The 12 Days Of Vaccine Mandates
The Ghosts of Christmas Past

Six Bad Ideas That Caused the Autism Epidemic, and How To Fix Them

6By Dan Olmsted

We probably all know the saying that Ideas Matter. Lately I’ve been mulling a handful of ideas – very bad ideas, I’d say – that have come together to trigger, expand, and perpetuate the autism epidemic and a host of allied disorders that constitute The Age of Autism.

Today I’m going to lay them out in brief, and in coming days I’ll say more about each one, and end with the counter-ideas that could really bring us a happy new year.

Please add your own!

Bad Idea Number One. Vaccines are the Eric Clapton of Medicine; they are God. Vaccines are the number one medical accomplishment of all time, and every day in every way they make our world safer and safer. Bow down!

Bad Idea Number Two. The evidence for Number One is clear. “Study after study” has shown that vaccines work wonderfully and that the so-called “risks” are effectively zero – a one-in-a-million chance of anything serious happening. (“One in a million” is pharma speak for zip, zilch, nada, roll up your sleeve.)

Bad Idea Number Three. Disagreeing with Numbers One and Two is Unacceptable Speech. Claims that vaccines are more dangerous than advertised are bogus and should be suppressed. You need to be a conspiracy theorist, a purveyor of junk science, a pathetically gullible parent looking for someone to blame for your damaged kid, or out-and-out anti-vaccine to harbor such ideas.  

Bad Idea Number Four. Conflicts Don’t Count. Drugmakers, doctors, legislators, bureaucrats, TV programs buoyed by pharma money are immune to the usual concerns that conflicts of interest -- profits, incentives, campaign contributions, ad dollars, liability worries -- require extra vigilance by the press and public. The drug companies may be caught red-handed in corrupt dealing, Congress bought off, the media lazy and desperate for drug dollars, but when it comes to vaccines (see Number One), they have only our health at heart!

Bad Idea Number Five. Because the first four are true, we must trust The Experts who are working hard every day to help us stay happy and healthy. They are god’s messengers on earth.

Trust. The. Experts.

Bad Idea Number Six: Because all the foregoing is undisputed fact, no one should be exempt from any of the vaccines currently recommended, and there is no limit except for medical ingenuity on the number of vaccines we can and should receive. Experts say we can take 10,000 vaccines at once with no ill effects.  There are hundreds of new vaccines in the pipeline, which is unalloyed good news. Vaccines should continue to be given for any reason “the experts” propose.

You and your children and their children are so very, very fortunate to live in a time when more and more safe and effective vaccines are available. And you haven’t seen anything yet!


OK, that’s my list. To me all those ideas fit together and explain how we got from a few targeted shots against the ancestral scourges of mankind (to use Harris Coulter’s marvelous phrase) to a runaway public health nightmare of chronic and developmental illnesses that most people don’t notice are caused by vaccines that most people don’t need.

There are other ways to put the ideas together – as we did in our book The Age of Autism, for example, showing that a long history of medical use and abuse of mercury fed into vaccine dangers that went unrecognized even as they increased exponentially, with regulators in too deep to ever face the truth. That the autism epidemic started with the first uses of ethyl mercury and then rose along with that exposure. That the truth has been covered up by the CDC and a whistleblower’s testimony has been suppressed by the medical and media vaccine establishment.

We could start with the corruption of science, move on to bogus studies, suppression of dissent, and so on.

They all lead to the same place – a very bad one triggered by a small number of very bad ideas that interlock like the links in a fence and keep out the truth. Ideas matter, and we need to make clear how bad these are, then propose new and better ones. As Thomas Kuhn said in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, big bad ideas – he called them paradigms – don’t just vanish on their own, they need to be displaced by new and better ones.


Dan Olmsted is Editor of Age of Autism.




Grace Green

Eindeker, of course I'm not going to give my personal evidence to you - what do you take me for - but the fact that I have more than a thousand documents is the reason why I have won more than forty hearings and tribunals, and counting. The police even illegally stop me from entering public areas of the court house because I'm wearing my 'Vaccines kill and maim' t-shirt! As for experts not having to keep an open mind, it's often said by medics about hoeopathy that they won't believe in it until they've seen the veidence. But there are many pharmaceuticals of which it is not known how they work other than anecdotally.

John Stone


I am getting bored with this. What we can make of someone who writes:

"40 years experience in industrial R&D (Non-Pharma, in diagnostics industry)"

But who states in his LinkedIn profile that his profession is "pharmaceuticals". These are precisely opposite statements, and bear in mind you probably wouldn't have got into this tangle if someone wasn't paying you...

As to Prof Pollard, I wish him well, but I think he is in a tangle too and declarations to the EMA are not declarations to the JCVI (for example). Though Prof Pollard is very busy I suspect he is only a symptom of the problem. The official atitude to conflict seems to have become so lax as to have more or less ceased to exist. That the problem might seem invisible to Eindeker is not surprising but what has been said can be read here and here:


Dear John
Perhaps some of your colleagues have more integrity than you do but it remains the case that industries have to assert both the effectiveness and safety of their products, they don't go round admitting harms however bad, and particularly if they are bad Again you show your ignorance, all the AERs are in the public domain on the EMA & FDA market authorization documents, gathering of these data is not under the control of the Pharma Co but under the control of independent CROs. I know of 2 pharmaceuticals that failed phase III studies so the programs were canned, almost certainly with a write off of $500m each, it's the data that count, but you seems strangely reticent to accept that: Even supposing they made errors what does that mean John, if they made errors the conclusions and hypothesis are clearly flawed and any honest scientist would acknowledge the fact; has there been an answer from Shaw et al to this fundamental criticism or that of the WHO, I haven't seen one yet and as of 2013 they were both still posting videos on YouTube promoting their particular view of vaccines on these flawed data.
And John can you please provide evidence of any wrong doing by Prof Pollard rather than just making snide innuendos, here's his 2015 EMA declaration, he was not the PI for the meningitis vaccine, just an investigator So John what exactly are you insinuating re Prof Pollard?

Dear Grace . I didn't agree with him about chemicals though and was always amazed at how blinkered he seemed to be. Hardly surprising Grace if your father was a senior lecturer in pharmacology, and perhaps knew slightly more and understood the science better than yourself, (just guessing), but what exactly were you trying to change his mind on? An amazing statement Grace Strangest of all though I and several members of the family have been violently and covertly persecuted by government/Pharma for at least sixty years., like to give some evidence to support this?

Jenny Allan

"Messer's Shaw & Tomljenovic & their paper allegedly demonstrating a linkage between Al vaccine loading and ASD......a far more damning analysis was published in LBRB which clearly demonstrated the data they chose to use was both cherry picked & incorrect:"

Aha- AoA readers are being directed to Matt Carey's Left Brain: Right Brain blog as a fount of all knowledge on life sciences research. Dr Carey has a PhD in something to do with computers, very commendable, but this hardly qualifies him to procrastinate about the effects, known and unknown, on aluminium vaccine adjuvents, or challenge qualified independent research findings. Carey has made an art out of 'cherry picking' articles and research findings. Pots and kettles come to mind.

