Skepticism: It's a Good Thing, Unless it's Vaccines.
Kids still asleep. Coffee in hand. Open shades and a window. Beautiful day in Chicago. Pop on the TV to see what's happening in the world. Good Morning America. George Stephanopolous. Like him. Tune in.
What's this? A new study of a bunch of studies shows cholesterol medication may actually not be necessary, helpful, and perhaps even dangerous in people who don't have heart disease? You mean not everyone should be taking cholesterol medication no matter what? Dr. Richard Besser, GMA's go-to medical professional, weighs in. My coffee spits out.
Besser: "...We don't have experience looking at this in people over decades, which is really what we should do (comparing those who have heart disease and those who don't)....There are definitely side effects...We want to make sure they are only used in people who are going to benefit....Over time, more and more drug trials are sponsored by industry. And it's been clearly shown that industry sponsored trials are more likely to show a positive result....Not only are trials being sponsored by industry, the data are being collected by industry, they are being analyzed by industry, and written up by industry. For many trials....the lead author doesn't even get to see the primary data. They see the results tables and write up and sign their name on it."
Stephanopolous: "How do we trust all this?"
Besser: "Well, I am very skeptical, and I think people need to be very skeptical about this. You need to see a number of different trials. You need to understand who did these trials, and do they have a vested interest, a financial interest in the results."
Stephanopolous: "Should people stop taking their medications?"
Besser: "....Talk to your doctor if you have questions...diet, exercise, and stop smoking. Those are the things that stop heart disease! It's clear!"
Why doesn't this same logic apply to vaccines? In the land of unicorns and fairies, vaccines are portrayed as essentially benign. No side effects, only extremely-rare-well-worth-it ones that are probably only coincidence anyway. Industry being involved in the studies that say so is considered good science, not a conflict. Question that and you are a conspiracy theorist. Suggest that the government or medical institution is really no more objective given their ties to the industry, their role in the problem, the huge foreign policy and political ramifications they could face, the fact we're primarily talking about harming children and how emotional and defensive that makes people, and well my friend, you are not only a conspiracy theorist, you're a dangerous nut job.
I have written extensively about the studies that are used to exonerate vaccines and proclaim their safety, and like Dr. Besser, I too am skeptical. I do understand, as he advises, who did the trials, if they have a vested, financial interest in the results, and the conclusion I came to was, yes, absolutely, positively, YES, they do have a vested interest in the results to be in their favor. I went further to state that even if in spite of their interests they had done nothing wrong in their science, their body of work was inadequate to answer the hypothesis about vaccines causing Autism correctly. I am careful to never assume the motivation of any of the people involved with those studies, only to point out that yes, their is a conflict of interest, and no, in and of themselves they are not enough to answer this crucial question. Dr. Besser is hardly so kind.
Further, I too agree with Dr. Besser that we don't have the historical data, or the "experience in looking at this in people over decades, which is really what we should do." I have repeatedly stated that we have a responsibility to humanity to finally answer the question: have we produced any unintended consequences, such as the increase of chronic disease, by attempting to lower the incidence of infectious disease? And who gets to decide what's acceptable? For example and hypothetically, is asthma an acceptable outcome for the prevention of whooping cough? Is speech delay an acceptable side effect for the prevention of Hepatitis B? Are seizures acceptable for the absence of measles?
I advocate for the basic study of the vaccinated versus never vaccinated to help answer these questions. It's not because I think all vaccines are bad, or that I want any resurgence of infectious disease. It's because I want to know! And it strikes me as beyond non-scientific that anybody wouldn't want to, yet, I am the one being labeled non-scientific because of it. Guess Dr. Besser and I are in the same non-scientific boat.
