Autism and Behavior Therapy: Taking the Next Step
Dachel Media Update: Psych Drugs to Babies

Autism and Cancer. Microbiome Meets Melanoma.

Brain gutBy Teresa Conrick

Autism and Cancer.  What do they have in common?  Follow the research here as it is significant for both.

This new study caught my interest:

Melanoma Meets Microbiome -  December 9, 2015  

Two groundbreaking studies implicate specific bacterial species in regulating gut immunity and response to immunotherapy in physically distant tumors — an entirely new angle in cancer therapy.  The influence of the microbiome on cancer susceptibility and therapy effectiveness has been shown. Furthermore, commensal organisms have critical roles in tuning immunity at epithelial surfaces, suggesting their potential role in regulating immunotherapy response.

Sivan and colleagues compared genetically identical mice obtained from two different mouse facilities that had different gut microbiota. Interestingly, these mice reacted differently to syngeneic implanted mouse melanoma tumors, apparently because of differences in the vigor of their anti-tumor T-cell responses. These differences were eliminated by cohousing and could be reversed by  fecal transplantation from the mice with anti-tumor immunity, implicating the gut microbiome. Furthermore, fecal transfer augmented responses to anti–PD-L1 immunotherapy. Following sequencing of the bacteria, they found that Bifidobacterium species were overrepresented in mice with better anti-tumor immunity, and introduction of those species into the other mice produced anti-tumor responses.

The take home message -  

1- Genes do NOT seem to be the sole avenue of research in all cancers as these mice had identical genes.

2- It was their MICROBIOME that was the epicenter to cancer DEVELOPMENT.

3- It was their MICROBIOME that was the epicenter to cancer TREATMENT.

4- Bifidobacterium were the good guy bacteria that had anti-tumor qualities.

5- Bifidobacterium placed into other mice produced their ability to fight tumors.

6- Fecal transplantation enabled anti-tumor T-cell responses.

It was four years ago that I was investigating Autism and Cancer and also the role of melanin in Autism (and Melanoma).  Now, years later, we can see that it may be the issues of the MICROBIOME that are the connection:

In recent years, scientists have increasingly investigated the link between gut bacteria and cancer.... For this study, the team gave antibiotics to mice that possessed gene mutations known to cause colorectal polyps, which can develop into cancer. The antibiotics were administered to interfere with the gut bacteria of the mice. The researchers found that these mice did not develop polyps, suggesting that gut microbes may be involved in their development ..... Autism is estimated to affect 1 in 68 children in the US. While studies have associated environmental factors - such as pollution - and genetics as potential causes of the disorder, researchers are increasingly looking at the role of gut bacteria in its development.     

Interesting to see antibiotics as causing the "role of gut bacteria" to change for the better, preventing polyps.

Microbiota and host form a complex 'super-organism' in which symbiotic relationships confer benefits to the host in many key aspects of life. However, defects in the regulatory circuits of the host that control bacterial sensing and homeostasis, or alterations of the microbiome, through environmental changes (infection, diet or lifestyle), may disturb this symbiotic relationship and promote disease. Increasing evidence indicates a key role for the bacterial microbiota in carcinogenesis.

Again, that study shows that it is an environmental change that they point out with cancer development, though many would call it an assault.  Autism has a similar regression.  One environmental culprit, witnessed by too many families, is vaccination . Other research shows environmental mercury to increase risk for Autism   as well as living near land treated with pesticides.

Recent work at the CII has shown that children with autism and gastrointestinal problems have an altered microbiome. This clue provides new insights into gastrointestinal disturbances that develop in children with autism. However, this merely scratches the surface into understanding the complex role that microbes have in the development of autism spectrum disorder (ASD). We are working to address this challenge by determining how bacteria, fungi and viruses in the microbiome contribute to autism spectrum disorders.

There is also suggestive evidence that inflammation and abnormal immune responses contribute to autism spectrum disorders. However, no one has yet determined the extent to which they do, or what provokes these responses. We have recently embarked upon a project to determine the frequency of abnormal immune responses in autistic children and their mothers as well as the environmental triggers of those responses.

Another plausible basis for the increasing prevalence of autism is the presence in the environment of chemicals that are toxic for the developing brain. These chemicals may be produced by industry or even by the metabolism of these agents by microflora in the intestinal tract

Again, toxic chemicals are mentioned and yes, they could change the gut microbes which then can make their own toxins, all which then affect the brain.  Much research shows this to be true.

The implications also further strengthen the argument for including immunology and infectious disease under the umbrella of environmental health.27 Linda Birnbaum, director of the National Institute of the Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), says the institute’s research is repeatedly uncovering new interactions between the immune system and diseases she says clearly have environmental components, such as autism and breast cancer. “We know there are numerous and complex relationships between the microbiome and our immune system,” Birnbaum says.  

Nearly every scientific study performed that has attempted to correlate the microbiome with specific traits or diseases has been successful.  In other words studies are finding that our bacteria (or lack thereof) can be linked to or associated with: obesity, malnutrition, heart disease, diabetes, celiac disease, eczema, asthma, multiple sclerosis, colitis, some cancers, and even autism.

Even AUTISM......  

What do you notice about that list?  One thing, it is incomplete as now each of these diseases has also been connected:



Depression and Anxiety

Eating Disorders

Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (ME/CFS)

Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD)

Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS)



Breast Cancer

That's a growing list. For years and years,we, parents of sick children diagnosed with the DSM word, AUTISM, have been trying to get the medical world to recognize how ill our children really are. Genes are not the answer and have never been the solution for Autism.  As 2015 comes to an end, it should be a better year in 2016 for those on the Autism Spectrum who will benefit from the treatments for the MICROBIOME.  Autism is a MEDICAL disease for many.

Teresa Conrick is Contributing Editor to Age of Autism.



Oops, major typo in my last post. It should read that there is "No change" in the pre versus post NVICA time periods. Leaving out the "no" makes a big difference.


The N value in column one of table 13 does not represent the number of new cases diagnosed in that time frame. Rather, it represents the number of children who, having been diagnosed in those time frames, have survived. The N values go up because survival rates have gone up over time. The N values are a measure of survival, from within diagnostic time periods. This is distinct from measuring incidence within those time periods. The methods and discussion section describes this. In addition, the paper mentions at p.9 that "Incidence of brain and CNS tumors was stable over the time period examined."