The LB:RB blog is devoted to defending everything from vaccines and pharmaceuticals, to GMOs and nuclear power. Carey regularly 'rubbishes' AoA articles and commenters, and provides a regular 'platform' to the likes of Brian Deer, who seems to think a philosophy degree qualifies him to challenge all or any scientific research, which appears to show any detrimental vaccine effects.

Deer is still 'flogging the dead horse' of the 1998 Wakefield et all Lancet article, ignoring the findings of Judge Lord Justice Mitting in the UK High Court, which completely exonerated Professor Walker Smith, who wrote the medical histories of all 12 Lancet child patients. The Judge had some harsh pronouncements on the GMC's 'Superficial and inadequate' examining of Deer's supplied 'evidence', much of which was fabricated fantasy. Dragging this frail elderly distinguished physician, retired for 7 years, through the GMC 'inquisition' was a scandal in itself. Dr Wakefield has now moved on and is now producing powerful videos and documentaries.

REAL research scientists are aware, or should be, about unexpected consequences, when dealing with life forms. Computers, however sophisticated, are basically inanimate objects, requiring to be plugged into an energy source.

Grace Green

Eindeker, I agree with everything written on here by the much more knowledgable and well researched John Stone, but to answer the question you put to him, Yes I have sat down and spoken with someone in Pharma. My father was Senior Lecturer in Pharmacology at Dundee University for several decades, and I knew him to be a man of high ethical standards and absolute integrity. I didn't agree with him about chemicals though and was always amazed at how blinkered he seemed to be. Strangest of all though I and several members of the family have been violently and covertly persecuted by government/Pharma for at least sixty years. I wonder why that could be? Perhaps Pharma don't like people with ethical standards working for them!


Having grown up as an ethnic minority in the US optimism and outrage were taught to me by family and the community as motivators to keep moving forward no matter what. I have visions of the changes that are coming and I keep my focus on that. One of my parents favorite singers was Sam Cooke and I remember my folks playing over and over one of his song and one line stands out:
It's been a long time coming but I know a change is gonna come.

I keep my focus on that-especially in this era of murdering children for profit.

John Stone

Hi Danchi

I wish I could feel as optimistic as you about Goldacre. Since his appearance on the scene in 2003 he has been misdirecting public opinion - it is just a posture so that he can turn himself into a public arbiter of what is good science. In the end he can cut deals with GSK which suit GSK. If there was really public accountability GSK would not have any say. It's a charade.

His behaviour over MMR and Andy Wakefield is a particular deception and disgrace.


Hi John,
I agree. However I'd read other writers state the same issues with big pharma long before Goldacre's reveal. Those writers just didn't get the media attention like Ben. Still, I post this to annoy the paid pharma operatives who don't know how to respond because Goldacre is a known shrill with his own legion of bullies and he's one of theirs.

I actually think Goldacre feels the shifting sands and is trying to straddle the fence so he can claim he was seeing the light & that's why he wrote Bad Pharma. Time will tell.

John Stone


You have incredible nerve. You are only not in the pharmaceutical industry when it suits you not to be - you advertise yourself professionally as being in pharmaceuticals, you work for the big pharmaceutical companies, you defend your colleagues in the pharmaceutical industry etc etc. Also you arrive with another lorry load of red herrings. Perhaps some of your colleagues have more integrity than you do but it remains the case that industries have to assert both the effectiveness and safety of their products, they don't go round admitting harms however bad, and particularly if they are bad. And we know from history and experience that three wise monkey syndrome is a sadly recurrent feature of human society.

Secondly, of course, you duck the point that the case of Shaw and Tomljenovic is quite unlike promoting products like vaccines which get to be universally administered: if they wanted to make money life would be much easier and professionally safer for them to side with pharma like you or Matt Carey. Even supposing they made errors it is not like the position of Prof Pollard chairing a government committee on a product in which he appears to have manifold interests.


Dear John

Should I be worried or flattered, neither I think! Just to correct a minor point I spent my career in developing diagnostics, never done R & D in pharma nor have I had any connection with vaccines. Having spent the last 5-6 years in the Medical Dept of 2 large UK pharma Co's I just do not recognise the picture that you and Tim paint, yes there may be 1 or 2 bad apples as Tim quoted but overwhelmingly pharma is staffed by highly skilled scientists and clinicians. There are 100,000's of professionals employed in Pharma, are you saying they are all corrupt? Have you ever sat down & spoken with someone to understand the high ethical standards that pharma has to work to? It's a very different world (I'm told) from 30-40 years ago, which is good.

But to get back to Messer's Shaw & Tomljenovic & their paper allegedly demonstrating a linkage between Al vaccine loading and ASD. As I'm sure you know this has been heavily criticized by WHO, but you'll probably dismiss this. However a far more damning analysis was published in LBRB which clearly demonstrated the data they chose to use was both cherry picked & incorrect:

Wrong data used for Sweden, Iceland & the US in the Shaw & Tomljenovic paper leading to invalid & false conclusions. & John the UBC team may not be selling a product but they are clearly selling themselves, eg YouTube videos, the odd junket, sorry, vaccine safety conference, with $900,000 worth of funding I guess you'd make sure your sponsors were kept happy! I think the LBRB piece sums it up very well: If a pharmaceutical company had funded a study which was so poor and clearly biased towards the interests of the funding company, there would be a very rightful outcry. Here we have a direct parallel. Very poor research, clearly biased and matching the interests of the funding agency. But, those promoting the idea that vaccines cause autism welcomed and promote this study.

John Stone

Hi Danchi

Without doubting the insights of the Goldacre's book we tend to regard him here as a false flags operation:

Perhaps we need a new book 'Bad Goldacre, or How Drug Companies Will Mislead Doctors and Harm Patients Even More"?


Tim Lundeen
Another good read is: Bad Pharma

How Drug Companies Mislead Doctors and Harm Patients

Medicine is broken. And I genuinely believe that if patients and the public ever fully understand what has been done to them – what doctors, academics and regulators have permitted – they will be angry. On this, only you can judge. We like to imagine that medicine is based on evidence, and the results of fair tests. In reality, those tests are often profoundly flawed. We like to imagine that doctors are familiar with the research literature, when in reality much of it is hidden from them by drug companies. We like to imagine that doctors are well-educated, when in reality much of their education is funded by industry. We like to imagine that regulators only let effective drugs onto the market, when in reality they approve hopeless drugs, with data on side effects casually withheld from doctors and patients. I’m going to tell you how medicine works, just over the page, in one paragraph that will seem so absurd, so ludicrously appalling, that when you read it, you’ll probably assume I’m exaggerating. We’re going to see that the whole edifice of medicine is broken, because the evidence we use to make decisions is hopelessly and systematically distorted; and this is no small thing. Because in medicine, doctors and patients use abstract data to make decisions in the very real world of flesh and blood.
Drugs are tested by the people who manufacture them, in poorly designed trials, on hopelessly small numbers of weird, unrepresentative patients, and analysed using techniques which are flawed by design, in such a way that they exaggerate the benefits of treatments. Unsurprisingly, these trials tend to produce results that favour the manufacturer. When trials throw up results that companies don’t like, they are perfectly entitled to hide them from doctors and patients, so we only ever see a distorted picture of any drug’s true effects. Regulators see most of the trial data, but only from early on in a drug’s life, and even then they don’t give this data to doctors or patients, or even to other parts of government. This distorted evidence is then communicated and applied in a distorted fashion. In their forty years of practice after leaving medical school, doctors hear about what works through ad hoc oral traditions, from sales reps, colleagues or journals. But those colleagues can be in the pay of drug companies – often undisclosed – and the journals are too. And so are the patient groups. And finally, academic papers, which everyone thinks of as objective, are often covertly planned and written by people who work directly for the companies, without disclosure. Sometimes whole academic journals are even owned outright by one drug company. Aside from all this, for several of the most important and enduring problems in medicine, we have no idea what the best treatment is, because it’s not in anyone’s financial interest to conduct any trials at all. These are ongoing problems, and although people have claimed to fix many of them, for the most part they have failed; so all these problems persist, but worse than ever, because now people can pretend that everything is fine after all.

