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.

Rouleur,

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

Teresa,

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"

Rouleur,

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?:

http://neuro-oncology.oxfordjournals.org/content/16/suppl_10/x1.full.pdf+html

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

Very true. Thanks for the correction.

Linda,
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.
http://m.cancer.org/acs/groups/content/@research/documents/webcontent/aspc-041787.pdf

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,
Please see a discussion of the history of MMR research and introduction into use here: http://www.wellwithin1.com/WakefieldThroughGlassDarkly.pdf

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

http://ehtrust.org/devra-davis-phd-mph-delivers-deans-lecture-at-the-university-of-melbourne-on-mobile-phone-and-wireless-radiation/

Re brain tumor incidence, here is an article about Scandinavia: http://ehtrust.org/researchers-report-alarming-rise-in-brain-cancer-in-scandinavian-countries/

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: http://www.cbtrus.org/reports/reports.html
(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.

Linda1,

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.

Linda1,

" 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 (http://vactruth.com/vaccine-inserts/). I examined the insert for the MMR vaccine (http://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/m/mmr_ii/mmr_ii_pi.pdf). 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?

Ronald,
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:

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

[Deisher:]
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."

http://aleteia.org/2015/07/24/scientist-and-stem-cell-expert-says-dont-be-so-quick-to-believe-vaccines-are-safe/

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.

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.

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.

Shelley/Rouleur,

"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.

APPENDIX - TITLES OF PAPERS LINKING VACCINES TO DISEASE
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
170
*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).
*ALUMINUM-INDUCED ENTROPY IN BIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS: IMPLICATIONS FOR NEUROLOGICAL DISEASE
*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.
*DO ALUMINUM VACCINE ADJUVANTS CONTRIBUTE TO THE RISING PREVALENCE OF AUTISM?
*Febrile seizures after 2010-2011 influenza vaccine in young children, United States: a vaccine safety signal from the vaccine adverse event reporting system.
*HEPATITIS B TRIPLE SERIES VACCINE AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITY IN US CHILDREN AGED 1–9 YEARS
*HEPATITIS B VACCINATION OF MALE NEONATES AND AUTISM
*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.
*POSSIBLE IMMUNOLOGICAL DISORDERS IN AUTISM: CONCOMITANT AUTOIMMUNITY AND IMMUNE TOLERANCE.
*RISK OF GUILLAIN-BARRE SYNDROME FOLLOWING PANDEMIC INFLUENZA A(H1N1) 2009 VACCINATION IN GERMANY.
*SEROLOGICAL ASSOCIATION OF MEASLES VIRUS AND HUMAN HERPESVIRUS-6 WITH BRAIN AUTOANTIBODIES IN AUTISM.
Pervasive Causes of Disease Copyright © 2015 Ronald N. Kostoff
171
*THIMEROSAL EXPOSURE IN INFANTS AND NEURODEVELOPMENTAL DISORDERS: AN ASSESSMENT OF COMPUTERIZED MEDICAL RECORDS IN THE VACCINE SAFETY DATALINK.
*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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

While I think you are onto something very significant, I am scared at what others are considering for children and adults with autism-- CRISPR.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/gene-editing-crispr_566aed3be4b0f290e522d868?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

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.