to make those changes, and would rather maintain their present lifestyle with the present array of drugs and vaccines (and, of course, side effects) to attenuate disease symptoms. That's what we the public want, and that's what the 'healthcare' community is only too glad to oblige. We contribute to the problem, along with the other groups I have mentioned in previous posts.

[1]. Kostoff RN. “Literature-Related Discovery: Potential treatments and preventatives for SARS”. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 78:7. 1164-1173. 2011.

cmo

Any chance of Donald Trump meeting with Putin to discuss vaccine schedules and Autism rates ?

What would President Trump do about the CDC & Autism his first day in office ? Who gets called in ?

Could you imagine what would happen if the public would ever be provided the truth about anything ?

ATSC

Dr Simon Murch co-author of the Lancet paper gave us a clue as to how doctors think:

"I have been advised by colleagues that it is better to accept that a very few children can have adverse events than to continue to investigate that if it is going to have an impact on vaccine uptake internationally."
- BBC Panorama documentary 'MMR Every Parent's Choice' (2002)

In defence of doctors, many have had to care for children who have suffered complications from diseases that the vast majority of us haven't encountered, and they really do believe that without vaccines far many more children would be brain-injured or die from these diseases. What if they have it wrong, it is not the multitudes of children that they do not see walking through the gate on the other side of the hospital for their psychiatric evaluations for ASD, OCD, ADHD etc that have genetic problems but the children who land in their infectious disease ward. These children were obviously not healthy to begin with. Instead of inventing vaccines to vaccinate everyone to protect the minority, and inadvertently causing brain-damage to normal children, perhaps they should have been looking for the reasons only a minority of children suffer disease complications.


Hera

Hi Ronald K
Yes, for the most part I think you are right. I think some doctors try and hide the knowledge from themselves. They tell each other
1)
Vaccine injury is very rare (so they can say it is okay when they see it happen, and pretend it must be that "one in a million" case)
2)It would have happened anyway ( so they and the vaccines they give are not to blame)
2) Autism is really a "gift" ( And ignore the fact that so many of these children end up non verbal and needing institutional or lifelong care )
Doctors are like the rest of humanity, some good, some bad, very few saints. it is easier to pretend that nothing bad is happening and that an increase in autism rates from 1 in 10000 in the 1960's to 1 in 56?( or is 1 in 45 the latest figure now?) is just better diagnosing, than having to face that they are forcing others to do something that may be harming a percentage of their patients.

IMO, most doctors "know' they are good people, therefore they "know" that no matter what they see happening,they can't be responsible for any of the autism increase in children. And they may get really, really, angry at people who point out what they secretly suspect. It's human nature.

Some brave ones of course, will risk being Wakefielded because of their very high levels of integrity.
But I suspect change, acknowledgement of cases of vaccine injury, and respect for medical freedom of choice, will come from regular people demanding it, rather than from doctors. The nurses office I visited recently did mention a brave doctor who was being pilloried for speaking up for vaccine choice. So there are brave people out there. It takes a lot of courage though, when your career might be on the line...

Ronald Kostoff

Barry,

"Are you actually suggesting that doctors are aware that they are injuring their own patients , and are choosing to do it anyway?"

I stated specifically: "My guess is that, for the most part, they are well aware of the problem.....most doctors don't want to get 'Wakefielded' by exposing the truth about serious vaccine side-effects......they go along with the mainstream.....That is my belief that, for the most part, they know the score only too well, far better in fact than we do.....they look around and see Wakefield, Snowden, Manning, David Lewis (biosludge), William Marcus (fluoridation), and many others who have dared tell the truth, and have decided they don't want to pay the personal price these other heroes have paid."