In the search for the role of vaccines, if any, in the development of Autism, it's undeniable: We haven't asked the right questions. We haven't done the right studies. We haven't applied the same skepticism to vaccines as we have other medications. And we haven't produced independent, objective science to attempt to rectify the situation. Until then, I will continue to take Dr. Besser's advice. I will question industry's motivation. I will remain skeptical. I will talk to my doctor. I will weigh the pros and cons given the circumstances. And I will do the most effective things for preventing infectious disease that we know of...eat a healthy diet, wash my hands, and practice good hygiene.
Julie Obradovic is a Contributing Editor for Age of Autism.
Julie, Thanks for posting one more indictment of the medical/media community's double standard on vaccines/health.
Everything that pharma touches, necrotises.
Posted by: michael framson | July 06, 2010 at 08:44 PM
They have hidden Thimerosol in so many over the counter products and they still put it in vaccines given to children. They know this product is a poison that can attack people in many different ways. You can be a patient for life. I have read the Simpsonwood transcript and many of the related emails. This is not theory, this is a conspiracy!
Posted by: Mr T | July 04, 2010 at 07:17 PM
Carol, thanks for that link to the VICP figures. Isn't it interesting that it's broken down into autism and non-autism? I mean, what's the point of that, other than to say, "no reason to worry about vaccines causing your child's autism!" and "don't bother filing a claim for autism!" Can you imagine if the table had been broken down into cancer and non-cancer? How completely bizarre...
Posted by: Theresa O | July 03, 2010 at 08:14 AM
A study is unethical if it's design, methods or findings are based on or utilize outright lies, half truths, falsified data or if relevant data is omitted or skewed on purpose. There are plenty of vaccine safety studies that have been done that are unethical - you can read about 14 of them at www.fourteenstudies.com.
Conducting a vax vs. un-vax study is not unethical. In fact conducting such a study is the most ethical thing that could be done. It is the gold standard study that would give the ultimate scrutinous look at the vaccine safety debate.
Such a study is the most ethical one to conduct because thousands of parents have reported serious health deterioration and inception of chronic illness in their children immediately following vaccines. These parents want and deserve answers. Society owes it to them and their children as well as to parents of healthy children everywhere. To do the study is ethical. To not do the study is unethical.
As for the ethics of vaccinating or not vaccinating - the most ethical position our society can have is a public policy of informed consent with highly flexible and widely available parental and personal choice. Vaccines carry a risk of permanent disability or death. Therefore, vaccinations must be always be an optional medical intervention that people may opt in to.
So there is a large and growing population of children whose parents have intentionally opted them out of vaccines. And apparently per Eisenstein and others they are very healthy and have less incidence of the modern plagues our school children face today: allergies, lack of speech, autism, ADD/ADHD, obesity, diabetes, immune system disorders.
So we have a population that is not being asked to forego vaccines - they have already exercised their free will and intentionally made the choice of not vaccinating, so there are no ethical issues involved.
Again the only thing that is unethical is to NOT do the vax vs. unvax study.
Posted by: Magnanimous Mom | July 02, 2010 at 06:18 PM
The author does not give details as to what kind of studies she would find acceptable. The link between low vaccination rates and a resurgence in infectious diseases is clear(as can be currently seen in the UK,Nigeria,South Africa etc.) so why continue to advocate a unvaccinated vs vaccinated study when it is obviously unethical?
Also there do not seem to be any harsh words for any of those physicians clearly caught with an undisclosed COI if their work pertains to demonstrate the vaccine-autism link - only vague insinuations that those studies that show no connection are flawed and/or biased.
Posted by: Daluva | July 02, 2010 at 10:02 AM
Here's a page with stats from the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. (I notice that nobody has been compensated for autism, but I believe that the court will only use the phraseology "autism-like" even when judging in favor of children who have been diagnosed with autism.)
Scroll down to the bottom of the page for claims compensated or dismissed, listed by vaccine.
Posted by: Carol | July 01, 2010 at 07:28 AM
Julie, Dr. Richard Besser gives out cautions regarding industry bias for clinical testing on cholesterol medications?!?
Yes, this out of character.
Dr. Besser was a temporary replacement, in January, 1999, for Julie Gerberding as the head of the CDC. See http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123267335720408593.html .