The Neuro-Oncology results are thus consistent with the ACS report as to incidence. Incidence rates of pediatric CNS and brain cancer diagnoses have remained stable over time (that is, since approximately 1975), while death rates have declined significantly and survival rates have improved. Overall pediatric cancer rates have increased by an average of 0.6% during the time period. The time period in the ACS report includes at least 11-12 years that predate the increases in the vaccine schedule that later followed the 1986 NVICA, and there is change in the incidence rates pre-NVICA as compared to post-NVICA.

None of the data in either report support the conclusion that a increase in the vaccine schedule can be associated with an increase in pediatric cancer cases.



The first column shows number of cases and the other columns show survival over time.


If you scroll down to my initial post in this thread the link to the ACS report works, it's the same report that I describe in my last post (I don't know why that link doesn't work). I looked at table 13 you cite and it appears to track survival rates of various cancers based, and is not constructed to report incident rates over time. The ACS report attributes the early-1980s spike in CNS/brain diagnoses to the specific diagnostic technologies introduced in that time period. There are discussions in the report about other types of cancers, where the overall rate of increase of pediatric cancers of 0.6% annually is described. That discussion doesn't go into any real detail about what might be causing the increase. It's a descriptive report of trends.

Ronald Kostoff


Per your request. Enter the following query into Google, and that should take you to the DTIC Report:

"dtic kostoff literature-related discovery: common factors for parkinson’s disease and crohn’s disease"

Ronald Kostoff


Thank you for the 2000 article by Wakefield on the MMR vaccine history. It confirms what I have stated below, and more generally in my book: 3-4 weeks of 'safety' testing were done. So, we have weeks of testing, and we really need anywhere from years to decades to generations. We are nothing but 'guinea pigs' for vaccine experiments, EMF experiments, glyphosate experiments, etc.

One of the more trustworthy sources I found in doing the EMF health effects study was Microwave News. Here is a short commentary on the Swedish brain cancer results to which you allude ( The article by Hardell on the brain cancer results is referenced. Hardell's article, in turn, is criticized by Ahlbom et al, which itself is criticized by a Hardell response. My money is on Hardell.



I am having trouble accessing your link. Please take a look at the increase in Table 13 here. I don't see any plateaus. The Cancer Institute is attributing the increase to better diagnosis? Even if prior to MRI and other sophisticated scans, if a child died the tumor would have been found (and counted in stats) during autopsy. Right?:

"Population increase would not affect the analysis because the data reflect incidence rates, not prevalence."

Very true. Thanks for the correction.


An often overlooked variable is early feeding. Many scientists have claimed that those fed human milk are biologically different from those fed substitutes. And there are and have been many substitutes with changing formulations over the last, at least 70 years. There have been some longitudinal studies of health outcomes comparing the two types of feeding, but to my knowledge, there is no database keeping track of this mass uncontrolled experiment. Infants fed study (experimental) formulas are usually followed for about 4 months to measure certain parameters, before new formulas are put on the market. Growth and development is not subsequently followed by the researchers and so any later differences may be detected but will not be attributed to the early feeding.

Autism and other disease investigators may rarely compare breast vs formula, but how often do they break it down into what formula? I don't think I've ever seen that kind of analysis. All formulas are not all the same, and also, the definition of "breastfed" varies too, with short and long-term, exclusive vs mixed, etc.

Since humans are not nearly fully developed at birth and continue to rely on human milk to complete development of every organ system after birth, I think early feeding is a big factor.


The issue of a sharp increase in the diagnoses of CNS and brain cancers is addressed in the ACS 2014 report I linked in my initial post. As indicated in Figure 2 in the report, there is an increase in the rates of brain and CNS cancer rates in the early and mid 1980s followed by a plateau from the early 1990s through at least 2010. The report addresses these data:

"Many experts believe that this short-term increase in incidence resulted from the introduction of MRI for evaluating children with neurological conditions and increased use of computer image-guided biopsies to document tumors that could not otherwise be biopsied. Furthermore, the rate of increase in pilocytic astrocyroma was similar to the rate of decrease for astrocyromas NOS, suggesting an improvement in classification. After the increase in the mid-1980s, the incidence rate of CNS tumors stabilized." Discussion is at p. 33 of the report.

Population increase would not affect the analysis because the data reflect incidence rates, not prevalence.

Curiously, the chart at figure 2 suggests a spurious correlation regarding vaccines and cancer. A dishonest vaccine proponent could claim that increasing the vaccine schedule is protective for certain cancers, and specifically that the post-NVICA vaccine schedule prevented brain and CNS cancers. After all, pediatric brain and CNS cancer rates were climbing sharply from roughly 1982-1985, but the rate of increase very dramatically stabilized in 1986, when the NVICA was passed. The rate remained stable as the vaccine schedule, enabled by the NVICPA, increased 10-fold. Based only on that correlation between a dramatic drop in the rate of increase in pediatric brain and CNS cancers and the equally dramatic increase in the vaccine schedule, one could argue in favor of the cancer-preventing impact of the NVICA and the increased vaccine schedule. But that, of course, would be disingenuous, as correlation does not equal causation.

Ronald Kostoff


There has been a series of research papers from the Center for Reproductive Biology of Washington State University focusing on Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance. A couple of Pubmed article Abstracts are appended. The thesis and findings are that the effects of various toxic stimuli can be transmitted across generations, and could potentially even skip some generations to appear later. It is not clear how the effect of other environmental (or otherwise) toxic stimuli introduced in succeeding generations would exacerbate the initial stimulating effect. I don't believe that additional synergy has been studied yet.

Why is this important to AoA? It means that safety studies for any of the potential contributing factors to autism, including vaccines, need to go beyond immediate impacts, beyond multi-year latency periods, to perhaps multi-generation latency periods. In my book, I provide examples of two vaccine 'safety' studies, showing they only extend for a few months:

"In the above two efficacy and 'safety' studies, antibody levels are measured after a short period of time, which gives some measure of vaccine efficacy. Side-effects over this short period are documented as well, and (in most of these combination studies I have seen reported in the literature) are judged to be 'well-tolerated'."

The gap between 1) the present self-styled vaccine safety studies, EMF safety studies, glyphosate safety studies, and safety studies for myriad potentially toxic stimulants and 2) what is required to evaluate credible safety is astronomical.