I did not address motivation or intent, as your question implies. However, much medical practice involves doctors 'injuring their own patients, and are choosing to do it anyway'. It's known as 'side-effects'. Surgeons do transplants all the time, and give immunosuppressants to insure the organ is not rejected. A certain fraction of those patients will have a higher risk of cancer, given a weaker immune system. The medical profession has made the tradeoff determination that the benefits outweigh the risks. Maybe some/many/most Pediatricians have made the same tradeoffs with respect to vaccines: the benefits outweigh the risks. Who knows; I don't have the data, and it's not clear how one would obtain insight into the real motivations of these Pediatricians.

But, I would throw the ball back in your court. Do you believe the side effects of e.g. the MMR vaccine are so rare with such long latency periods that Pediatricians with a large practice, or who are part of an even larger group practice, are completely unaware of these side-effects? If so, that would run counter to the AoA belief that we are in the throes of a virtual epidemic of neurodevelopmental problems that result from vaccinations. If we are in fact in the midst of such an epidemic, then those on the front lines would be well aware of these problems as part of their everyday practice.

Finally, Chapter 9 of my book provides numerous examples of medical misconduct. Who do you think is responsible for this misconduct; many are M.D.s? Look at some of the leaders of the recent state campaigns to mandate vaccines. Without mentioning names, some of these leaders are Pediatricians who were deluged with data showing adverse effects of vaccines. Did that stop them from advancing their agenda? Now, were they "aware that they are injuring their own patients , and are choosing to do it anyway", to put it in your terms? You tell me. My guess is that if push came to shove, they would justify their recommendations on the basis that the benefits of vaccination outweigh the costs (side-effects).

In a recent AoA post, I listed the titles of ~twenty books that described unethical medical experiments performed mainly in the USA. Most of the people who conducted these experiments were M.D.s. Were they "aware that they are injuring their own patients , and are choosing to do it anyway"? Would they have admitted that's what they were doing? Not from the comments I saw. They believed they were doing it for a higher purpose, somewhat in parallel to how most of us rationalize medical experiments on defenseless animals. The data obtained from these unethical experiments would help heal human beings in the future. The benefits outweigh the costs; the ends justify the means!

a reader

This is such an excellent letter that I wonder if it shouldn't be kept as some sort of permanent link on A of A for new visitors. Also, I like one commenters idea of handing it out to lawmakers.
I am somewhat happy that the rider that would have prohibited states from being able to require GMO labeling was not attached to the budget bill as planned (The DARK act). I do feel that there is some power, possibly growing power, in just spreading the word and informing people. Three presidential candidates made remarks about autism. I was at a hospital a week ago and a good number of nurses were walking around with masks--which are essentially signs that say, "I decided not to get a flu shot and I am a registered nurse!" People were actually going up to them and discussing it.

Linda1

Some doctors know, at least to an extent, and they rationalize that they have to go along with it because it is their job. Most of the new ones, brainwashed and deliberately broken from their training, have no idea because it takes them a long time to heal from their training, if they ever heal, and they haven't been in the trenches long enough to realize the consequences of vaccination. Some aren't bright enough to ever connect the dots.

That the allopathic model is based on reductionist thinking doesn't help either. Patients that develop problems are passed on to specialists that feed on problems effecting different parts of the body, a hindrance to understanding the whole patient and the origin of disease. Most do not read scientific journals. They certainly don't read to the extent that some of their patients do.

I agree though that they are a big part of how this will stop, if it does. If allopaths begin to stand up against the machine en masse, things will change.

Twyla

Thank you so much, Albert Enayati, for your 20 years of advocacy - from co-authoring "Autism - a Novel form of Mercury Poisoning" to this very succinct essay. I am so sorry that your heart is breaking piece by piece. It is so unfair that our govt agencies are not devoting themselves to helping people like your son. Thank you for continuing to speak out.

@Ronald Kostoff and Barry etc.

There should be some Prodding for doctors to go to the schools and see just how unhealthy the students (their patients) are now. I guess they can pretend things are fine isolated in their offices but there must be a way to force them to confront reality. I think they are aware there's a problem but there needs to be more direct confrontation or challenge on them to get real about things. If not them, then who?

