SmartVax: A Website to change the Discourse on Vaccines
FREE Autism Therapy Pictures from Picto Selector in 8 Languages

The Environment of Medical Intervention

An-apple-a-day-keeps-the-doctor-away By Julie Obradovic

As we learned last week, a new study released by the NIMH has determined that the environment plays a larger role than genetics in Autism than previously thought. Combined with a study released the same day that shows a correlation between anti-depressant usage among pregnant women and Autism diagnoses in their children, it's been a breath of fresh air. 

That said, I can't exhale just yet.

The environment as a cause of Autism, although a welcome relief to a genetic one, leaves me nervous. Why? It is completely subject to interpretation, and I believe, leaves the door open to literally thousands, if not an infinite amount of possibilities of causation. We've already seen some examples of how researchers interpret it, and frankly, it's been more often than not less than helpful research.

There's the angle of the actual environment, like the climate, being the problem. One study showed us that Autism rates are higher where it rains more.

There's the angle of the environment of parental stimulation, like how a child is interacted with, being the problem. One study suggested parents who talk to their children less will more likely have a child with Autism.  

Admittedly more helpful, there's the angle of the environment of pollution being the problem. One study showed Autism rates are higher near coal burning plants, and another showed living close to freeways having the same effect.

And then there's been the angle of the environment of contact, like what a child is touching in their own home. One study suggested pet shampoo may be implicated in Autism, and many speculate it could even be their flame retardant pajamas or household pesticides. Likewise, multiple studies have shown lead, which is unfortunately found in many of our children's toys in alarming amounts, can also lower IQ and cause developmental problems.

I suppose in the bigger picture, these do point us in a helpful direction: environmental toxins are a problem. But again, given there are an infinite amount of combinations of them, I'm concerned this area may quickly become another vast wasteland of time, money, and effort for our children. For me, it's imperative we define exactly what environmental research means moving forward, as well as how it needs to be prioritized, in order to most effectively and immediately help our kids. The good news? Our most promising research fits neatly under one umbrella.

The Environment of Medical Intervention

The most obvious place to begin environmental research is on the places that have the most immediate and relevant impact on a child: where they are nourished, how they are nourished, and with what they are directly exposed that could logically and likely affect those two in such a way to result in the developmental delays and chronic illnesses we see in our kids. In other words, their womb, their food, and the medicine they are given that could affect them both. The antidepressant study exhibits this very thought process nicely.

On Facebook I recently spouted off in jest I could save the NIH millions by focusing on the real environment that caused my daughter's problems. I made a simple equation out of my daughter's health history that went something like this:

Take one healthy, susceptible child with a familial history of metal allergies and homocysteine problems (MTHFR positive) + a strep B positive/ mercury toxic mother (1 in 6 of us are) + intravenous antibiotics + a spinal block + meconium + more antibiotics + a mercury/aluminum laden vaccine + a metal allergy + more vaccines + Tylenol + more antibiotics + mercury toxic breast milk (tuna, very bad idea) + antibiotic laden breast milk (breast infection) + more vaccines + more Tylenol + more antibiotics (repeat 5 times with 4 different antibiotics and numerous vaccines) + anesthesia and surgery = one very sick child by age 2 who can't speak, poop, sleep, and has seizures.

Multiple people chimed in that our stories were identical, take or leave a few ingredients or results. This is significant. This is what happened to my child medically in the first two years of her life, and apparently many others. THIS is what needs to be studied. (ALL of it, not just one or two of the shots and one of their ingredients in theoretical exposures.) Was she in flame retardant pajamas? Yes, probably. Do we live near a coal burning plant? Yes, we do. But those things in and of themselves did not cause my daughter's health and brain development to deteriorate. The combination of what we did to her did. It is now our responsibility to figure out how so that we may prevent it from happening to others. THIS is the environment, despite its intent to do otherwise, that actually made her very, very sick. THIS is the environment we need to study: the environment of medical intervention. 