1. PLoS One. 2012;7(5):e36129. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0036129. Epub 2012 May 3.
Environmentally induced epigenetic transgenerational inheritance of ovarian disease.
Nilsson E1, Larsen G, Manikkam M, Guerrero-Bosagna C, Savenkova MI, Skinner MK.
Author information
The actions of environmental toxicants and relevant mixtures in promoting the epigenetic transgenerational inheritance of ovarian disease was investigated with the use of a fungicide, a pesticide mixture, a plastic mixture, dioxin and a hydrocarbon mixture. After transient exposure of an F0 gestating female rat during embryonic gonadal sex determination, the F1 and F3 generation progeny adult onset ovarian disease was assessed. Transgenerational disease phenotypes observed included an increase in cysts resembling human polycystic ovarian disease (PCO) and a decrease in the ovarian primordial follicle pool size resembling primary ovarian insufficiency (POI). The F3 generation granulosa cells were isolated and found to have a transgenerational effect on the transcriptome and epigenome (differential DNA methylation). Epigenetic biomarkers for environmental exposure and associated gene networks were identified. Epigenetic transgenerational inheritance of ovarian disease states was induced by all the different classes of environmental compounds, suggesting a role of environmental epigenetics in ovarian disease etiology

2. Transl Res. 2015 Jan;165(1):12-7. doi: 10.1016/j.trsl.2014.02.003. Epub 2014 Feb 28.
Environmentally induced epigenetic transgenerational inheritance of disease susceptibility.
Nilsson EE1, Skinner MK2.
Author information
Environmental insults, such as exposure to toxicants or nutritional abnormalities, can lead to epigenetic changes that are in turn related to increased susceptibility to disease. The focus of this review is on the transgenerational inheritance of such epigenetic abnormalities (epimutations), and how it is that these inherited epigenetic abnormalities can lead to increased disease susceptibility, even in the absence of continued environmental insult. Observations of environmental toxicant specificity and exposure-specific disease susceptibility are discussed. How epimutations are transmitted across generations and how epigenetic changes in the germline are translated into an increased disease susceptibility in the adult is reviewed with regard to disease etiology.


Please see a discussion of the history of MMR research and introduction into use here:

FYI cell phone radiation, please see (both the Dean's Lecture at top and the Today Show clip at bottom):

Re brain tumor incidence, here is an article about Scandinavia:

Personally speaking, when my mother died of glioblastoma multiforme almost 20 years ago, we were told that brain cancer was "very rare". Obviously that is no longer the case.

For childhood brain cancer stats, there is the Central Brain Tumor Registry of the United States (CBTRUS) report:
(2nd one on page - yellow - is for children)

(page x5):

"Cancer is a significant source of morbidity and mortality for infants and children ages 0–14 years in the US. The overall average annual age-adjusted incidence rate for children 0–14 years between 2007 and 2011 was 5.26 per 100,000 population (16,044 total tumors). Approximately 1 in 2,000 children born from 2009–2011 will be diagnosed with a primary malignant brain or CNS tumor by the
time they are 14 years.16 These tumors continue to be the most
common solid tumor in infants and children 0–14 years.
In children ages 1–4 and 5 –14 years cancer is the 4th and 2nd
most common causes of death, respectively (Figure 1a). Brain and
CNS tumors are the most common cause of cancer death in children
0 –14 years in the United States (Figure 1b)"

While this report is for years 2007-2011, it also shows incidence going back to the 1970s. Please see Tables 11-13. If I am interpreting them correctly, they show a great increase in all brain and CNS tumors since then. It may be related to an increase in population. I am not sure. The US maps show incidence by region, so it is not possible (unless it is revealed in the text, all of which I did not read) to tease out the rates of individual states to see if highly vaccinated states have a higher (or lower) prevalence. Also, please see Table 17 which shows embryonal tumors by region. Table 17 shows the highest prevalence along the east coast. It is possible that this map correlates to the electrical and wireless grid. Five years ago, I believe that the wireless grid would have been most highly concentrated along both coasts, more so in the east. Now with so much expansion, I'm not sure that would still be true.

One other thought...Maybe a percentage of the increase in cancers can be attributed not to the vaccines, or not only to the vaccines, but to the lack of immunological experience with childhood illnesses in the post vaccination era. Ironically, cancer is now being successfully treated with measles virus.

Ronald Kostoff


One point I neglected to mention about the MMR vaccine insert. According to the insert:

"Efficacy of measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines was established in a series of double-blind controlled field trials which demonstrated a high degree of protective efficacy afforded by the individual vaccine components.{7-12}".

These appear to be single vaccine tests, and they were published mainly in the late 60s. Four of the seven were published in 67-68. If only short-term effects were examined, the work might have been done in the 65-66 time frame. If long-term effects were examined, the work would have had to be done in the 50s or earlier, depending on how 'long-term' is defined (a few other papers are identified in the insert references, but it is not clear whether these were safety tests, and what types of safety they were measuring).

So, the effects of synergy of the three vaccines together were not examined in these Merck-defined critical experiments. I don't have any of the papers, but, based on other vaccine efficacy studies I have seen, I doubt whether truly long-term studies were done (multiple decades). How do we know these vaccines would not have produced long-latency cancers or neurodegenerative diseases? Finally, in the mid-60s, the latest when these Merck-defined efficacy experiments could have been performed, there were no cell phones, no WiFi, no cell towers, no smart meters, and either none or greatly reduced amounts of many of the 800+ pervasive causes (I identified in the book) operable today. Thus, the effects of synergy of the vaccines with other toxic stimuli in today's environment were not measured. So, we really have no idea of the safety of these vaccine 'cocktails' in the environment in which we live today.

Therefore, is it any surprise that autism could result, or, in fact, any of the 4,000+ diseases I used for the study in my book could result? We have mandated a vaccine that has never been tested in today's total environment; why would we have any expectations that it would be safe?

Ronald Kostoff


In my 11 December comment (10:29 A.M.) to my AoA post (Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence), I made the following statement concerning some horrific unethical experiments I referenced: "In the most widely reported examples of 'unethical' research, the medical experiments performed in the Nazi concentration camps during WWII, perhaps a few thousand prisoners were involved; it is difficult to find accurate information for numbers of prisoners involved. Further, it is difficult to separate out the many thousands of German citizens subjected to forced sterilization procedures starting in 1933, and many of those deliberately exterminated in the concentration camps, from those who suffered from the medical experiments in the camps and died as a result of the experiments alone.