Benedetta

Thanks John Stone for the link.
Yeah, it looks like I did know - I read Age of Autism's article on it. And I forgot they had a meeting.

I could feel bad that I forgot? Or I could assume it was forgettable cause nothing really happened thus nothing to remember.

Gary Ogden

I am in the process of reading "Fear of the invisible," and it is enough to scare the hell out of anyone, and enough to thoroughly piss off anyone who holds those values we were taught as children- truth, justice, honor, and the American way- dear to heart. The entire history of vaccination has been based upon pseudo-science, hubris, dogma, changing diagnoses, fraud, cowardice, and above all, profit. To some degree I disagree with Ronald Kostoff that doctors know about this. It is likely that those involved in trauma care, pediatricians, and gastroenterologists know, but I think the average GP probably doesn't. I have been educating my own doctor about this, and she is receptive. Real doctors value knowledge, just as they value their patients.

Sun~Rose

Just thinking of how many brave Veterans are killing themselves daily.

@Ronald Kostoff

I agree with you. The doctors and Paediatricians are increasingly aware of what's happening. A bunch of them all need to come out in number. Safety in numbers, huh?

Barry

That's why I don't agree with your statement that doctors need to 'wake up' or they've been 'duped'. It is my belief that, for the most part, they know the score only too well, far better in fact than we do. They face the consequences of the damage every day.

*********

No Donald, they don't. Their patients do .

When a doctor recites that "The benefits far outweigh the risk", well that's a pretty easy thing for him or her to say. Since the only benefit from that medically useless injection is a financial one, reaped entirely by the doctors office. While the risks are borne entirely by the recipient of that vaccine.

Are you actually suggesting that doctors are aware that they are injuring their own patients , and are choosing to do it anyway?

angus files

Age Of Autism for those who want to wake up not for doctors who take the pharma coin.

Thanks for sharing Mr Enayati,

MMR RIP

VP

There is LOTS of research on vaccines and autism, showing that vaccines DO cause autism.

http://vaccinepapers.org/

Also, fraud and conflicts of interest do not explain the failure to observe an autism-causing effect of vaccines. The MMR-autism studies fail to observe an effect is because of healthy user bias, explained here: http://vaccinepapers.org/healthy-user-bias-why-most-vaccine-safety-studies-should-not-be-trusted/

Ronald Kostoff

Barry,

"DOCTORS are the only people who can stop this madness. They need to wake up to the fact that vaccines are medically useless, and that they've been duped into using them to create pharmaceutical customers.

And when they get past that initial hurdle, they need to turn their back on the pharmaceutical industry."

There are a number of different stakeholders with interest in drugs in general, and vaccines in particular. For the latter, the three groups most involved directly are the children being vaccinated, their parents/guardians, and the doctors/nurses who administer the vaccines. Going up the stakeholder chain are the government agencies who regulate vaccine approval/conduct in-house vaccine studies/sponsor external vaccine studies/supply the vaccines/monitor their safety, the pharmaceutical companies who develop and market the vaccines, the politicians who oversee the pharmaceutical companies and the relevant government agencies, and the media who theoretically have the function of reporting abuses to the public at large.

The higher level stakeholder groups know exactly what is going on with vaccine adverse effects; they have too many conflicts to alter the situation. Certainly, the parents of the affected children (not limited to those with autism) know there's a problem, but an insufficient number of parents with un-affected children (or people without children) are aware of the potential dangers of vaccines.

That leaves the doctors. They, next to the parents, are on the front-lines of vaccine administration and emergence of side effects. My guess is that, for the most part, they are well aware of the problem. As Wakefield has stated correctly, except for a few of those doctors more willing to risk their careers, most doctors don't want to get 'Wakefielded' by exposing the truth about serious vaccine side-effects. So, like most doctors who treat patients suffering the effects of non-ionizing radiation et al, they go along with the mainstream.