Likewise, we also need to examine the environment of the lack of appropriate medical intervention. I should have been screened for toxicity. All pregnant women should be. My breast milk, and all nursing mothers', should have been tested. A warning, like on alcohol and cigarettes, should have been plastered across the tuna can and other fish products. My daughter, as she started to deteriorate, should have been tested for toxicity. Just as exposing her to all of these chemicals proved irresponsible and catastrophic, the failure to assess what they had done to her is equally as heinous.

The tragic fact remains, we ruined her gut flora with antibiotics right out of the womb; Fed her toxic breast milk; Injected her with heavy metals, foreign DNA and viruses; Artificially and repeatedly provoked her immune system to do so; Medicated her with a substance that inhibited her ability to detoxify; Left years of yeast overgrowth unchecked and untreated; and never bothered to test her for any issues this protocol could have caused.

And the tragic results remain, she experienced a loss of speech; Brain swelling; Yeast infections; Seizures; Constipation; Loss of IQ; Inability to sleep; Self stimulatory behaviors; Loss of imaginary play; Loss of language reception; Night terrors; Eczema; Night sweats; and repeated ear and bronchial infections.

Our explanation for these results until last week? She didn't have the right genes. Our only logical explanation moving forward? The poor thing is lucky to be alive and must have some damn good genes to have helped her survive and recover as well as she did.

The bottom line is this: The time has come to take an honest look at the difference between medical intention and medical results for our children. Now that we can put the elusive genetic theory to rest, we must demand our environmental research first go for an independent and exhaustive study of the environment of perinatal and pediatric medical intervention, the most logical and promising place to begin.

Julie Obradovic is a Contributing Editor to Age of Autism.







The SSRI/Autism study was actually "very complementary" to vaccine cause theories of autism because one of the actions of SSRI's is that they cause an immune system response. SSRI’s boost the immune system according to new research. They enhance the activity of natural killer cells; key elements of the immune system. Evidence suggests they could help the body defend itself against infections such as the Aids virus HIV and even cancer. So, just like vaccines, which are designed to cause an immune response; while SSRI drugs may restore a healthy immune function in people who are depressed and prone to infections (poor-functioning immune systems), it is also possible that they might bolster immunity to the point that they trigger autoimmune diseases (allergies, asthma and autism) in those with a genetic predisposition to develop these conditions, even in a developing fetus. Anything that has the ability to raise the immune system reaction, has the potential to trigger an autoimmune illness, including autism in those that are genetically vulnerable.

Katie Wright

You said it all Julie and you told my son's story as well. Thank you


Funny thing, speaking of the environment of medical intervention, a neuroscience/international relations major just called from my alma mater, asking for donations to the university. I filled them in about what i had done with my education and wished her well in her future career.We had a nice discussion about "medical interventions" (vaccines) and this potential med school student said he/she was totally skeptical about them (safety). He/she is getting back to me on specific programs dealing with "gut research" there. I love it when I feel I can have some impact with specific donations and it was really a pretty cool exchange between an older alumni and young student.
Oh, and Julie, I just want to say to you that you have always done the best that you could with what you knew and, yeah, genes my ass! You are so right about this kind of research needing to be demanded!


Makes sense, Did not really think much of it until we had a child with autism but then realized that 3 other boys on the same block (over a span of 18 years) were on the spectrum. Another woman passed away from cancer, we did not live there more than 3 years but both children that were born when we lived there (in our family)have issues.

Not an MD

Do not despair, Julie, the truth is bubbling up to the surface at a furious pace. Over 50% of parents have concerns about vaccine safety. Only 30% of the population accepted an H1N1 flu shot during an alleged pandemic with lots of fear mongering. The tide is turning.

No doubt our children are exposed to many toxins other than those contained in vaccines. Look at what is happening to tree frogs, and honeybees around the world.

The one hideous, blaring truth that the pharmaceutical industry cannot overcome, however, is that their mandated, poison containing products - vaccines - are injected directly into the blood of children, adolescents and adults. How can a correlation between vaccines and autism (aka brain damage) EVER be completely discounted by any logical individual?