Tim Lundeen

@ Eindeker

I'm glad you are going to look at the site in detail, their science articles are well-supported by peer-reviewed research. I'm looking forward to your comments.

Re corruption in the pharmaceutical business, it would be hard to claim they are honorable people with a straight face, given the large fines assessed in just the last 6 years (Pfizer 2,300M, Merck 950M, GSK 3,000M, Sanofi-Aventis 109M, J&J 2,200M), not to mention the ongoing suit against Merck claiming that it falsified its MMR test results. They also control a lot of research spending, and many research projects that will hurt pharma sales are suppressed.

From the outside, it looks like unethical behavior is the norm, and fines are just part of their business model. This behavior hurts people: Vioxx alone killed 10s of thousands.

Along these lines, you might enjoy Dr Malcom Kendrick's book, Doctoring Data: How to sort out medical advice from medical nonsense. He specifically talks about how some studies are misrepresented to improve pharma sales.

John Stone

Good Morning Eindeker

Regarding Chris Shaw and the Dwoskin family foundation one very basic point is that Prof Shaw is not interested as far as I know in promoting a product. If the Dwoskin foundation concern themselves with the safety of vaccine products that is a perfectly sensible thing to do, and everyone should.

I realise that the issue of disclosures and claims of professional expertise if you post pseudonymously are problematic and you are not entirely to blame if someone asks. However, your identity has been known to me for something like the last 8 years and I cannot support your professional claim to have never worked in pharmaceuticals. As far as I can see "pharmaceuticals" are very much part of your professional profile: two large pharmaceutical companies are named as having employed you in the last decade and your present consultancy mentions that its services are retained by a "large pharmaceutical company". Your "LinkedIn" profile names "pharmaceuticals" as the field in which you work - presumably you filled that in yourself.


@ Linda1you extended profession credentials inducing your higher educational degrees and your extended resume in the scientific community. BSc (Microbiology) PhD Microbial Bioenergetics, 40 years experience in industrial R&D (Non-Pharma, in diagnostics industry) including managing large groups of 50+ scientists, that good enough for you? Personal interest in this: I almost died of what is now a VPD & had an uncle permanently crippled with polio.

@ John See that you quote papers from the Canadian group of Tomljenovic & Shaw. You are probably aware that this group receives large scale funding from the Dwoskin Family Foundation that is avowedly anti-vaccine, Two years ago, they made two donations to the American Foundation for University of British Columbia, academic home to Shaw and Tomljenovic. One contribution, for $10,000, was just for "general expenses". The more significant donation was for lab costs for the "Aluminum Toxicity Project", for which they donated $125,000. This is in addition to approximately $200,000 for NVIC. ttp:// Nothing wrong with this in principal but here's the problem for you John do you dismiss these papers as easily as you dismiss any with a hint of pharma connection? Especially as
Prof. Shaw’s website says he has received nearly $900,000 from the Dwoskin Family Foundation, a U.S.-based group, and the Georgetown, Ont.-based Katlyn Fox Foundation. Both groups question the safety of vaccines.

@Tim, thank you for the link to, I'll certainly have a look, but there may be some red flags up front, eg vast and unsupported generalizations about corruption and the pharma industry, but we'll overlook that to see what is on the site. But how do you view the status of the UBC group and its' funding sources?


I would like to add to Dr. Kostoff's "Childhood Infectious Diseases Have No Benefit" my personal favorite. It does seem that it has been discovered that WILD MUMPS INFECTION IS NATURE'S VACCINE AGAINST LATER DEVELOPMENT OF OVARIAN CANCER:

Cancer Causes Control. 2010 Aug; 21(8): 1193–1201.

Mumps and ovarian cancer: modern interpretation of an historic association

Daniel W. Cramer et al


Epidemiologic studies found childhood mumps might protect against ovarian cancer. To explain this association, we investigated whether mumps might engender immunity to ovarian cancer through antibodies against the cancer-associated antigen MUC1 abnormally expressed in the inflamed parotid gland.


Through various health agencies, we obtained sera from 161 cases with mumps parotitis. Sera were obtained from 194 healthy controls. We used an ELISA to measure anti-MUC1 antibodies and electro-chemiluminescence assays to measure MUC1 and CA 125. Log-transformed measurements were analyzed by t-tests, generalized linear models, and Pearson or Spearman correlations. We also conducted a meta-analysis of all published studies regarding mumps and ovarian cancer.


Adjusting for assay batch, age, and sex, the level of anti-MUC1 antibodies was significantly higher in mumps cases compared to controls (p = 0.002). Free circulating levels of CA 125, but not MUC1, were also higher in cases (p = 0.02). From the meta-analysis, the pooled odds ratio estimate (and 95% CI) for the mumps and ovarian cancer association was 0.81 (0.68–0.96) (p = 0.01).


Mumps parotitis may lead to expression and immune recognition of a tumor-associated form of MUC1 and create effective immune surveillance of ovarian cancer cells that express this form of MUC1.

Ronald Kostoff


Much of modern medicine relative to 'treatment' of acute/chronic diseases is focused on suppression/amelioration of 'symptoms'. While this approach provides short-term relief, it is often accompanied by undesirable 'side-effects'. Additionally, long-term aspects of symptom suppression are many times not addressed.

In the specific example of childhood infectious diseases, there may be a number of contributing factors that affect the incidence and especially the severity of the disease. The present 'preventive' approach is to vaccinate against many of these diseases, while leaving the contributing factors intact. While this approach may reduce the incidence of the disease symptoms, what is its impact in the larger picture? How does it affect longevity? How does it impact the development of more serious diseases? What is the impact across generations? Could it be that some of these childhood diseases are protective in the long run, and vaccination that works as planned actually increases the risk of more serious diseases?

I did a quick search on Pubmed looking for articles that address the protective nature of childhood infectious diseases. There were a whole host of records retrieved, and I have appended a few.

1. Atherosclerosis. 2007 Jun;192(2):370-5. Epub 2006 Jun 15.
Dual role of infections as risk factors for coronary heart disease.
Pesonen E1, Andsberg E, Ohlin H, Puolakkainen M, Rautelin H, Sarna S, Persson K.