In the twenty books whose Titles are appended, many of the 'unethical' medical experiments described tended to involve on the order of hundreds of subjects (who did not provide 'informed consent'), and in some rarer cases perhaps thousands. Many of these experiments, in parallel with the spirit of the Nazi concentration camp experiments, involved people confined in large institutions who were (usually) not told the full story of the nature of the experiments, or, if they were, did not give 'informed consent'. These people were confined in prisons, the military service, mental institutions, children's institutions, etc. How do the above odious procedures differ conceptually from the recent trend toward government-mandated vaccinations, given e.g. Thompson's allegations about the adverse effects of some of these vaccines? "

The key points on these horrific unethical experiments are that 1) people were not fully informed about the adverse effects of these experiments and 2) they did not give fully informed consent. In probably the most extreme case, the Nazi concentration camp experiments, the test subjects were not given a choice; the experiments were mandated. In the least extreme, perhaps characterized by the Holmsberg prison dermatological experiments, the prisoners volunteered for negligible rewards. Points 1) and 2) were still operable.

How do these experiments described above differ conceptually from the vaccine implementation program for children? The vaccinations are becoming mandatory in many states. Yes, people can still opt out, but they effectively have to leave mainstream society, in many cases. As the vaccine inserts state, these vaccines have not been evaluated for some serious consequences, and what the inserts don't state are all the other potentially serious consequences for which the vaccines have not been evaluated. So, following point 1) above, the American people are not fully informed about the adverse effects of these experiments, and, following point 2), the American people are not able to give fully informed consent. In other words, the vaccine experiments being done on the American people lie somewhere between the Nazi concentration camp experiments and the Holmsberg prison experiments qualitatively. Quantitatively, with perhaps four million children per year being vaccinated, they are orders of magnitude beyond the Nazi doctors' wildest dreams!

Finally: "No one connected with the development, manufacture, approval and marketing of these drugs can claim that they didn't know." You're leaving out the Pediatricians, the medical journals and the mainstream media, and the politicians. There is a chain with many links, and the breaking of any one link could destroy the chain. The fact that all links remain strong is truly a black mark on our society.


It is so unbelievable that the FDA would allow a drug to go on the market under those conditions to treat any disease, but here these are drugs given repeatedly and even mandated for ALL HEALTHY CHILDREN. It is so beyond what any reasonable person would expect that I'm sure that most health care workers, including oncologists, have no idea.

I could see allowing a drug without this testing for compassionate use when there are no other options in terminal illness or chronic suffering. But there is no word in the English language that could adequately describe what the FDA, NIH, CDC and their Pharma partners have done not only with potential carcinogenicity, but fertility, which has the potential to threaten the survival of our species. No one connected with the development, manufacture, approval and marketing of these drugs can claim that they didn't know. They make Hitler and his Nazis look like boy scouts.

Ronald Kostoff


" Re vaccines and cancer, I have yet to find a vaccine insert that doesn't state:
"(Name of vaccine here) has not been evaluated for carcinogenic or mutagenic potential, or for impairment of fertility.""

Thank you very much for that comment. I did a quick search on the Web, and found a downloadable list of vaccine package inserts ( I examined the insert for the MMR vaccine ( Its contents include: "The growth medium for measles and mumps is Medium 199 (a buffered salt solution containing vitamins and amino acids and supplemented with fetal bovine serum) containing SPGA (sucrose, phosphate, glutamate, and recombinant human albumin) as stabilizer and neomycin.
The growth medium for rubella is Minimum Essential Medium (MEM) [a buffered salt solution containing vitamins and amino acids and supplemented with fetal bovine serum] containing recombinant human albumin and neomycin. Sorbitol and hydrolyzed gelatin stabilizer are added to the individual virus harvests......Each 0.5 mL dose contains not less than 1,000 TCID50 (tissue culture infectious doses) of measles virus; 12,500 TCID50 of mumps virus; and 1,000 TCID50 of rubella virus. Each dose of the vaccine is calculated to contain sorbitol (14.5 mg), sodium phosphate, sucrose (1.9 mg), sodium chloride, hydrolyzed gelatin (14.5 mg), recombinant human albumin (≤0.3 mg), fetal bovine serum (<1 ppm), other buffer and media ingredients and approximately 25 mcg of neomycin. The product contains no preservative." I'm not familiar with the details of the growth process, and don't know how much of the growth medium remains in the final vaccine. Some of the growth medium products do (sucrose, sorbitol, neomycin, etc), but some don't (glutamate, etc). A search on Pubmed for neomycin adverse effects turns up a treasure trove; there are some for sorbitol as well, usually (but not always) administered in combination with other substances (as in the MMR vaccine). What is the synergistic effect of ALL the non-antigen components of the MMR vaccine, much less the synergy when the antigens are added?

In terms of safety testing, the insert states: " Efficacy of measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines was established in a series of double-blind controlled field trials which demonstrated a high degree of protective efficacy afforded by the individual vaccine components.{7-12}". These references are as follows:
" 7. Hilleman, M.R.; Buynak, E.B.; Weibel, R.E.; et al: Development and Evaluation of the Moraten Measles Virus Vaccine, JAMA 206(3): 587-590, 1968.
8. Weibel, R.E.; Stokes, J.; Buynak, E.B.; et al: Live, Attenuated Mumps Virus Vaccine 3. Clinical and Serologic Aspects in a Field Evaluation, N. Engl. J. Med. 276: 245-251, 1967.
9. Hilleman, M.R.; Weibel, R.E.; Buynak, E.B.; et al: Live, Attenuated Mumps Virus Vaccine 4. Protective Efficacy as Measured in a Field Evaluation, N. Engl. J. Med. 276: 252-258, 1967.
10. Cutts, F.T.; Henderson, R.H.; Clements, C.J.; et al: Principles of measles control, Bull WHO 69(1): 1-7, 1991.
11. Weibel, R.E.; Buynak, E.B.; Stokes, J.; et al: Evaluation Of Live Attenuated Mumps Virus Vaccine, Strain Jeryl Lynn, First International Conference on Vaccines Against Viral and Rickettsial Diseases of Man, World Health Organization, No. 147, May 1967.
12. Leibhaber, H.; Ingalls, T.H.; LeBouvier, G.L.; et al: Vaccination With RA 27/3 Rubella Vaccine, Am. J. Dis. Child. 123: 133-136, February 1972."