Then as ABC News' senior health and medical editor, on September 25, 1999, he advocates
four flu shots for children and also says “Sing a song with them while they get their shots.”
What he does not say is that the CDC says it is safe for a 6 month old or a pregnant woman to receive these shots with Thimerosal with 50 parts per million mercury.
On September 30, 1999 he is advocates H1N1 vaccines: "It's going to be rocky early on, as more people want the vaccine than is available.”
Again, he doesn’t say that the CDC says it is safe for a 6 month old or a pregnant woman to receive these shots with Thimerosal with 50 parts per million mercury.
He clearly did not give out cautions that mercury is a neurotoxin and not appropriate to inject into the bodies of pregnant women or children or any human beings?
Spitting out coffee as well!
Posted by: Jim Thompson | July 01, 2010 at 03:28 AM
Actually Twyla that is kind of the whole point. Vaccines should absolutely be 100% safe against any complication except the pain from the needle stick and that should be blunted as well.
You see most people, physicians, forget that they are not treating a disease or a condition because normal is not a pathological condition. The child is completely normal and happy, in a word perfect. How can anybody improve "perfect"? Nobody can as it is simply not possible. The idea that we can protect "perfect" by injecting a variety of poisons, xenotropic grafts in the form of human animal hybrid viruses from genetic material harvested manipulated and cultivated from canbalized embryos with an untold number of retroviral species from the multitude of animal specimans used to create the final antigen is a grotesque and perverted scientific practice worthy of a science fiction B movie for thought, content and execution.
The adage that "there is always risk in medical care", is completely inappropriate and not applicable to the unvaccinated child getting vaccines.We as physicians really do have a greater burden of safety when evaluating a normal human being. The phrase "first do no harm" is at the heart of this issue. The child does not require care, the baby is normal and truly only needs the mother's breast and milk and love.
It really is just that simple.
VACCINES CAUSE AUTISM
Posted by: WILLIE | July 01, 2010 at 12:20 AM
It may be that the fundamental errors are farther back than most anyone suspects. The book, "Fear of the Invisible," by Janine Roberts offers some thought-provoking insights into the basis of several paradigms that most of us accept without question--just as we once accepted the "values" and "safety" of vaccines. Worth a read through.
Posted by: skepticism is healthy | July 01, 2010 at 12:15 AM
Koinosuke said, "No doctor has even said vaccines are 100% safe. That is a straw man."
Actually, you are the one setting up a straw man, Koinosuke, because we did not say that doctors say that vaccines are 100% safe.
The concept that a very small risk would be worth taking in order to avoid serious prevalent diseases is easy to understand. But when we have a rate of 1 in 100 with autism, and growing rates of serious conditions such as asthma, severe allergies, and diabetes, and increased ADHD and a 40-fold increase in bipolar, the refusal to do a vax/unvaxed study to get a better grasp on how much are vaccines contributing to these serious conditions is terrible. The risks of our schedule -- giving dozens of vaccines at such a young age -- are not so small, and have not been well studied.
It is quite mysterious that Dr. Besser and others apparently feel free to comment on the need to study drugs in a long-term and independent manner, yet hardly anyone seems able to say the same about vaccines. Perhaps this is partly because our government agencies have so much invested in the vaccine program, and therefore so much interest in promoting and defending it.
Posted by: Twyla | June 30, 2010 at 09:41 PM
It's pathetically amusing when people like Sandra Toque deliberately attempt to replace an article's main premise with an irrelevant point couched in forced, self-indulgent rhetoric. Nice try.
A salient point was made, and concisely. Thanks, Julie.
Posted by: nhokkanen | June 30, 2010 at 06:30 PM
@ magnanimous mom - "The Marvelous Health of the Unvaccinated".
Why don't we start a global registry and database of the completely unvaccinated? a global registry and database of the completely unvaccinated plus orthomolecular-medicine-treated only? Eventually, the power of the statistic should begin to speak for itself.