The aim of the study was to explore whether exposure to microbial agents determines the prevalence of acute coronary events.
Patients with unstable angina pectoris and myocardial infarction (N=335) and their paired controls were investigated. The subjects answered a questionnaire about their childhood contagious diseases: varicella, scarlet fever, measles, rubella, mononucleosis and mumps. Blood samples were taken for bacterial and viral serology. The odds ratio for CHD was highest in the upper quartile of the enterovirus (EV), herpes simplex virus (HSV) and Chlamydia pneumoniae HSP60 IgG antibody titers (1.86, p=0.001, 1.57, p<0.048 and 1.70, p=0.016, respectively). The antibody titers increased cumulatively the risk for CHD (odds ratios 1.89, 2.24, 3.92 and p-values <0.001, 0.001 and 0.047). Childhood contagious diseases (n=6) had a protecting effect against CHD (odds ratio 0.86, p=0.013). The risk for acute coronary events decreased significantly with increasing number of childhood contagious diseases (p=0.007).
Infections have a dual role in the genesis of CHD. EV, HSV and C. pneumoniae heat shock protein 60 IgG antibodies are associated with increased risk for CHD. Protection from infections usually suffered during the childhood before the era of MMR vaccination may predispose the individual to CHD.

2. Atherosclerosis. 2015 Aug;241(2):682-6. doi: 10.1016/j.atherosclerosis.2015.06.026. Epub 2015 Jun 18.
Association of measles and mumps with cardiovascular disease: The Japan Collaborative Cohort (JACC) study.
Kubota Y1, Iso H2, Tamakoshi A3; JACC Study Group.

Although it has been suggested that exposure to infections during childhood could decrease risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (CVD), the evidence is scarce. We investigated the association of measles and mumps with CVD.
43,689 men and 60,147 women aged 40-79 years at baseline (1988-1990) completed a lifestyle questionnaire, including their history of measles and mumps, and were followed until 2009. Histories of infections were categorized as having no infection (reference), measles only, mumps only, or both infections. Hazard ratios (HR) for mortality from CVD across histories of infections were calculated.
Men with measles only had multivariable HR (95% confidence interval) of 0.92 (0.85-0.99) for total CVD, those with mumps only had 0.52 (0.28-0.94) for total stroke and 0.21 (0.05-0.86) for hemorrhagic stroke, and those with both infections had 0.80 (0.71-0.90) for total CVD, 0.71 (0.53-0.93) for myocardial infarction, and 0.83 (0.69-0.98) for total stroke. Women with both infections had 0.83 (0.74-0.92) for total CVD and 0.84 (0.71-0.99) for total stroke. We also compared subjects with measles only or mumps only (reference) and those with both infections. Men with both infections had 0.88 (0.78-0.99) for total CVD. Women with both infections had 0.85 (0.76-0.94) for total CVD, 0.79 (0.67-0.93) for total stroke, 0.78 (0.62-0.98) for ischemic stroke and 0.78 (0.62-0.98) for hemorrhagic stroke.
Measles and mumps, especially in case of both infections, were associated with lower risks of mortality from atherosclerotic CVD.

3. Int J Cancer. 2013 Oct 15;133(8):1892-9. doi: 10.1002/ijc.28205. Epub 2013 Jul 6.
Childhood infectious diseases and risk of leukaemia in an adult population.
Parodi S1, Crosignani P, Miligi L, Nanni O, Ramazzotti V, Rodella S, Costantini AS, Tumino R, Vindigni C, Vineis P, Stagnaro E.

Our study is aimed at investigating the association between common childhood infectious diseases (measles, chickenpox, rubella, mumps and pertussis) and the risk of developing leukaemia in an adult population. A reanalysis of a large population-based case-control study was carried out. Original data included 1,771 controls and 649 leukaemia cases from 11 Italian areas. To contain recall bias, the analysis was restricted to subjects directly interviewed and with a good quality interview (1,165 controls and 312 cases). Odds ratios (ORs) and their related 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were estimated by unconditional polychotomous logistic regression model adjusting for age, gender and occupational and lifestyle exposures. A protective effect of at least one infection (OR = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.45-0.97), measles (OR = 0.57, 95% CI: 0.39-0.82) and pertussis (OR = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.45-0.98) was observed for chronic lymphoid leukaemia (CLL). The number of infections was strongly inversely associated with the risk of CLL (p = 0.002, test for trend). With regard to the other types of leukaemia, only a protective effect of pertussis was observed for AML (OR = 0.52, 95% CI: 0.32-0.87). Our results pointed out a protective role of childhood infectious diseases on the risk of CLL in adults. Although a specific antioncogenic effect of some infectious disease, especially measles, cannot be ruled out, the observed decrease of risk with increasing number of infections suggests that a more general "hygiene hypothesis" could be the most likely explanation of the detected association. The protective role of pertussis remains to be elucidated.

4. Thorax. 1998 Nov;53(11):927-32.
Early childhood infection and atopic disorder.
Farooqi IS1, Hopkin JM.

Atopy is of complex origins but the recent rise in atopic diseases in westernized communities points to the action of important environmental effects. One candidate mechanism is the changing pattern of microbial exposure in childhood. This epidemiological study investigated the relationship between childhood infections and subsequent atopic disease, taking into account a range of social and medical variables.
A total of 1934 subjects representing a retrospective 1975-84 birth group at a family doctor practice in Oxfordshire were studied. Public health and practice records were reviewed; temporal records were made of all diagnoses of infections and their treatments, all immunisations, and diagnoses of asthma, hay fever and eczema; maternal atopy and a number of other variables were documented.
Logistic regression analysis identified three statistically significant predictors of subsequent atopic disease: maternal atopy (1.97, 95% CI 1.46 to 2.66, p < 0.0001), immunisation with whole-cell pertussis vaccine (1.76, 95% CI 1.39 to 2.23, p < 0.0001), and treatment with oral antibiotics in the first two years of life (2.07, 95% CI 1.64 to 2.60, p < 0.0001). There was no significant association found for maternal smoking, bottle feeding, sibship size, or social class.
The prediction of atopic disease by maternal atopy mainly reflects the effect of acknowledged genetic factors. Interpretation of the prediction of atopic disorders by immunisation with wholecell pertussis vaccine and treatment with oral antibiotics needs to be very cautious because of the possibilities of confounding effects and reverse causation. However, plausible immune mechanisms are identifiable for the promotion of atopic disorders by both factors and further investigation of these association is warranted.

5. Ann Med. 2000 Sep;32(6):397-400.
Puzzling associations between childhood infections and the later occurrence of asthma and atopy.
von Hertzen LC1.