As the narrative states, these are tests of the INDIVIDUAL vaccine components. There is a reference to the test of the combined vaccine (16. Weibel, R.E.; Carlson, A.J.; Villarejos, V.M.; Buynak, E.B.; McLean, A.A.; Hilleman, M.R.: Clinical and Laboratory Studies of Combined Live Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccines Using the RA 27/3 Rubella Virus, Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol. Med. 165: 323-326, 1980.), but the associated narrative ("Neutralizing and ELISA antibodies to measles, mumps, and rubella viruses are still detectable in most individuals 11 to 13 years after primary vaccination.{16-18}") doesn't use parallel wording about establishing efficacy.

So, Linda1, you are quite correct. The vaccine has not been tested for "carcinogenic or mutagenic potential, or for impairment of fertility". What else has it not been tested for? How credible are the results of those conditions/diseases for which it has been tested? If Thompson's allegations are correct, the results applied to autism are not credible; why would we think allegedly manipulated results would be restricted solely to links of the MMR vaccine to autism?

Gary Ogden

Teresa: Very interesting interview posted on today with the Sonnenburgs, Stanford researchers, concerning the microbiome's impact on disease. At about 15:30 they begin discussing the wide range of conditions associated with an unhealthy microbiome.


Re vaccines and cancer, I have yet to find a vaccine insert that doesn't state:
"(Name of vaccine here) has not been evaluated for carcinogenic or mutagenic potential, or for impairment of fertility."

Beyond that, there is Teresa Deisher's research. Quote from an interview:

"Aside from the morality of using aborted fetal cell lines in the first place why are these vaccines problematic?

The vaccines are contaminated with toxic residuals from the fetal cell lines that are known to be able to trigger autoimmunity and insertional mutagenesis, which is when foreign DNA inserts itself into a recipient’s genome. It is by nature a mutation which can cause disease if it inserts in the wrong place. Perhaps 85% of the genome is susceptible to disease if an insertion occurs.

I read that you are also concerned that vaccines using aborted fetal cell lines may be linked to childhood cancers and other diseases that may not show up for years. Can you explain?

Insertional mutagenesis occurs most readily in stem cells. Lymphomas and leukemias include certain subtypes that involve mutations in stem or progenitor cells. If insertional mutagenesis occurs in a stem cell, that stem cell will remain dormant in the germinal center in the case of BL, FL and DCLBL until it is triggered to grow and mature by the presentation of an antigen (bacteria or virus, etc.). The maturation includes a process called hypermutation and class switching. Mistargeted hypermutation is known to be a likely mechanism in B cell lymphomas. If a B cell precursor or stem cell has been the recipient of insertional mutagenesis, this insertion could interfere with normal class switching and lead to chromosomal translocations and other abnormalities, causing cancer. Insertional mutagenesis puts the cell as subsequent risk for additional mutations and disease."

She also states in that same interview re vaccines and autism:

"In fact, no study has ever looked at the relationship between fetal vaccines and autism. If you have five smelly garbage bags and you take one outside yet the smell remains would you conclude that one garbage bag had no relationship to the smell? Of course not. They have looked at MMR II, but most of those children got the chickenpox vaccine and hep A—both fetal vaccines. No study has ever looked at children who get no fetal vaccines. Yet the data exists. Mennonites vaccinate, but will not use the fetal vaccines and their children have zero autism."

Then there is the issue of SV-40, a viral contaminant of polio vaccines, turning up in human cancers.

Ronald Kostoff


"You miss the point of my original post, which addressed Shelley's insinuation that a claimed 10-fold increase in the vaccine schedule following passage of the NVICA is associated with pediatric cancer deaths increasing to the point that cancer is now the leading cause of death in children under age 15. The data suggest that her claim is demonstrably false. That was my point."

Her statement about an order of magnitude increase in vaccines is true. Assuming your childhood mortality data is correct, her statement about cancer being the leading cause is false. Her implication about the order of magnitude increase in vaccinations being related to some dramatic increase in childhood cancer is ipso facto false. Her statement that "almost no vaccines are looked at for their ability to cause cancer" may have some merit, based on brief analyses I have done in my book and yesterday. Again, I repeat we don't know what has been 'looked at'; we only know what has been published.

However, as I pointed out, we cannot conclude the absence of some relationship between vaccines and cancer. Obviously, to make a positive statement linking vaccines to cancer, we need either a very strong biological mechanism or some harder data linking the two, or, most preferably, the data and the mechanism. We obviously don't have such data presently; I never stated that we did.

Interestingly, I have seen almost identical comments to yours questioning EMF causality of cancer. Lennart Hardell, perhaps the world's leading EMF epidemiology oncologist, has presented data linking RF radiation to certain types of brain cancer. In case-control studies, he has shown that people who starting using cell phones as adults, and were heavy users for a decade (>30 minutes per day), doubled their risk of these brain cancers. He showed that people who started using cell phones as children, and were heavy users for a decade, quintupled their risk of these brain cancers.

Skeptics (i.e., pro cell phone advocates) then raised the question: if there is such a dramatic increase in the risk of childhood brain cancers based on Hardell's findings, why aren't we seeing similar increases in the overall childhood brain cancer rates reported in the major databases? I haven't seen any answers to that question. However, it appears to me that there are at least two possible reasons. First, a case-control study doesn't provide incidence rates. Second, some causes for brain cancer (such as prenatal exposure to x-radiation) can be disappearing over time, while other causes (such as cell phone radiation) may be increasing.

So, I don't rule out either vaccines or EMF radiation as causes of cancer (or many other diseases) based on the gross cancer data presented. Obviously, better data would be required before I could positively rule it in. In fact, I am very concerned that the gross cancer data trends may be misleading. We obviously have learned much about causes of childhood diseases, including cancer, and have instituted a number of preventive prenatal measures and postnatal measures. I suspect that's what may be resulting in any slight cancer reductions. However, this 'low-hanging fruit' may be picked relatively clean in the near future. Those causes of childhood cancer that we refuse to recognize, such as increased EMF exposure, may begin to make their influence felt, and their rapid implementation into society will, after some latency period, be reflected in rising cancer rates. Whether vaccines are in that group is unclear at this point. Vaccines haven't been shown to be a cause of childhood cancer (as far as I have been able to determine based on extremely short analyses), but, given the alleged data manipulation that was performed to cover-up the vaccine links with autism, I wouldn't take absence of data supporting a vaccine-cancer link as the final word.