Denise Ferraro

Paul Shapiro
I agree 100%. It's the same thing that happened with cancer, cystic fibrosis, diabetes, and almost any other disease you can think of. As a matter of fact when is the last time that the medical industry cured anything. I can't think of any thing since polio and antibiotics and polio wasn't really a cure. I guess they're just too big to cure!


Benedetta: I agree. I also think that autism (plus allergies, asthma, autoimmune illnesses etc) are immune system disorders, but you need the genes that make you more vulnerable to develop an autoimmune disease, which in some may very well be introversion, sensitivity and giftedness; and for some the vaccine trigger.

One of the near-universal characteristics of autism is introversion, but this personality trait alone cannot explain the tremendous increase in autism cases in the past few decades. In 1883 the CDC Mandatory Vaccine Schedule was only 10 shots with a total of 30 vaccines by 6 years old. In 2010 the CDC Mandatory Vaccine Schedule now includes 36 shots with 109 vaccines by 6 years old; an over 300% increase. The autism rate is now one in 110 compared to one in 10,000 in 1983.

"We have to account for the relationship between environmental factors as well as genetics. This is not an either/ or."

Paul Shapiro

There are as many opinions as to the cause(s) of the Autism Spectrum epidemic as there are opinions.. And guess what?

I am convinced that the FDA, CDC, the vaccine and medication companies, the doctors, the lawyers, psychiatrists, social workers, the schools, the UN over seers, the US vaccine court, supervisors of group homes, and on and on and on love the circumstance of not knowing the cause or cure because all involved are fully employed and making a wonderful living off this scourge. This house of support has taken on a life of its own.

Only the parents of these poisoned children are suffering. Let me describe a scenario of the past that can be applied: Years ago there was a shortage of engineers. Industry made a big stink over the shortage. They complained to the politicians, to the universities, and to anyone one that would listen.
Well the universities geared up and expanded their engineering departments, the text book authors started writing text books, professors switched to the engineering school and more engineers were been trained and graduated in large numbers. Everyone was satisfied.
Finally a point was reach where the needs of industry were met. However, this umungus engineering training infrastructure had tremendous influence and sway and did not want to see their life style and jobs come to end. So they exerted their political force and continued producing engineers whether there was demand or not, until they saturated the engineering field, destroying the demand and salaries for engineers.
I believe the support that has grown for autism is traveling the same path. Please don’t find the cause or a cure because I will be out of a job. It really is sad!


Here is an eye-opener of an interview with physician Dr. Archie Kalokerinos:


SNIP: (This is hard on an emotional level to read, but it's what he said.)


"My final conclusion after forty years or more in this business is that the unofficial policy of the World Health Organisation and the unofficial policy of ‘Save the Children’s Fund' and almost all those organisations is one of murder and genocide. They want to make it appear as if they are saving these kids, but in actual fact they don’t. I am talking of those at the very top. Beneath that level is another level of doctors and health workers, like myself, who don’t really understand what they are doing. But I cannot see any other possible explanation: It is murder and it is genocide. And I tell you what: when the black races really wake up to what we have done to them they are not going to thank us very much. And if you want to see what harm vaccines do, don’t come to Australia or New Zealand or any place, go to Africa and you will see it there."

so sad

It looks like we are exporting our environmental toxins to Africa, wonder which vaccine might be causing this. But CDC scientists are unable to recognize vaccine damage when they see it.


Even though every woman's breastmilk is contaminated with various pollutants, breastmilk is still better for babies than formula the vast majority of the time. However, women should absolutely be educated about doing whatever they can to minimize breastmilk contamination.



With all due respect, the Powers That Be do NOT want, nor will they, inject common sense into this equation. The PTBs absolutely know and understand the damage they are causing to millions with these vaccines (and other pharmaceuticals, for that matter).