The current unfavourable trends in asthma and atopy prevalences have raised great concern and have challenged investigators to accelerate search for new risk factors for atopic diseases. The lack or scarcity of intense, systemic infections in early life has been postulated to increase susceptibility of becoming sensitized to otherwise harmless allergens in later life. This hygiene hypothesis is considered one of the most plausible explanations for the current trends in atopic diseases to date. There are data to suggest that measles, hepatitis A, and Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection in early life may prevent the subsequent development of atopic diseases. The hypothesis is based on the concept that certain viral and bacterial infections, which induce a strongly polarized T helper (Th)-1 type response and a long-lasting memory immunity, are in early life able to reverse or prevent the biased Th1/Th2 balance in individuals prone to atopy and asthma. Evidence for the ability of mycobacterial infections to alter the Th1/Th2 balance has also been obtained from murine models. In humans, the critical time period during which immunomodulation with long-lasting effects is considered most successful is within the first two years of life. Possibly also nonpathogenic residents of the intestinal mucosa are involved in the proper maturation of the immune system. The use of antibiotics has been shown to be positively associated with the development of asthma and atopy. The mechanisms underlying these associations remain largely unknown.

6. Kidney Int Suppl. 2005 Aug;(97):S62-7.
Hygiene hypothesis and prevalence of glomerulonephritis.
Hurtado A1, Johnson RJ.

The hygiene hypothesis was proposed to explain the marked increase in allergies that has been observed in industrialized (Westernized) societies. This hypothesis proposes that early and frequent exposure to bacterial and other antigens, such as is common in developing nations, leads to a normal Th1 response, but that better public hygiene and less infections observed in industrialized nations may lead to persistence of the Th2 phenotype and thereby increase our risk for developing allergies. Infection early in life with measles or hepatitis A virus, immunization with bacille Calmette-Guérin, certain gastrointestinal bacteria (lactobacillus), and environmental endotoxin exposure may protect individuals from developing allergy in adulthood. Paradoxically, infestation by parasites stimulates a Th2-cell response; however, the incidence of allergic disease is very low, perhaps due to the stimulation of T-regulatory lymphocytes that can downregulate Th1 and Th2 responses. Some types of human glomerulonephritis (GN) have Th1-predominant immune responses, including crescentic and membranoproliferative GN, whereas other types of GN have a predominant Th2 immune response, including membranous nephropathy, minimal change disease, and immunoglobulin A nephropathy. A review of the prevalence of specific GN shows that the higher prevalence of membranoproliferative GN in developing countries and the higher frequency of immunoglobulin A nephropathy and minimal change disease in industrialized countries could be explained by the hygiene hypothesis. We suggest that studies examining Th1/Th2 balance, particularly as it develops in childhood, should be performed to determine if early polarization of the immune response is responsible for the later development of specific forms of GN.

7. Liver Int. 2008 Jan;28(1):147-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1478-3231.2007.01605.x.
Is past exposure to hepatitis A protective against progressive fibrosis in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease?
de Silva AP, Kasturiratne A, Liyanage DL, Karunanayaka TK, de S Hewavisenthi SJ, Dassanayake AS, Farrell GC, de Silva HJ.

"The hygiene–allergy hypothesis postulates that some childhood infections, including hepatitis A, may protect against subsequent development of immunemediated disorders, such as atopy, asthma and inflammatory bowel disease..... These preliminary results are consistent with the proposal that past exposure to HAV may be protective against advanced hepatic fibrosis in NAFLD......It is possible that hepatitis A infection may prevent or reverse the imbalance between pro- and anti-inflammatory cytokines that triggers the formation of reactive oxidant species that leads to fibrosis in NAFLD."

Gary Ogden

At the CBER workshop in 1999, Dr. Philip Minor, the UK's top vaccine safety official called vaccines "crude," "heavily contaminated," and their manufacture "really quite primitive." I wonder if Dr. Ianelli can tell us that they've cleaned them up in the sixteen years since then? In which case, mirabile dictu, I say.


Thank you to the AoA poster who I cannot now find who recommended

This is indeed a very useful resource. It is a devastating array of scientific consensus that autism is a manifestation of autoimmune response from any cause. Those who deny this fact are either ignorant or liars.

Regressive autism has been around as long as autism. No more mystery about that, either. The proof is here on (I actually felt ill after I read this. It is from 1986, yet to this day we still have to listen to CDC spin doctors question the existence of regressive autism):

The CDC, FDA, and your local government now need to be held to account for acting in deceit or ignorance. The cause of autism is not a mystery.

2016 will be an interesting year, Here is a great brochure, courtesy of, to hand out to your school board, local, state, federal elected officials, and to picket the office of the pediatrician who screwed up your kid:

This information is undeniable, unstoppable, and stunning. Disseminate widely.


Eindeker Stoopid idea #4

Before you start the typical troll chant of Chris Shaw is anti-vax rather than a scientist that is providing the scientific fact rather than scientific consensus-please provide you extended profession credentials inducing your higher educational degrees and your extended resume in the scientific community.

Also, this:
Chris Shaw, PhD: Neurotoxicity of Aluminum Vaccine Adjuvants. 12-21-14 :

The Effect of Aluminum in Vaccines on Humans:

Puerto Rico Meeting/Transcript On Aluminum In Vaccines - part 1 of 2:

Puerto Rico Meeting/Transcript On Aluminum In Vaccines - part 2 of 2:

A great deal has been said about mercury in vaccines. What most people did not realize was that aluminum, also found in vaccines, was a known gene mutant and it appeared to be – potentially – just as dangerous as mercury! When combined, the toxicities of aluminum and mercury, together, were "additive" - in other words the dangers associated with the "combo" of aluminum and mercury were much worse than what you would get from either metal alone. Boyd Haley, metals expert, had testified to this fact during government reform hearings looking into matters of the autism-vaccine connection and metal toxicities. From the aluminum transcripts, clearly, this issue of metal synergies had been raised as a concern.

"for many toxic agents, metals in particular, is that of additivity... the response... is much more severe than I would predict from having either one of these agents acting by itself" [p. 120, Aluminum transcripts]...

and this quote...

"most metals are very reactive"... [p. 133 of Aluminum transcripts]...

and that certainly appeared to be true of aluminum also given it was considered “so effective” in initiating an immune system response - but, ask yourself - was that a sign of a "good thing" or perhaps a sign of “a very bad thing”!

Both formaldehyde and aluminum were found in vaccines. Both were known gene mutants.

A "mutant", "mutate" and a "mutation" are defined as follows according to the

Mutant: "An organism or a new genetic character differing from the parental strain as a result of mutation".

Mutate: "To undergo or cause to undergo mutation".

Mutation: "A change as in nature, form or quality. Any heritable alteration of an organism". [end of quote from American Heritage Dictionary, Office Edition, Fourth Edition, Houghton Mifflin Company, 2001, ISBN 0-618-07706-5].

The metals in vaccines are changing the human DNA which is one of the concerns of the vaccine makers Janine Roberts revealed in her books: "Fear of the Invincible" and "The Vaccine Papers". These so called experts are clueless as to the impact the metals in these vaccines are having on the human organism.

Ed Yazbak

The Ultimate Danish Autism Study

J R Soc Med. 2015 Jul; 108(7): 266–279.
doi: 10.1177/0141076814565942
PMCID: PMC4530408
Ritual circumcision and risk of autism spectrum disorder in 0- to 9-year-old boys: national cohort study in Denmark
Morten Frisch1,2 and Jacob Simonsen1
1Department of Epidemiology Research, Division of National Health Surveillance and Research, Statens Serum Institut, DK-2300 Copenhagen S, Denmark
2Department of Clinical Medicine, Center for Sexology Research, Aalborg University, DK-9000 Aalborg, Denmark
Corresponding author.
Morten Frisch. Email: kd.iss@rfm

Based on converging observations in animal, clinical and ecological studies, we hypothesised a possible impact of ritual circumcision on the subsequent risk of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in young boys.