You miss the point of my original post, which addressed Shelley's insinuation that a claimed 10-fold increase in the vaccine schedule following passage of the NVICA is associated with pediatric cancer deaths increasing to the point that cancer is now the leading cause of death in children under age 15. The data suggest that her claim is demonstrably false. That was my point.

If you posit a hypothesis about pediatric cancer causation related to radiation or other factors then fine--make the case and indicate the data you rely on. My comments have absolutely nothing to do with data aggregation absent an argument based on the data.

Shelley suggested a vaccine/cancer argument and I simply pointed out the absence of data supporting one arm of that argument; that is, that cancer is the leading cause of childhood deaths. It isn't. The data also suggest that the very small increase in pediatric cancer incidence is at a rate far, far below the rate of vaccine exposure in that population. Anyone making the counterargument--that childhood cancer incidence is actually increasing at a greater rate than suggested by the SEER data, and that such an increase is commensurate with the increased vaccine schedule--needs to assume the burden of proof and identify the "real" rate, using identifiable data. Saying that aggregated SEER data might miss some hypothetical increase in the incidence rate of some particular cancer(s) doesn't get close to a causal case.

Ronald Kostoff


You have not addressed the central point of my comment. Paragraph 3 of my response starts with the assumption that SEER is accurate, and that paragraph is the starting point of addressing your main conclusion: " So as the vaccine schedule increased over time, the data suggest that childhood cancer deaths actually declined, and the incidence of childhood cancer remained fairly stable. It is difficult to see how one could argue a causal association between vaccines and childhood cancers (either incidence or mortality) based on this data."

The data you present are too aggregated to allow the extraction of the influence of vaccines on cancer, and one cannot conclude whether there is or is not a causal association between vaccines and childhood cancer. The only purpose of my response was to show that such an association was possible (which your conclusion effectively negated), not that it was occurring.


The SEER and VAERS databases are so dissimilar that one should be loathe to extrapolate reliability conclusions from one to the other. VAERS is a passive reporting system with selected follow up of reports. SEER in contrast has an active surveillance component that includes active data collection from health care providers, hospitals, and families. The data collection is very detailed and includes patient-specific information on tumor site, tumor morphology, course of treatment, etc. There is also active follow up at the case consolidation level as data are assembled for entry into the registries. Finally, there is a passive component that cross-links and incorporates data from Medicare and Medicaid, NCHS, the Census Bureau, and other sources. VAERS has nothing remotely like these multiple levels of active and passive surveillance and data management.

If one wishes to make claims about cancer incidence and mortality, regardless of any causal arguments that follow from observed trends, then one ought to identify the data relied upon. Simply claiming that SEERS might not be the gold standard is no substitute for identifying exactly the data that is being used. Hand-waving about VAERS has nothing to do with SEER. If there's a better source of population-level cancer incidence and outcomes than SEER, then a researcher describing cancer trends and causality should identify and describe it.


Lots of children with face mask on at the Kroger super store in Richmond Kentucky.

All you have to do is ask, the parent -- is is cancer.

Then the worried look and a tired exhaling breath of an answer yes.

Names and faces and lives behind stats that the CDC and VAERs would so like to hind.

Ronald Kostoff


"the pediatric cancer mortality rate actually declined significantly between 1975 - 2010, rather than increasing in step with the increased vaccination schedule. Death rates declined by an average of 2.1% annually during the time frame, for an overall decrease of 50%. In addition, the incidence of childhood cancer diagnoses increased only very modestly during that same time period, at a rate of 0.6% annually."

Figure 2 of your reference shows "incidence rates increased for 4 cancer types: acute lymphocytic leukemia, acute myeloid leukemia, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and testicular germ cell tumors. Incidence rates decreased for Hodgkin lymphoma and remained stable for other cancers". My first comment is this data was taken from the SEER database. I have worked with this database in the past about a decade ago, and at that time, accepted the data as presented. However, after having briefly investigated the VAERS vaccine injury database as part of Chapter 9 for my book (and similar tracking databases), I have little faith in the credibility of the contents of the VAERS database (as reported in Chapter 9). Is SEER any better; maybe, but I would no longer accept it as a gold standard without further detailed investigation.

But, let's assume the numbers provided in your reference based on SEER are accurate. What conclusions can we draw? If we believe that cancer results from a combination of causal factors and genetic factors, then increases or decreases will be the result of the net increase or decrease of causal factors. As an example, if abdominal x-rays of pregnant women decrease drastically over time as a result of better understanding, but non-ionizing EMF exposure to the abdominal region during pregnancy (or afterward to the baby) increases over time, the net result could be a small decrease in cancer incidence over time. It would be the difference between a large drop in x-radiation-based cancer and an increase in non-ionizing radiation-based cancer. The point is, gross data can be misleading, and can be easily manipulated to advance particular agendas.

As to Shelley's comment that "almost no vaccines are looked at for their ability to cause cancer", I would re-phrase that to 'almost no published papers report any linkages between vaccines and cancer'. We don't know what has been 'looked at', but, if Thompson's allegations are correct about the linkages between MMR vaccine and autism, any potential linkages discovered between vaccines and cancer would be suppressed with ten times the ferocity of the alleged MMR vaccine-autism linkage suppression.

I examined the vaccine-disease impacts from Chapter 8 in my book, which are a very small sample of all the impacts I identified. The titles of these linkage papers are appended. None appear to link vaccines directly to cancer, childhood or otherwise. I then did a ten-minute sweep of the Medline database looking for papers that link vaccines to cancer. None show vaccines as a DIRECT foundational cause of cancer. Most of the papers address the use of vaccines to prevent or treat cancer. Again, this does not mean there is no link between vaccines and cancer, or that research has not been done showing such a link. We can only conclude that any such links (if they exist) have not been published in the mainstream medical literature. One approach I may examine in the future is to identify articles that show links between vaccines and diseases closely associated with cancer (if any exist), and then assess whether extrapolations to causing cancer are credible. This is the essence of the INDIRECT foundational causes determination approach presented in my book.