With regard to vaccine safety in general: I believe that it may be wrong to focus solely on thimerosal or aluminum. The tacit implication is that non-thimerosal or non-aluminum containing jabs are somehow "safe". I have a concern that use of live, attenuated jabs of any kind might cause vaccinated hosts to act as reservoirs for outbreaks, possibly due to weakened natural immunity, like the recent mumps outbreak in New York and New Jersey.
An article titled “Are Some Cases of Autism Actually Subclinical, Congenital Attenuated Rubella Syndrome?” by E.H. Granai on February 9, 2004.
An article titled “Mumps outbreak spreads among people who got vaccinated against mumps” by Mike Adams on February 11, 2010.
An article titled “Thousands of Americans died from H1N1 even after receiving vaccine shots” by Mike Adams on January 17, 2010.
Posted by: patrons99 | June 30, 2010 at 05:42 PM
I watched PBS last night and they had a terrific story about converting a piece of playground equipment into a well pump.
African kids were given a play yard merry-go-round which was actually designed to pump water to a tank with each revolution.
It was crazy to see the money-hungry NPO sharks like Bill Clinton seize on this as yet another of his dubious global cause$.
It was silly ironic that PBS could fuss and fuss about the fact that the kids got sick of pumping everybody else's water, most of the pumps broke forcing villagers to haul water from other villages, and the African women were too tired from working in the fields all day to operate the working pumps anyway.
It seems to some that any idea that exploits little children and puts millions of dollars into the pockets of NPO rackets is noble.
And PBS asks "what went wrong"?
Posted by: Media Scholar | June 30, 2010 at 05:19 PM
@SuperDave. Good point on the counfounders and I do understand that. However, in trying to rule out possible confounders did they end up creating one. I mean, they ruled out children from mulitple births, low birth weight, congenital issues from those Thimerosal studies without knowing WHY having those aspects makes one more likely to have an autism spectrum disorder...is it just being those things that does, or are they more susceptible to environmental factors in general because of those factors? It just doesn't make sense to rule out the most vulnerable infants from unless that question has first been answered, otherwise, as I said, it creates a possible confounder. And it makes even less sense to me that they continue to use the data sets from these old Thimerosal studies on new studies, since we have since learned that populations most likely to have ASD are excluded from those. They need to use brand new data sets that reflect what we have since learned about who is most likely to have an ASD and figure out what about them makes that so.
Posted by: AnaB | June 30, 2010 at 04:51 PM
@Sandra - if you're going to take issue with someone's position, at least do it in context. You left off the most important sentence that comes before those you quoted:
"I advocate for the basic study of the vaccinated versus never vaccinated to help answer these questions."
Do you take issue with this type of study?
I don't see how anyone who's alive and has a caring heart could argue with this. It's only those who have an agenda to push that seem to have a problem with this.
So assuming you have a heart and care and have no agenda, maybe you should google:
"The Marvelous Health of the Unvaccinated"
and begin to read for yourself about the great health and the absence of autism, asthma and other chronic illness in children who have not received any vaccines.
It's amazing how healthy and smart unvaxed kids are compared to their vaccinated peers.
Posted by: Magnanimous Mom | June 30, 2010 at 02:28 PM
I know lots of people that started on doctor recommended statins and had to go off them for muscle aches and leg weakness. It's a nasty drug and I wouldn't recommend it to my worst enemy--well, maybe my worst one.
Great piece, Julie.
Posted by: Maurine Meleck | June 30, 2010 at 02:28 PM
Obradovic didn't say in her article that any doctor had said that vaccines are 100% safe. What she said was: "In the land of unicorns and fairies, vaccines are portrayed as essentially benign. No side effects, only extremely-rare-well-worth-it ones that are probably only coincidence anyway."
That's a humorous take on the official line, but pretty much on the mark. For instance, here's what Paul Offit had to say about Hannah Poling being compensated by vaccine court:
"Medscape: What evidence initially suggested a possible link between vaccination and mitochondrial diseases?