I can see and feel the questions from so many posters, i.e., the absolute lack of common sense with all of this, the absurd notion that the FDA would label formaldehyde a known carcinogen, yet not warn about its usage in the vaccine industry. NONE of this makes sense, does it?

I have been researching vaccine safety and efficacy for well over 18 years, now. To me, the conclusions are inescapable. And no, I'm not stating that all pediatricians, nurses and others in our healthcare industry, are evil. Quite the contrary.

But you've got to ask yourself why is it that medical students and nursing students are NOT taught about vaccine ingredients in med/nursing school. Because they are not. I know - I've interviewed many of them. To the last one, they ALL have explained to me that it is verboten to even dare to ask some of these hardcore questions, such as what ingredients ARE contained in vaccines; what occurs during the manufacturing process, and what is the downside to vaccines. Those questions are frowned upon when students ask those very questions. Med/nursing students are CONDITIONED TO ACCEPT that vaccines can cause NO harm, that they are the best way - the ONLY WAY - TO PREVENT DISEASE.

Money may, perhaps, be the bottom line, but given that vaccines and all those lurking foreign RNA/DNA particles are still left floating around in those very vaccines of which are injected into human bodies, one MUST ask what else these vaccines are doing to the human race. These foreign particles and other excipients/adjuvants, etc., were NOT MEANT to be injected directly into the human bloodstream.

Perhaps good intentions are normally paved in gold, but now that there truly is a plethora of information vis-a-vis science which simply refutes the adage that all vaccines are good and no vaccines can harm, it's time to ask those really hardcore questions.


I have three family members that are sick.
They all suffered after a vaccine injection.
If it takes an environemental trigger then it is not genetic.
What this is is pure and simple - an immune disorder.
And people "children" becoming ill are increasing in numbers.
Mine yesterday in the 80's, others in the 90's and your turn today in the next century.
What I fear is soon will not need an environmental trigger like a vaccine but will be inherited through the parent's immune system. It is in the text books that even fathers pass on what thier immune systems have learned to their offspring.
Teach an immune system to react by inflammation and that is how it thinks it must react in the next generation.

Why are young people taking antidepressants that this is even an issue?

Because they are already damaged by disfunctional immune system. I know this because I have a duaghter that reacted to a DPT shot with 105 temps, Kawasakis and bipolar.

Bob Moffitt

The FDA recently identified formaldehyde as a carcinogen .. and .. just about every article warned readers to avoid "touching, ingesting or inhaling" formaldehyde products. None warned of "injecting" formaldehyde contaminated vaccines directly into children.

In my humble opinion .. if the environment .. rather than genetics .. is now understood to be the greater contributing factor in causing autism .. wouldn't it be common sense for public health officials to BEGIN warning parents and pediatricians .. about the increased hazzardous exposure when INJECTING formaldehyde into children?

By the way .. does the Supreme Court believe vaccine manufacturers have no responsibility to remove what is now known as a carcinogen from vaccines .. because .. vaccines are inherently "unvoidably unsafe"?


The BOTTOM line is, during the 1950's, 1960's, 1970's, and a portion of the 1980's, we did NOT see these horrendous figures re: autism rates. These kids didn't exist in these numbers back then. The autistic percentage sky-rocketed shortly after they added several vaccines to the infant immunization schedule, during the late 1980's. We were spraying, at random, pesticides back then; restrictions on pollution were decidedly less restrictive during those days, and parents were definitely not feeding their children strictly organic/gluten/casein free diets in those days! I saw NARY A ONE autistic child during my grade school, middle school and high school years, during this time (late 1960's, 1970's).

They, with a capital T, will stop at NOTHING to eliminate ANY autism link to vaccines. The more the human immune system is 'tinkered' with via vaccination, the more entwined environmental factors WILL play into wreaking even more havoc with the human genome.

You cannot, in a lab, tinker with substances in a test-tube, etc., take that substance and inject it into a human body, and NOT expect to harm what the Divine created.