2A6b1. Vaccines/ Vaccination (p. 169)
*A case of influenza vaccination induced Guillain Barre syndrome with normal cerebrospinal fluid protein and improvement on treatment with corticosteroids.
*A case of ulcerative colitis relapsed by influenza vaccination.
*A case series of children with apparent mercury toxic encephalopathies manifesting with clinical symptoms of regressive autistic disorders.
*A dose-response relationship between organic mercury exposure from thimerosal-containing vaccines and neurodevelopmental disorders.
*A positive association found between autism prevalence and childhood vaccination uptake across the U.S. population.
*Abnormal measles-mumps-rubella antibodies and CNS autoimmunity in children with autism.
*Acute disseminated encephalomyelitis following 2009 H1N1 influenza vaccination.
*Acute exacerbation of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis after pandemic influenza A (H1N1) vaccination.
*Acute hepatitis B in a healthcare worker: a case report of genuine vaccination failure.
*Acute immune thrombocytopenic purpura as adverse reaction to oral polio vaccine (OPV).
*Acute pancreatitis caused by parotiditis vaccine.
*Acute systemic inflammation induced by influenza A (H1N1) vaccination causes a deterioration in endothelial function in HIV-infected patients.
*Acute transverse myelitis and acute motor axonal neuropathy developed after vaccinations against seasonal and 2009 A/H1N1 influenza.
*Adverse ocular effects following influenza vaccination.
*Adverse reactions following immunization with MMR vaccine in children at selected provinces of Iran.
Pervasive Causes of Disease Copyright © 2015 Ronald N. Kostoff
*Administration of aluminium to neonatal mice in vaccine-relevant amounts is associated with adverse long term neurological outcomes
*Adverse reactions to anthrax vaccine (eg, optic neuritis) may be more complex or delayed than reported initially by Payne et al (2006).
*Anaphylactoid reaction after typhoid vaccination.
*Arthritis induced by antihepatitis B vaccine.
*BCG vaccine-associated suppurative lymphadenitis.
*BCG vaccine-induced lupus vulgaris.
*Childhood invasive pneumococcal disease caused by non-7-valent pneumococcal vaccine (PCV7) serotypes under partial immunization in Taiwan.
*Febrile seizures after 2010-2011 influenza vaccine in young children, United States: a vaccine safety signal from the vaccine adverse event reporting system.
*Methodological issues and evidence of malfeasance in research purporting to show thimerosal in vaccines is safe.
*Narcolepsy--rare disease that has received increased attention. Pandemrix vaccination caused a higher incidence among children and adolescents.
*Persistent behavioral impairments and alterations of brain dopamine system after early postnatal administration of thimerosal in rats.
Pervasive Causes of Disease Copyright © 2015 Ronald N. Kostoff
*Thimerosal in childhood vaccines contributes to accumulating mercury toxicity in the kidney
*Vaccination induced neutropenia.
*Vaccination-induced autoimmune hepatitis.
*Vaccination-induced autoimmune vitiligo is a consequence of secondary trauma to the skin.
*Vaccination-induced cutaneous pseudolymphoma.
*Vaccine-induced enhancement of viral infections.
*Vaccine-induced necrobiotic granuloma.

Ronald Kostoff

Art of Autism,

" You say it's "a fruitless effort" to look for "THE cause"? The happy-go-lucky 'everything causes cancer' camp might just as well agree or others may all say 'it's God's will'.....For me? There is a cause. Find it.....You're right, it's not simple or easy are there are far more suspects that we imagined. But all "Causes" are not equally culpable"

There are AT LEAST hundreds of contributing factors for all the major chronic diseases we are discussing, although each of these contributing factors will have different weightings for different people. Weightings can change depending on the synergy with other contributing factors, and the contribution of genetic makeup cannot be ignored.

How do we use this information to prevent or reverse chronic diseases? One way is to ASSUME we know the major culprits, and take immediate steps to eliminate them. So, some of the posters believe vaccines are the major culprit in the development of autism, and that would be their first priority for elimination. Some (e.g. Martin Pall) believe EMF is the major culprit, some (e.g. Stephanie Seneff) believe glyphosates are the major culprit, and so on. My own belief is that they all contribute to autism to some degree, and ALL should be eliminated as rapidly, comprehensively, and thoroughly as possible.

Reviewers have asked me how I would prioritize the elimination process. My answer is to start with the 'low-hanging fruit', and then work 'up the tree'. Realistically, I don't see the practicality of other approaches. In my book, in Chapter 9, I gave examples of people who have successfully reversed Multiple Sclerosis and Alzheimer's Disease/Cognitive Impairments. In the MS case, diet seemed to play the major role, but it may not be the highest weighted contributing factor for all cases of MS. Magda Havas, in a contribution to the European Commission, stated: "Some people with primary progressive multiple sclerosis have reduced tremors, improved motor skills, and more energy when the dirty electricity is reduced in their living environment. Response is within a few days to a few weeks. MS symptoms return when individuals spend several hours in an electromagnetic dirty environment common in most retail stores." Obviously, for such people with a sensitivity to EMF, the dietary approach of Dr. Terri Wahls (described in my book) would only go so far. So, if you had MS, how would you know a priori whether poor diet was the main contributing factor to your MS, or EMF sensitivity, or.....? If you examine one potential contributing factor at a time, and wait months to ascertain the effect, it might take a lifetime before you identify the main culprit. That approach is applicable mainly to reversal. For prevention, if you guess wrong as to the main culprit, you will develop the disease. That's why I believe that, for prevention or reversal, you have to 'run the table' on eliminating as many potential contributing factors as possible.

Another interesting finding by Magda Havas was communicated to the same Commission: "Furthermore, we report that blood sugar for some people with either type 1 and type 2 diabetes is lower when they are in an electromagnetically "clean" environment. Insulin injections for type 1 diabetics need to be reduced once the dirty electricity is removed. Blood sugar levels for some type 2 diabetics change within 30 minutes as they move from dirty to clean environments. We know that walking reduces plasma glucose levels and is recommended by doctors for their diabetic patients but exercise on a treadmill, which produces dirty electricity (high frequency transients), increases plasma glucose levels (see reference #3 above)." She has termed this EMF-triggered diabetes as Type 3 Diabetes. I think of this when I have visited these 'modern' health clubs with their rows of electrically-driven treadmills and bicycles, and the EMF levels to which the customers are being exposed.


Thank you for this post. there some other studies too where researchers are trying to find out the relation between disorders and microbiome. or if microbiome can be manipulated to discover some treatments.