Dr. Offit: There is no evidence, really. The birth of that notion came from a settlement by the vaccine-injury compensation program. The case was that of Hannah Poling, daughter of John Poling, a neurologist. This girl had a mitochondrial enzyme defect and an encephalopathy as a result of that. I think that any child who has a mitochondrial enzyme deficiency and is stressed can worsen, and she got 5 shots, all at 1 time, containing vaccines to prevent 9 different infectious diseases. She got fever as a consequence of that, and as a result of that she worsened.
They were willing to compensate her for that, and I think that on the surface, that doesn't make sense, because there are many things that can cause fever, including ear infections, of which she had many, requiring tubes. I don't understand why they should compensate her for that, but they did, without ever going to an evidentiary hearing, where the facts would have been presented. The case was just simply conceded."
OK then, hard cheese on Hannah for having a mitochondrial enzyme deficiency, but in the future we should be careful about vaccinating kids with the same problem, right? ...Huh, Dr. Offit? What did you say?
"Medscape: Do you believe any special precautions should be observed regarding vaccination of children with mitochondrial diseases?
Dr. Offit: No, I believe the opposite, actually. Children who have mitochondrial diseases are at special risk when they develop infectious diseases. Vaccinations are a very, very mild form of infection. For most vaccines, it's just a matter of inducing immunity without inducing any symptoms, as opposed to natural infections, which can induce symptoms that are far greater and put children at far greater risk. These are the kinds of kids that most need to be immunized."
Posted by: Carol | June 30, 2010 at 02:25 PM
"You need to see a number of different trials. You need to understand who did these trials, and do they have a vested interest, a financial interest in the results"... that's it RIGHT THERE in a nutshell.
and *SIGH* that's not really a novel idea... that's common sense.
Posted by: Col | June 30, 2010 at 02:20 PM
ALL VACCINES ARE BAD AND I KNOW EXACTLY WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT
Posted by: WILLIE | June 30, 2010 at 02:14 PM
CDC says flu shots with 50 parts per million mercury are safe for pregnant women. EPA says the that level is 250 times higher than the hazardous waste threshold.
Posted by: Jim Thompson | June 30, 2010 at 01:30 PM
Julie - very thought provoking post. Thank you.
A new “golden age” push on vaccine propaganda is well underway. So for us to pontificate on whether it’s safer to give jabs serially or in combination is really missing the “big picture”. IMHO, we should be asking whether the benefit of ANY of them outweigh their risks?
As but one example of why it may be wrong to take a nuanced approach to each individual vaccine, see this link:
“They” are moving much faster with their vaccine “madness” agenda than we are at AofA. Long term safety studies are non-existent. The danger of all vaccines is that “they” don’t know what they don’t know. Non-specific systemic immune stimulation, cummulative synergistic toxicity, heavy metal toxicity, thromboemboli, microemboli, septic emboli, cardiotoxicity, neurotoxicity, blood clots, adventitious presence of recombinant DNA, horizontal transfer of DNA, between species, have not been adequately studied.
Here are some more examples of why we should perhaps reconsider taking a nuanced approach to vaccine safety: immunodrugs and “one size fits all” jabs.
Posted by: patrons99 | June 30, 2010 at 01:14 PM
"It's not because I think all vaccines are bad, or that I want any resurgence of infectious disease. It's because I want to know!"
*sigh* No it's not...and were this actually something other than a forum with draconian moderation. It would be easily demonstrable. That either you don't know what you're talking about or you are being rather manipulative.
Posted by: Sandra Toque | June 30, 2010 at 12:42 PM
No doctor has even said vaccines are 100% safe. That is a straw man.