I just read (Daily Mail online), that there was a study, where "people who have an autistic brother or sister 'carry dormant form of disorder that makes them less empathetic'. Siblings of autism suffers have a dormant aspect of the disorder which affects their brain activity. Scientists have known for some time that the brothers and sisters of those with autism are up to 100 times more likely to suffer from the disorder."

The personality trait they are talking about is found in the brains of introverts and scientific minds (AQ test). It's a personality trait, not a disorder born in about 25% of the population. Introversion was once a well-understood, and even well-respected, phenomenon. A world without introverts would be a world with few scientists or mathematicians. Research shows that introverts have higher levels of certain types of brain arousal and are more sensitive to some kinds of stimuli. Introversion is hard-wired in the brain from birth. The dramatic increase in autism can not be explained by this personality trait alone because there have always been introverts in the world. They have married and had children just like the 75% of extroverts who make up the rest of the world. But, perhaps, it is this specific trait and the way the brain is wired, that is responsible as to why genetics play a role in autism; the genes for introversion and for some the vaccine trigger (from introverted to autistic). So, while some children may be born autistic, some children have the potential to develop autism after an environmental trigger.


Missy, Good luck as you seek a new pediatrician.

I understand that the Arizona shooter of a dozen or so can "refuse his psych meds" if he wants to, he cannot be forced by the prison system to take medications. Perhaps he could be sent to a school system... who could demand proper meds.

It would seem the schools and the AAP might "extend this medical freedom" to infants & toddlers and their parents.

With the failure to find the Autism gene, they will soon become confused as to which of 60,000 environmental toxins to study.


I'm not so sure about the connection between women who took anti- depressants and having a child with autism. I mean, it seemed like they (anti-depressants) started to become very "popular" by the /90's, right around the time they ramped up the immunization schedule (maybe even mid eighties). Those effects would all have to be differentiated. Funny that Orac hasn't tackled the new twin study, or the News of the World implications.

Anne McElroy Dachel

Three years ago, Bernadine Healy, former head of the National Institutes of Health,
was on CBS News and she advised officials to study the kids who were born healthy and developing
normally, but who suddenly and dramatically regressed after vaccinations.

No one wants to do that. They'd rather guess at triggers like older dads, older moms, having children
too close together, lack of vitamin D, pesticides, air pollution, living too close to a freeway--ANYTHING BUT VACCINES.

Instead they waste our time with 10 year studies and 21 year studies. And in the end, they'll have no definite answers.

Anne Dachel, Media


I think Professor Temple Grandin, who has AS has it just about right:

“Asperger’s has always been here, that’s the milder autism — ‘the nerd’ is the common term for it,” she said. But there is an increase in severe autism, she said, “where a child seems to be normal until about 24 months, where he is developing speech and then loses it. That’s called regressive autism, and it’s on the rise.”

Theories on autism abound and are often controversial — and the diagnostic criteria for the syndrome have widened.

Grandin believes the syndrome is largely genetic — but like others knowledgeable about the illness, she doesn’t know what is causing the increased prevalence.

“There’s a lot of talk about vaccine reactions, and I’ve talked to enough parents where I think that is a factor,” she said. “In some of these cases I think some sort environment insult to the brain” — such as heavy metal poisoning — “may be a factor.”


the women infant and children program nys gives vouchers for tuna as a protien for pregnancy and thru-out the 1st 2yrs after birth..they also follow recomendations of cdc, poor pregnant women are given vouchers for tuna weekly as well as they must show immunizations records in order to continue to recieve be fair they dont have to get tuna..there is milk,cheese,eggs...and maybe they would take a exemption..but they are NOT informed...candace


The American Academy of Pediatrics should be in the headlights on all this as they deliver most (or all) of the interventions in question and avoid doing the testing that would prevent toxic overload and injury.

Plus, of course, they take big bucks from the drug companies.