Cancer is certainly not the leading cause of death among children under the age of 15. Data from 2013 indicate that cancer was the sixth leading cause of death among those under the age of 15, with 1223 deaths that year. That trails congenital anomalies (5574 deaths), short gestation/premature birth (4202 deaths), accidents (3993), maternal pregnancy complications (1595), and SIDS (1563).

Morevoer, the pediatric cancer mortality rate actually declined significantly between 1975 - 2010, rather than increasing in step with the increased vaccination schedule. Death rates declined by an average of 2.1% annually during the time frame, for an overall decrease of 50%. In addition, the incidence of childhood cancer diagnoses increased only very modestly during that same time period, at a rate of 0.6% annually. A significant portion of that overall increase was due to the introduction of MRI technology and stereotactic biopsies as diagnostic tools between 1980-1986, capturing many CNS cancers that previously were undectecable.

So as the vaccine schedule increased over time, the data suggest that childhood cancer deaths actually declined, and the incidence of childhood cancer remained fairly stable. It is difficult to see how one could argue a causal association between vaccines and childhood cancers (either incidence or mortality) based on this data.

Teresa Conrick

Thank you all for your supportive comments. Dr. Kostoff, I will look forward to checking out your book. Thanks for linking to it. Unfortunately, the DTIC report link did not work. If you are able to post it again, that would be great.

Art of Autism


Great summary/insight. I cheered the microbiome as debunking the great gene chase which has come up empty again and again. And with 80+% of the immune system in the gut, it really is the primary director of dis-ease.

Will the virome and proteome cause the same explosion of new insights? Regardless, the gene is dead as the big idiopathic answer.

Dr.Kostoff, I enjoyed your recent article and indeed many environmental factors get to to play their part. I haven't finished Pervasive Causes of Disease as yet but I think EMF is the primary common denominator for disease. (BTW, your links are broken, this one works

EMF opens membranes like the blood brain barrier and disrupts ion channels on cell membranes (in every cell in the body including the trillions of bacterial cell walls) as well as generating heat shock proteins/inflammation among it's many mechanisms.

You say it's "a fruitless effort" to look for "THE cause"? The happy-go-lucky 'everything causes cancer' camp might just as well agree or others may all say 'it's God's will'.

For me? There is a cause. Find it.
Ya know, unlike the thriving idiopathic doctors.

When we look we find things like EMF opening a BBB so that mercury/aluminum & co. go waltzing in to wreak havoc.

You're right, it's not simple or easy are there are far more suspects that we imagined. But all "Causes" are not equally culpable. Nor are all collisions. A human colliding with a butterfly compared to a human colliding with a freight train will surely have a different result.


It is a message of hope; We can change our microbiome - we can eat live sauerkraut and keifer. A fecal transplant might be the answer.

Still in the link Teresa gave us for ALS -- ah, and thanks Teresa or these wonderful links -- but it says:

"Paneth cells are specialized intestinal epithelial cells that can sense microbes and secrete antimicrobial peptides, thus playing key roles in host innate immune responses and shaping the gut microbiome"

Can we over come an immune system that is out to get these healthful, helpful microbes. Granted there are some microbes that can dampen that immune system .

I hope the answers comes quick because right now the doctors, the NIH, The CDC - the peds society of America or what every the insane nuts call themselves, WHO, FDA - and the American people have gone insane -- Mad, mad, mad - about mandatory vaccinating beyond reason.

I am pretty sure time has run out.

Shelley Tzorfas

Since Vaccine maker's were given immunity to lawsuits in regular courts and the vaccine schedule jumped from 7 vaccines to more than 70 childhood CANCER has become the leading cause of death in kids under the age of 15. I read that the bovine products in childhood vaccines carry Leukemia too small to be removed so children are shot up with this regardless of the outcome or increase in cancers. To my understanding almost no vaccines are looked at for their ability to cause cancer. Shell of "Recovering Autism, ADHD, & Special Needs."

Gary Ogden

Teresa: Thank you! This is an outstanding piece of work. I am convinced that the microbiome is the key to the plague of degenerative diseases afflicting us (along with chemical toxins and exogenous retroviruses). Excellent news, too, that the NIH is funding such research.

Ronald Kostoff


"Autism and Cancer. What do they have in common?"

I believe if you ask that type of question about most pairings or even larger groups of chronic diseases, you will find that there is much in common among these diseases. We don't tend to think in terms of such commonality since the medical profession has sub-divided its approach to chronic diseases into 'specialties', with each 'specialty' having its unique characteristics, requiring practitioners with unique training and capabilities, and requiring unique usually high-tech treatments. Thinking from the perspective of 'specialties' leads to specialized drugs, specialized surgeries, and specialized radiation regimens, whereas thinking from the perspective of commonalities leads to elimination of common foundational contributing factors and replacement with common health-enhancing practices.

About seven years ago, I wanted to examine the commonalities between two very disparate diseases. I selected Parkinson's Disease (a neurodegenerative disease) and Crohn's Disease (an autoimmune disease). I examined shared references in the literature of these two diseases, and found much in common. I published these results in a publically-available DTIC Report
and more recently in a journal article [1].

While these documents list the common features at a very detailed level, the main result (from my present perspective) derives from the link between the neural system and the immune system. There is a discipline, neuroimmunology, that studies these links between the two systems, and there are more complex disciplines, such as neuroimmunoendocrinolgy, that link the neural, immune, and endocrine systems. In short, anything that affects the immune system can impact the neural system, and vice versa.

In my recent book, Pervasive Causes of Disease (, I identified foundational causes/contributing factors that impacted many diseases across disease types. I concluded that looking for THE cause or THE cure for any disease is a fruitless effort. There were hundreds of foundational contributing factors for many of the diseases examined, and it would only be by sheer luck that eliminating one or two of these would lead to cure or remission or prevention. A necessary (but not sufficient) condition for any hope of preventing or reversing these chronic diseases is to exert a 'full-court-press' on eliminating these foundational contributing factors and replacing them with health-enhancing practices.

Not an MD

While I think you are onto something very significant, I am scared at what others are considering for children and adults with autism-- CRISPR.

They even want to use CRISPR for people suffering from depression. I guess genetic lobotomies are next. What a terrible thing. These genetic "scientists" are truly mad scientists right out of a Frankenstein movie. They have no clear understanding about how different genes interact, or how some naturally occurring genetic mutations may actually suppress the onset of a disease in certain individuals, or how the microbiome can alter genetic expression altogether.

Ann Dunn

Thank you for sharing this great information.

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.)