Posted by: Koinosuke | June 30, 2010 at 12:34 PM
You wrote one of the most wonderful articles I have ever read. wow lady you go. I wish they would listen to you. I'd also be delighted to see any study that vaccines are safe in the combination they give our kids. What about those women who care the "T"mutation that is called the MTHFR factor. Its ok to have 2 genes but with all the injecting of toxins (not just one) but several and the fact that we seem to be swimming in a lot of toxins we were not aware of because they cared the seal of approval by someone who was suppose to look after us....It will put your kid predispostioned for a lot of auto immune diseases. Treat the gut treat the immune system and your kid can have a better life. Takes a lot of work and I hate it that it happened. Maybe history books will tell in years to come of the blunders of our century or that things will turn around and nobody else will have to go through this even. To many kids to many coincincidences Slow schedule in the past autism was 1-10,000. Now 1-100 and learning disabilites 1-6????? we have years and years of kids that were fine. now we have years and years of kids that aren't fine. good lesson for someone. like you its hard to be anti but its easy to want studies and its easy to say toxins aren't good for you obviously in any form.
Posted by: n | June 30, 2010 at 11:42 AM
The side effect caused by statins is called rhabdomyolysis. The muscles are breaking down. A way to measure it scientifically is to check creatine kinase levels. As the muscles break down, they release this into the blood and it is extremely toxic to the kidneys. My husband experienced this when taking statins for a short period of time before he quit them. Also, when taking the antibiotic drug, levaquin, he experienced the same thing - very severe and the pain lasted for 2 yrs after 3 days of levaquin.
My Aspergers and mito disorder son cannot take any steroids (oral or inhaled)for his asthma as they cause the same condition in him.
For those who want some good info on statins and side effects, check out former astronaut, Dr. Graveline's website:
Posted by: Laura Cox | June 30, 2010 at 11:40 AM
Amen Julie! The dogmatic acceptance of vaccines is something that I do not understand. As you have eloquently illustrated, the same conflicts of interest and poorly designed studies that the medical establishment (correctly) admits are rampant throughout the medical literature regarding drug studies also apply to the studies that purport to show vaccine safety and effectiveness. The failure of the medical establishment to make this connection astonishes me. I've come to the conclusion that vaccines are to be accepted on faith and are not to be questioned if you value your career as a health professional. The regimentation of medicine seems to be producing doctors that no longer have the ability or desire to think for themselves. Instead, we are getting doctors that are merely automatons carrying out the orders and treatment protocols that are dictated to them by the supposed learned elite of the medical establishment. The result of this system is that the individuality of the patient is not respected.
Posted by: Erik | June 30, 2010 at 11:25 AM
I just read the preface from the fifth edition of _Vaccines_ by Stanley Plotkin, Walter Orenstein and Paul Offit. This is an excerpt relevant to recent aoa discussions about particular vaccines:
"Since the last edition of this book, several new and important vaccines have issued from the cornucopia of vaccinology. Two vaccines against the human papillomavirus have opened the way to the prevention of cervical cancer. Similarly, two new vaccines against the rotaviruses that cause infantile gastroenteritis have restored the hope that hospitalization, dehydration and death from these viruses can be prevented throughout the world. Attenuated varicella virus has also been incorporated into MMR to form a four component vaccine....
Another problem that clouds the otherwise bright picture of vaccinology is the deleterious effect of allegations that vaccines cause a variety of adverse events, among them that autism is caused by MMR vaccine or by the preservative thimerosal, despite the scientific evidence against causation. One is reminded of Jonathan Swift's aphorism: 'Falsehood flies and the truth comes limping after.'"
Nevermind the deathless prose, who's going to tell them that a list of a vaccine's adverse effects is included in the packaging?
Paul Offit and Stanley Plotkin are obviously close and Plotkin is one of Edward Hooper's villains. (Hooper is one of several people who have explored the possibility that a particular oral polio vaccine administered in Africa was contaminated with an HIV precursor.) In an article on his website, where he lets his hair down a little more than in his book, Hooper speculates that Plotkin might be a spook.
I'm not saying Plotkin is or that any of them are. But it would explain a lot.