A supporter

Great posting. Just a few things to add ... if they tested breast milk for toxicity, first time mothers would ALL fail. I read an amazing article recently (in the past year) about a mother whale carrying the carcass of her dead baby with her for months. This is known to happen, but rarely seen until recently. Anyway, in the article, scientists noted that whales and dolphins OFTEN lose their first born because of nursing. The blood toxin levels of a mother dolphin or whale are HIGH, off the charts, prior to nursing the first born, with mercury, BPA, teflon substances, flame retardant chemicals that yes - show up in sea animals, etc. - and then their blood levels plummet after nursing. Second and subsequent babies do not receive the same toxic load, provided the babies are born with minimum intervals between them (mother has less time to accumulate such high levels of toxins). So if we tested mothers' milk, in our environment today, they would all fail at the point of their first born, and all their children would be forced to drink toxic formula concoctions made by companies like Nestle (who formulate US products using GMOs and European products with non-GMOs). So moms - we no longer seem to have much of a choice. Even if we refrain from eating tuna during pregnancy, we have years of environmental toxins accumulated in us - but the formulas are no better. This is obviously tragic, and something needs to be done about it. I concur with the multifactorial cause of autism - perhaps genetic susceptibility, combined with medicalized birth, vaccines (given too early, given in combination and multiple shots/viruses per visit, too many of them - all practices that have NOT been tested for safety), mercury exposure (moms' fillings, and even 1/2 of corn syrup has been found to be contaminated with mercury, plus hundreds of other products), toxic air, water, food, you name it. Thank you for sharing, and keeping the word out there ... saving a handful of babies with each posting!


Thank you for this. Our kids had the same "cocktail" minus the tuna (only because I hate fish). And that's the main point: in the end, the cause(s) of the epidemic cannot be a kitchen sink arrangement. I'm sick of that cowardly approach to it-- let's blame such a big mass of potential chemical causes and "emotional environment" factors so that the search never narrows down and we can treat it like a mystery forever. No, let's not.

Autism is too specific a disorder to be caused by "anything/everything" and the central culprits would have to be something rather ubiquitous and things likely to occur together. Occasionally there may be new wrinkles-- autism caused by a rare drug intervention, etc. But the rare wrinkle would logically also turn out to have overlapping toxic mechanisms with the causes responsible for most of the epidemic. Antidepressants are a great case in point, though I believe what the research found was that antidepressants are a "facilitator", much like Tylenol-- probably not the direct cause.

I also welcomed the antidepressant study, though it alarmed many people, who assumed that A) this could turn blame on parents; and B) this would become a decoy cause theory to draw away from vaccines/mercury pollution (and the combination you mentioned above) as cause.

The first concern is tempered by the same issues surrounding vaccination though: since the Mother's Act (named for a woman who, ironically, killed herself after being given antidepressants, which increase risk of suicide by many fold), the drugs have been heavily marketed in pregnancy as a "post partum depression preventive". Doctors will say these meds are like "insulin for diabetes"-- that you "have to" take them to get better. So the choice to take the meds is presented to parents much like the "choice" of getting vaccines for an infant. We are responsible to a degree, but this is tempered by the fact that parents are not given proper information, therefore can't give truly informed consent-- and the real responsibility still traces back to pharma which fradulantly marketed the drugs in pregnancy and health regulators and doctors who accepted pharma's "safety in pregnancy" reassurances too credulously.

The latter concern over antidepressants being used as a decoy would be impossible since only a certain small (unfortunately growing) percentage of mothers in general or mothers of children with autism took antidepressants during pregnancy. Not that this would stop some from speculating, which is annoying, but it would at least have the effect of denting sales of the drugs and making people think twice, which is a good thing.

After reading the text of the antidepressant/autism study, it was clear that the study was actually complementary to vaccine/mercury cause theories-- not a "counter" theory-- because one of the chief actions of SSRIs and other classes of psychotropes is to cause mitochondrial disorders.

SSRIs also cause disruption of tubulin assembly and may disrupt glutamine/glutamate in a way which could elevate serum ammonia, just like mercury as it happens: the whole process actually relates to mitochondrial damage. The same process of damage has been found in Depakote as well- a drug which has been acknowledged as a rare cause of autism. Depakote is a known mitochondrial toxin as well, which is why it's no longer given without acetyl-L-carnitine, which many might recognize as part of the "mito-cocktail" given to children with mitochondrial disorders.