That's why I don't agree with your statement that doctors need to 'wake up' or they've been 'duped'. It is my belief that, for the most part, they know the score only too well, far better in fact than we do. They face the consequences of the damage every day. But, they look around and see Wakefield, Snowden, Manning, David Lewis (biosludge), William Marcus (fluoridation), and many others who have dared tell the truth, and have decided they don't want to pay the personal price these other heroes have paid.

That to me is the weakness of the campaigns to expose the dangers of vaccines, non-ionizing radiation, glyphosate, etc. There is an assumption that those in small or large positions of power are essentially unaware of the adverse effects of these toxic stimuli, and only if they could be made aware of the truth, there would be a magical transformation. As I stated previously, paraphrasing Chomsky: 'speaking truth to power is a waste of time; power knows the truth; the challenge is getting power to change their behavior'. Given the complicity of government-industry-media, and those who benefit from the largesse of government and industry relative to vaccines, I see little hope of change being initiated from within any of these stakeholder groups. The only hope is bottom-up-driven change coming from those not directly affected by vaccine-driven diseases. They need to be made aware of the potential damage, and how in the end even they will be affected, financially at a minimum. I have no idea how this can be done at any semblance of a rapid pace, given complete dominance of the media by corporate and government interests.

Benedetta

I see where the meeting was held - but I cannot archive the most recent video. I could not be looking in the right place though.

If some one runs across it will they put the link here?

John Stone

Hi Benedetta

A reminder

http://www.ageofautism.com/2015/11/the-international-autism-coordinating-committee-met-yesterday-below-are-a-few-of-the-public-comments-and-links-to-much-more.html

John

Benedetta

Did IACC meet this November 2015?
I did not know this.

Was it an open meeting?

How did they get past Dr. Thompson's news?

Barry

ven if it is “unpopular”, it is ethically imperative that we investigate these reports and study these children. Public health is not simply freedom from infectious disease. Autism is not always a gift or alternate way of being. It often comes with a great cost. My son deserves to have attention paid to him and research done to help him have a better quality of life.

******************

Autism is never a gift.

It is always just a name, that was invented by the medical community to create mystery around something that has never really been a mystery at all. It's a name that has allowed perpetrators of an unconscionable crime, to softly refer to physical injuries that have been inflicted upon children by injecting them with poisonous vaccines.

Pharmaceuticals are a trillion dollar a year industry, and people need to wake up to the fact that vaccines have been used to to create it.

Our children are just collateral damage to these people, and appealing to their ethical side isn't likely to achieve much. These architects of this crime will never going to be convinced to stop on their own. Because stopping will involve having to admit to a pretty awful crime. And on a level that I'll bet is of even greater significance to them.... it will collapse the trillion dollar industry.

DOCTORS are the only people who can stop this madness. They need to wake up to the fact that vaccines are medically useless, and that they've been duped into using them to create pharmaceutical customers.

And when they get past that initial hurdle, they need to turn their back on the pharmaceutical industry. They need to join the small legion of doctors who have already woken up, and who are trying to nurse these horribly injured children back to a better state of health health. Using medical strategies that will do no further harm

Louis Conte

This is really well done - sharp, concise and comprehensive. Advocates should hand this out to decision makers.

Thank you Mr. Enayati!

Bob Moffit

By now .. it should be obvious to one and all .. the governmental agencies responsible for approving, recommending and administering vaccines .. such as .. CDC, FDA, HHS, etc .. and .. the pharmaceutical companies that are responsible for researching the "safety and efficiency" of vaccines .. prior to and after being approved .. have COMBINED .. RESULTING IN A GLOBAL CONGLOMERATE THAT IS NOW CONSIDERED BY POLITICIANS AND THE MAIN STREAM MEDIA .. SIMPLY "TOO BIG TO FAIL".

We live in a world gone completely mad .. where the vested interests of the people can no longer rely on their government .. to protect THEM .. from the vested interests of that financially powerful .. ethically and morally corrupt .. "global conglomerate".

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.)