National, register-based cohort study.


A total of 342,877 boys born between 1994 and 2003 and followed in the age span 0–9 years between 1994 and 2013.

Main outcome measures
Information about cohort members’ ritual circumcisions, confounders and ASD outcomes, as well as two supplementary outcomes, hyperkinetic disorder and asthma, was obtained from national registers. Hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) associated with foreskin status were obtained using Cox proportional hazards regression analyses.

With a total of 4986 ASD cases, our study showed that regardless of cultural background circumcised boys were more likely than intact boys to develop ASD before age 10 years (HR = 1.46; 95% CI: 1.11–1.93). Risk was particularly high for infantile autism before age five years (HR = 2.06; 95% CI: 1.36–3.13). Circumcised boys in non-Muslim families were also more likely to develop hyperkinetic disorder (HR = 1.81; 95% CI: 1.11–2.96). Associations with asthma were consistently inconspicuous (HR = 0.96; 95% CI: 0.84–1.10).

We confirmed our hypothesis that boys who undergo ritual circumcision may run a greater risk of developing ASD. This finding, and the unexpected observation of an increased risk of hyperactivity disorder among circumcised boys in non-Muslim families, need attention, particularly because data limitations most likely rendered our HR estimates conservative. Considering the widespread practice of non-therapeutic circumcision in infancy and childhood around the world, confirmatory studies should be given priority.

Keywords: circumcision, cohort study, autism spectrum disorder, hyperkinetic disorder, asthma, Denmark

John Stone


Merry Christmas!

Pathetic isn't it: Eindeker puts up a smokescreen - Vincent Iannelli runs off without answering.



John Stone: Eindeker,
Like so many today knows how to do a good bang up job of word smithing. Hardly worth my time on Christmas eve.


Gone for 2 decades from Scandinavian vaccine schedules, 12 years from US schedules **********

Yeah, sure it is.


To Eindeker and Iannelli,

May you have a One Size Fits All Christmas and may you fill your new year with Ten Thousand Reasons to convince yourself

And trust me, it isn't science. Its your religion masquerading as science.

John Stone

The explanation that Eindeker has given of the chemistry and function of aluminium adjuvants is historically obsolete and no one seems to know how they actually work (you can read that much in Wiki), while their reputation for safety, such as it is, very likely depends on rigorously ignoring the adverse effects of the products.

Regarding alleged death threats to Prof Offit and Dr Pan, this would be extremely serious but I have never heard of any investigations let alone charges relating to such criminal matters so I tend to regard these claims with same pinch of salt as their other extraodinary statements.

Regarding the Bexsero business and what happened in Scotland - and even how the petitions committee reacted - is a matter of record. Of course, they put the argument that it was necessary for the JCVI to have expertise but they also recognised that there was a problem.

All this just distracts Dr Iannelli's failure so far to respond to my challenge.

david m burd

@ Eindeker,

You say "If you really want to understand the experimental evidence Linda1 try reading"

This paper is indeed very interesting, BUT, nowhere does it indicate the many Aluminum experimental measurements were derived from human infants just months after birth, and instead it seems only mature animals were the subjects. AND, as you probably know(?) human babies are born at nine months since any older (and larger) they would not fit through the pelvic structure of their mother. So in essence babies are very, very immature in their brain development and nervous and immune and gut systems when compared to MATURE animal subjects. Think about it.

As to your further comment implying it's just fine California for three months from early October through December should go ahead and inject flu vaccines loaded with Thimerosal to babies and/or their pregnant mother: Are you serious? You must know that the true figures for "flu-associated mortality were fraudulently asserted by the CDC to be about a hundred (100) times greater than actual Official Vital Statistics have shown for decades. And, well nourished babies very, very rarely suffer more than mild discomfort from not only influenza but also the other childhood diseases, so vaccines are virtually all risk, against alleged benefit.

Would you let your kids or grandkids receive such a mercury-loaded vaccine? Or would you wait 3 months? You are very candid, tell us.


Without getting into the maths of aluminium the substance is being used as an active ingredient and its effects are not intended to be transient which just demonstrates that you are in game of doublethink. You haven't got the foggiest idea what's you're talking about John, and what's more you don't want to understand. The aluminium gel is a sparingly soluble complex with specific antigens, by definition it's slow release, it is not a non-specific immuno-stimulant, it is the specific antigens complexed with the aluminium gel that stimulate the antibody response.

As for your other comments a lot are flannel and innuendo with very little substance, I'm afraid like your very unconvincing appearance with Angus before the Scottish parliament, Byzantine joining of dots with no evidence of wrong doing, as the committee members pointed out to you and Angus.

reality is that the results of this experiment with our children can only be maintained by running hate campaigns against anyone who speaks up So John how many hate mails/death threats have you received compared to Prof Offit or Dr Pan, very few I should imagine, the "hate" is very much directed from one side as a cursory review of this site demonstrates

Tim Lundeen

@ Eindeker: nice to see you here again. I take this to mean you are genuinely open to a discussion of the issues, which is wonderful!

One resource that you might find interesting is It has an excellent analysis of the issues with aluminum adjuvant, along with full-text copies of the relevant research. To wit:

(1) blood levels of aluminum after vaccination are not the issue. The real question is what happens to the aluminum adjuvant from the vaccine? The answer is that adjuvant micro-particles are too large to be excreted by the liver. Instead, they are taken up by macrophages and cause inflammation throughout the body including the gut and brain.

(2) in terms of overloading children's immune systems, the question seems to be how much immune activation a child's brain can tolerate before there is obvious damage. Numerous peer-reviewed studies show that excessive immune activation causes autism.

My understanding about how much a particular individual can tolerate will depend on their exposure to other synergistic toxins, their nutritional status and epigenetic state, and their genetic ability to clear inflammation. At some level of inflammation, all children will become autistic and/or have other obvious damage.

Their conclusion, well supported by peer-reviewed research they cite, is that vaccines can and do cause autism.

They also talk about the validity of vaccine safety studies in general, and how healthy-user bias is not taken into account, invalidating all of the conclusions about vaccine safety.

The whole site is excellent, I hope you will read through it, then come back here and comment.


Stoopid idea number 7: Pretending that autism is a good thing as in "Neurotribes." Yeah it's just great that 30% of people with autism communicate not at all or minimally, 82% unemployment for adult autists, high number wandering and drowning deaths relatively, high murder suicide rates. High numbers with sensory and pain issues. It's just f'g great.


Bad idea: Have vaccine policy determined by a circle jerking clique of government/industry hacks, all of who have a financial stake in getting their shot on the schedule.

Bad Idea: allow vaccine policy to be controlled for 30 years by an unchanging group of corrupted, disingenuous, discredited quacks. Same old lying, pinched, withered faces, same old lies, year after year after year after year.