Here's Hooper's website for those interested:
Posted by: Carol | June 30, 2010 at 11:04 AM
Julie, what excellent points.
Posted by: Twyla | June 30, 2010 at 10:54 AM
"I advocate for the basic study of the vaccinated versus never vaccinated to help answer these questions. It's not because I think all vaccines are bad, or that I want any resurgence of infectious disease. It's because I want to know! And it strikes me as beyond non-scientific that anybody wouldn't want to, yet, I am the one being labeled non-scientific because of it. Guess Dr. Besser and I are in the same non-scientific boat"
~AMEN SISTA! :)
Posted by: sc | June 30, 2010 at 10:47 AM
This new concern over cholesterol meds is used to create an illusion that the health care industry actually cares about you and I and our children. Many will trust blindly in vaccines and other medication because they feel that someone is keeping an eye on pharmaceuticals and their effects. GMA has your back. Stay tuned as they will promote the flu shot in the near future. They may even use Dr. Besser to do so.
Posted by: Trace | June 30, 2010 at 10:46 AM
If you don't carefully rule out confounding factors in your test population, your data is very difficult to interpret. That is the only reason those childrens data was not used.
Posted by: superdave | June 30, 2010 at 10:45 AM
I'm a little confused here. You're saying that we should have skepticism about medical information but I guess I missed the part where you got online - read the study that Besser was referring to and evaluated it against various metrics then compared those against the pre-existing evidence. Right now, I'm pretty skeptical of your skepticism.
Posted by: Sandra Toque | June 30, 2010 at 10:36 AM
Statins and Vioxx may have serious side effects. Study results may be phony and there might be financial motives involved--but when it comes to vaccines, nothing is questioned.
The double standard is obvious.
Posted by: Anne McElroy Dachel | June 30, 2010 at 10:16 AM
Statin drugs can not be taken by my vaccine injuried husband.
In advertisments of statin drugs, it says on the end that it can cause muscle weakness in some people which indicates a life threatening and serious condition ---- "Some people" would be US. US meaning those that reacted to vaccines are the very target group!
The only doctor that cared and actually tried to help my husband - the one that figured out it might be a mitochondria disfunction after his vaccine injury, and sent him off on his several quests to obtain a correct muscle biopysis, told him he could never ever take statins. That it could cause his heart to stop.
If he takes statins as a recent doctor insisted - it did causes severe muscle weakness too! Found tha out and oxygen levels go really down.
CO Q 10 is what Neurologist Dr. Poling (father to Hannah Poling that won the vaccine injury case in the vaccine court)says it is too late to take for his daughter - "like throwing water on a burnt out building" , but that statement proves he knew the importance of CO Q 10.
CO Q 10 the stuff found originally in beef hearts and later in fermenting blue green alge - that my husband was told to take 1500mg a day averaging 600 dollars a month for the last 20 years, till he gave it up, saying he no longer helped if at all.
If my husband takes the statins the body can not produce cholesterol and thus can not produce CO Q 10.
It also interfers with the production of vitamin D. It takes cholesterol and sunlight to make vitamin D.
Cholesterol is the basic start for all biological pathways.
It is not the cholesersol that is the problem -in heart diseae or vasculitisis-- it is the inflammation in the blood vessels that is the problem.
Inflamation of the lining of the cappillaries is caused by the damage to the mitochondria in each cell. The cells run out of energy, so that they can not pump the calcium out of them, causing them to swell and in many cases die. This causes the thinnning in some areas of the capillaries and blood vessels. This makes these blood vessels no longer smooth, the pipe lines becmoe rough. Cholesterol just comes along and gets stuck in these areas.
Now what needs to be fixed here?
Posted by: Benedetta | June 30, 2010 at 10:15 AM
I don't know if it was a typo or intentional, but you coined a great new term: bullistic. Yes, doctors have been known to go very bullistic when patients haven't taken Rx drugs like statins, HRT, Vioxx and all manner of vaccines.