I don't know if antidepressants can cause autism on their own. Theoretically, the drugs could set children up for susceptibility to subsequent toxic exposures such as vaccines and pollution (and Tylenol, antibiotics, etc.). It seems to be all about compounding damage to certain pathways. Since SSRIs, like other classes of psychotropes, were originally formulated from (get this) industrial solvents, dyes and herbicides, it's not a surprise that Rachel Carson's warnings about mito-toxic chemicals would end up applying to these medications.

Many also assumed that the antidepressant study was really only uncovering a link between autism and maternal depression. Those who embrace the "genetic" theories of depression and autism leapt to this conclusion and those who do not feared that this would become the buzz. This is what the mainstream "experts" were saying in the LA Times after all, but only because they ignored the actual content of the study. The study did control for maternal depression/mental illness by having diagnosis-matched, unmedicated control subjects to compare to medicated subjects. The results were clear: it was not depression or mental illness per se in moms which raised the rate of autism in offspring above the average. That might have been the most important finding of the study, since it contradicts most mainstream genetic theories which are attempting to kill two birds with one stone: link autism in offspring to genes in parents-- with a bonus of "proving" that autism parents are nutcases (and therefore no one should listen to the 50% of them who claim vaccines played a role their children's disabilities).

There is one hitch to the study which the authors didn't seem to address. Women suffering from depression or other mental disturbances who refuse to take antidepressants in pregnancy also might be slightly more likely to curtail or forego the full vaccine schedule. I still suspect the authors found a genuine correlation between autism risk and antidepressants, though it would have been an even more thorough study had they also controlled for vaccination in offspring.


Why don't we all go to the Kawasakis websites and asked them why after three decades they still don't know the cause?

That is a pretty horrible disease not to know any more than they do. They have a rash with a fever of 105 that last forever.

The medical community that dares claim that they are the Kawasaki experts, and that they have spent a life time working on this problem, so far has only come up with these sick kids might have inhaled something 6 weeks pior to coming down with Kawasakis.

They have at least are now saying that there is no evidence that cleaning carpets cause Kawasakis. However, this notion is still bounced around constantly that cleaning carpets has something to do with it.

SOooo combine it all: six weeks pior inhaling something,and a three decade survey that came up with cleaning carpets, plus a parent coming on every so often and saying the day/week (no more) their child came down with Kawasakis after they were playing on damp carpet.

The Kawasakis experts still say they have found no virus, fungi,bacteria, plasma what ever, or pathogen involved.

Parents need to look back six weeks like the good expert Kawasakis doctors say and see if that was about the time that those vaccines were given. But that is just too far and long ago in parent's minds. And those evil pharma people know it! I took me a long time to finally look back six weeks pior and see what the medical community injected into my kids. Which would be in both cases for my son and daughter the DPT shot.

Posted by: Benedetta |


Wow! Very nicely said! We just returned from an annual check up of my 10-year-old step-daughter. She exhibits anxiety but is otherwise considered neurotypical. She is 5th percentile on weight and 7th percentile on height but the doctor wouldn't give us a daily recommended calorie count. We asked. Instead he said he would refer us to an endocrinologist where we could get growth hormone shots to give her once per month for about 2 years!

As we were walking out the door, he said, "oh, you can't leave, I have to give her a shot". He went on to say that she needed her second chicken pox vaccine before going in to seventh grade (she's going in to 5th this fall) and that it was state law so we might as well do it now so she wouldn't have to have 3 that year. He told us we had to and he restated that she wouldn't be able to go to public school without it. I retorted there are ways to avoid it. He said, "religious exemption doesn't work when you've already given 15". And I said, "Well we didn't find God until late in life."

He's been drinking the cool-aid and we need a new pediatrician.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

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

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.


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.)