Bad Idea: have the vaccine advisory group meet in private.

Bad Idea: Have Colleen Boyle and Frank DeStefano reprise their collaboration in producing Agent Orange junk science in the 1980's by allowing them to produce junk science about vaccines in the 1990's.

Bad Idea: Ignore the hundreds of thousands of first hand, eyewitness reports of parents who witnessed vaccine injury unfold in real time.

Bad Idea: imagine that the pHarma criminals who murdered with Vioxx and Advair will behave like saints with vaccines.

Bad Idea: never do a straight up, objective, unimpeachable study of health outcomes in fully vaccinated compared to never vaccinated kids, and make up lie after lie after lie about why such a study cannot be done.

Bad Idea: allow the CDC to imperially ignore FOIA requests about Enterovirus D68.

Bad Idea: allow the CDC and FDA to illegally lobby state legislatures through astroturf organizations such as NACCHO.

Bad Idea: money equals speech, which means political offices go to the highest bidder.


Sue are you referring to a 3 month lifting of restriction: To address inadequate supply, a temporary exemption has been granted under California law to permit children younger than 3 years of age to receive influenza vaccine regardless of its preservative (thimerosal) content. The exemption is granted from October 9, 2015 through December 31, 2015 The letter doesn't mention pregnant women

John Stone


You are the person with the hypothesis and the person proposing intervention but when you are confronted with disproof - ie injured children - you just go on regardless.The proposition that all these products are powerfully effective and without risk is absurd. If the principle was so certain the products would not need to be tested, so great are their magical powers. The reality is that the results of this experiment with our children can only be maintained by running hate campaigns against anyone who speaks up. I have pointed out by the way that routine side-effects of Bexsero - the latest addition - are vile, and that's just for 10-25 year-olds, not the two month-olds who are in fact at the receiving end.

Without getting into the maths of aluminium the substance is being used as an active ingredient and its effects are not intended to be transient which just demonstrates that you are in game of doublethink.


Linda1 I'm afraid it's not me who is ridiculous, learn a little physiology & what a normal range means, for Al+++ the 95% CI limits for whole blood concentration are 0-380 ug/l with a mean of 140, average daily dietary intake is 5-10mg, and you worry about a transient 5% increase in blood level from adjuvants when the body is clearly coping with a very wide range. It is of interest that following injection of adjuvant containing 0.85 mg Al the normal plasma concentration of Al in rabbits (30 ng Al ml-1) only rose approximately 2 ng Al ml-1 during the experiment
If you really want to understand the experimental evidence Linda1 try reading

John you know as well as I do that you cannot prove a negative, but there is a strong rational that the current schedule is not "overloading" the neonates immune system, the antigenic challenge has decreased considerably, even though the number of diseases being protected against has increased:
Although the number of vaccines has increased, the number of active ingredients in vaccines has actually gone down dramatically. In 1960 there were 3200 antigens (substances that stimulate the immune system) in vaccines that protected against 4 diseases. By 2012, vaccines contained just over 60 components but protected against 11 diseases.

So John where is any evidence that you have that supports your concern, or is it all just hypothesis? From the antigenic challenge data the vaccination schedule is based on a sound basis, but I'm willing to see your evidence that contradicts this.

Sue M

Eindiker: Thimerosol is NOT gone. California just approved a waiver to allow it in babies to three year old due to a contrived, nonexistent shortage of thimerosol-free flu shots. And instead of giving it to babies, they now push it on pregnant women. Wake the heck up! AAAAAAND, when they "removed" the thimerosol, they upped the aluminum. Happy Christmas. Can't wait til half the male population has autism; Christmas will go the way of the dodo.




I'll just touch on your #4 because I'm laughing too hard.

You say:

"Aluminium (do look up blood concentrations of Al^+++ and then look up how much these are raised by Al adjuvants (it's <5%)"

Now, first, LOL, aluminum is not a substance that belongs in the human body. It has no known biological function. If a person is found to have aluminum in their blood and they are not sick, it is only because their body is tolerating the contamination.

That's according to Keele University aluminum expert, Dr. Chris Exley. He also states that the amount of aluminum contaminating infant formula is "scandalous".

But all that aside, let's pretend for a minute that aluminum is like an electrolyte that belongs in the human body, in the blood, like potassium and sodium and calcium, etc. LOL.

And, let's pretend that a person's electrolytes are at the higher limit of normal, then increase them by just less than 5%, the amount that you say one vaccine increases the amount of aluminum in blood. Would that be ok? Could increasing any one of those electrolytes by less than 5% make a person really sick? YOU BETCHA. LOL.

And, children rarely ever are given one vaccine at a time. They get like 7, 8 or 9 in one visit. LOL.

So ridiculous you are.

John Stone


Well, there you go again. Instead of answering the question I posed to Dr Vincent Iannelli who btw "is on the AAP Council on Communications and Media" (andwhose return we eagerly anticipate) you come up with a whole fish shop full of red herrings. The biggest red herring is that I am somehow indifferent to children getting diseases just because I pose the question how we know the risks of the policy are acceptable, soundly based etc. etc. which are the questions everyone ought to ask.


This whole ordeal our family has gone through --has opened my eyes to so many lies; and not just about vaccines.

And it has helped strip away layer upon layer of trust.
Trust; is a silly notion that gets you into trouble every time!

So the first big lie that set me on the road to no trust (aka wisdome) The first big lie that I ran into was from a college professor.

Each and ever class he basically said: "Kids, that are going to develop some kind of genetic neuro problems after appearing to be born healthy, will do so about the time the vaccinations are occurring. These mistaken parents naturally blame vaccines.

So said, my professor as he moonlighted with Merck in his big subsidized medical lab. So said my professor as his ego was stroked by Merck - as he put a sign on his door -saying in a conference call with the CDC or Merck.

The lie came from our educators.
From higher education, but as a teacher from 7th grade on up into high school sciences -- there are tons of non science - political propaganda there too.

The lies that education told was my first greatest break in trust.


Dear John

If not, what are the scientific foundations of your beliefs can I ask you John for which of these vaccine preventable diseases you would like put children risk Haemophilus meningitis? Meningococcal meningitis? What precisely is your evidence that these are an unacceptable risk?

Dear Dan

Here's some really Stoopid ideas for blaming vaccines for all the ills on this earth

Stoopid Idea #1 Flogging a long dead horse aka thiomersal: Gone for 2 decades from Scandinavian vaccine schedules, 12 years from US schedules with absolutely zero effect on autism rates & still people, including washed up politicians, write books linking thiomersal with autism.....
Stoopid Idea #2 Constructing Byzantine connections by joining dots at random which by definition nullifies multi-author scientific/medical publications, Unless, of course the author happens to be on the "right" side of the fence, in which case, of course, all the blinding conflicts of interest are conveniently ignored and forgotten
Stoopid idea #3 Promulgating what is clearly nonsense in the name of some gargantuan conspiracy, such as the Kenyan "sterilization" stealth vaccine, vaccines responsible for peanut allergy when there is zero evidence that peanut oil adjuvant was ever used in a commercial vaccine, but the AoA band plays on to these tunes. The Kenyan nonsense is actually not nonsense it is wicked beyond belief, a group of celibate men in frocks advising against tetanus protection for God knows what reason condemning some mothers and babies who know no better to a risk of a truly horrible death
Stoopid idea #4 Wandering through vaccine formulations choosing components at random and then blaming these for any disease you care to name. Aluminium (do look up blood concentrations of Al^+++ and then look up how much these are raised by Al adjuvants (it's <5%) Squalene seems to have dropped out of the hit list, perhaps because it's part of our normal metabolism

I think that's enough for today, can't be bothered with opinions such as "vaccines never have worked & never will work", "no proof of herd immunity" & "virulent infections are good for your immune system".