Thank you for being a bull-breaker.
Posted by: pass the popcorn | June 30, 2010 at 10:09 AM
Oh - ' the dangerous nut . . . job ' - Not this time .
Robin Rowlands ( The Vigilant & Virtuous )
Guildford, Surrey, UK.
Posted by: Robin Rowlands | June 30, 2010 at 09:57 AM
Julie, fantastic as always!
Posted by: Erin M. | June 30, 2010 at 09:38 AM
This is a perfect example of why I love AoA. Thanks, thanks, thanks for all the work.
Posted by: bensmyson | June 30, 2010 at 09:17 AM
Statins are a big of a hoax as vaccines. My dad started taking two statins two moonths ago and became so weak he was unable to walk or eat. I begged him to stop taking them and even went to his doctor to tell him to stop giving statins to him. The cardiologist who is as bad as a pediaquack went bullistic and started screaming and yelling just like a pediaquack when you don't want to vaccinate. He ordered by grey, weak, and half dead father to continue to poison himself with statins. My father continued to deteriorate to the point that he was literally almost dead. My father-in-law stepped in and convinced my dad that statins are a joke and he experienced the same side effects and stop taking them. My dad stopped taking them and has made a complete recovery. Doctors are trying to kill us.
Posted by: Mary | June 30, 2010 at 08:05 AM
Correction: in my post it should have said the U of L study showed that kids were NOT more likely to have a neurodevelopmental disorder if the used the regular vaccine sched. vs. a delayed one.
Posted by: AnaB | June 30, 2010 at 07:30 AM
Recently I went through the new University of Louisville study that says kids vaccinated on a delayed schedule do not have less neurodevelopmental disorders than those those vaccinated on the regular one:
As I went through the the text of the study something jumped out at me, glaringly. This study used the data set from an older Thimerosal Study: http://www.fourteenstudies.com/pdf/HG_7.pdf
Well, this study excluded kids who were from multiple births, had low birth weight, other congenital problems, etc - all things that we have since learned leave one MORE likely to end up with an Autism Spectrum Disorder. So basically, both these studies excluded those most likely to have ASD!!
They have got to start using brand new data sets in these new studies, so that they reflect things we have learned since those old Thimerosal studies were done, or else, like the U of L study, they end up using skewed data from the outset.
My point, Judith is right - if they continue not asking the correct questions we can never expect to hear the right answer.
Posted by: AnaB | June 30, 2010 at 07:27 AM
Julie, you wrote another fabulously crafted, completely logical article. I think about the insanity of the double standard applied to "precious fluid" vaccines versus every other pharmaceutical on the market. "Vaccines are completely safe and should be mandated for all, in fact, the more, the merrier", versus "That drug has been determined to have dangerous side effects and now must carry a black box warning."
When it comes down to some doctors refusing, out of laziness, or cost to their practice, or their stupid indoctrination by a pharma rep, to administer separate MMR and V vaccines versus the single MMRV vaccine, despite the known much higher febrile seizure risks associated with the MMRV, I lose all respect for some pediatricians. These pediatricians should not be allowed to practice medicine if the interests of their young patients to be seizure-free are secondary to the overhead costs of their doctors. It is clear we are not the crazy ones.
I do not know if you are an attorney by trade, or not, but due to your writing skills, you should be working with attorneys to craft bills to protect the human rights of people of this country, and you should be testifying before Congress to enlighten them that there is a growing body of voters who understand what is happening.
Posted by: Not an MD | June 30, 2010 at 07:16 AM
Right on Julie.
I would only observe .. it is not "we" .. but .. our federal regulatory agencies .. that have not "asked the right questions .. done the right studies .. applied the same skepticism to vaccines .. or .. produced independent, objective science".
The question is why have they failed us so?
Surely they understand the only way to protect us from powerful industries running amok is to follow Ronald Reagan's sage advice:
"Trust but verify"
Posted by: Bob Moffitt | June 30, 2010 at 06:30 AM