Ronald Kostoff


"I have not heard of this hermetic effect theory and I'm wondering if it is similar to the "research" that shows thimerosal exposure to raise IQ."

It's 'hormetic', not 'hermetic'. There's actually quite a substantial literature on hormesis, and at least one journal, dose-response (, devoted to hormetic effects. I've addressed a few examples of hormesis in my book. If you want some more detailed background, go to Pubmed, and enter horme* in the search window. It will return all the articles that contain 'hormesis' or 'hormetic'. Then, you can read some of the articles, and make your own decision as to whether the concept comes across as credible or not.

I have appended the 2008 study Abstract from Pubmed. There is no Pubmed Abstract of the letter, but the quote I provided tells you all you need to know.

Is there universal agreement about hormesis, especially with regard to effects of ionizing radiation? No, just as there's no universal agreement about the effects of EMF, vaccines, etc. What does that mean? I have provided numerous examples in my book about literature manipulations to achieve a desired message. Is that happening with hormesis research, from either the proponents or the critics? I have no idea. I know some of the pioneers in hormetic research, and they seem quite credible to me. But, I suspect had I known Thompson et al (CDC) five years ago, they would also have seemed very credible based on their past publication history.

"Detection and remediation costs money and when remediation isn't successful, and sometimes it isn't, lower standards can make real estate worthless."

There's also a substantial radon remediation industry, and, coupled with the fear element raised by the EPA about exceeding the LOW DOSE radon limit, there may be much LOW DOSE remediation done not justified by the bioscience. Hmmm, government fear-mongering that drives unnecessary remediation and substantial profits; where have we seen that before?

Again, because of my distrust of the biomedical literature, I cannot definitively state which side is more credible, especially with regard to ionizing radiation. But, your quoting of the EPA is about as credible to me as if you had quoted the CDC. I have one example of an EPA cover-up in the book (remember Science for Sale, by David Lewis), and I have a couple of other similar EPA examples that I am planning to put in a follow-up document.

Health Phys. 2008 Mar;94(3):228-41. doi: 10.1097/01.HP.0000288561.53790.5f.
Case-control study of lung cancer risk from residential radon exposure in Worcester county, Massachusetts.
Thompson RE1, Nelson DF, Popkin JH, Popkin Z.


A study of lung cancer risk from residential radon exposure and its radioactive progeny was performed with 200 cases (58% male, 42% female) and 397 controls matched on age and sex, all from the same health maintenance organization. Emphasis was placed on accurate and extensive year-long dosimetry with etch-track detectors in conjunction with careful questioning about historic patterns of in-home mobility. Conditional logistic regression was used to model the outcome of cancer on radon exposure, while controlling for years of residency, smoking, education, income, and years of job exposure to known or potential carcinogens. Smoking was accounted for by nine categories: never smokers, four categories of current smokers, and four categories of former smokers. Radon exposure was divided into six categories (model 1) with break points at 25, 50, 75, 150, and 250 Bq m, the lowest being the reference. Surprisingly, the adjusted odds ratios (AORs) were, in order, 1.00, 0.53, 0.31, 0.47, 0.22, and 2.50 with the third category significantly below 1.0 (p < 0.05), and the second, fourth, and fifth categories approaching statistical significance (p < 0.1). An alternate analysis (model 2) using natural cubic splines allowed calculating AORs as a continuous function of radon exposure. That analysis produces AORs that are substantially less than 1.0 with borderline statistical significance (0.048 < or = p < or = 0.05) between approximately 85 and 123 Bq m. College-educated subjects in comparison to high-school dropouts have a significant reduction in cancer risk after controlling for smoking, years of residency, and job exposures with AOR = 0.30 (95% CI: 0.13, 0.69), p = 0.005 (model 1).

John Stone

Caplan should be very ashamed - the doctrine of pharmaceutical infallibility.


It is a bad idea to put people like Art Caplan, PhD in philosophy, (or anything else for that matter), up on a pedestal and allow them to rule over the rest of us. Very bad idea.


Both links to the radon research that you posted are not working for me. I do know that the EPA was supposed to decrease the radon action level to below 4pCi/l. The EPA states that there is no safe level and that people should try to mitigate to as low as possible. If the accepted pathophysiological explanation of radioactive particles lodging in and damaging lung tissue is correct, then logically small amounts of exposure would not be protective and would also potentially cause disease, unless the body somehow has a way of mitigating these particles. I have not heard of this hermetic effect theory and I'm wondering if it is similar to the "research" that shows thimerosal exposure to raise IQ. I do know that there is significant political pressure from the building industry and others to downplay any risk. Detection and remediation costs money and when remediation isn't successful, and sometimes it isn't, lower standards can make real estate worthless. Below is from an EPA pdf from 2012:

"The average indoor radon level is estimated to be about 1.3 pCi/L, and about 0.4 pCi/L of radon is normally found in the outside air. The U.S. Congress has set a long-term goal that indoor radon levels be no more than outdoor levels. While this goal is not yet technologically achievable in all cases, most homes today can be reduced to 2 pCi/L or below.
Sometimes short-term tests are less definitive about whether or not
your home is above 4 pCi/L. This can happen when your results are close to 4 pCi/L. For example, if the average of your two short-term test results is 4.1 pCi/L, there is about a 50% chance that your year-round average is somewhat below 4 pCi/L. However, EPA believes that any radon exposure carries some risk—no level of radon is safe. Even radon levels below 4 pCi/L pose some risk, and you can reduce your risk of lung cancer by lowering your radon level. If your living patterns change and you begin occupying a lower level of your home (such as a basement) you should retest your home on that level. Even if your test result is below 4 pCi/L, you may want to test again sometime in the future."


Bad Idea number 15, the neuro-diversity movement and autism as a gift:

It's a gift to be a non-verbal kid, past early childhood and still in diapers. And, if you're high functioning autistic adolescent, sitting at home on your butt,unemployed and waiting for your aging folks to look after you, your autism is also most definitely a gift.

mary w maxwell

I want to ditto what Eileen said and what ‘reader’ said:

Eileen: “Use of a clamp on the umbilical cord immediately after birth will lead to oxygen insufficiency ….”

Are there doctors out there, clamping too soon because someone says “It’s hospital policy,” and they don’t dare squeak up? Then I give you:

Reader: Media and doctors (especially Paediatricians) are mother f'g cowards.

Maurine Meleck

Bad idea: Autism is a mental disorder and is generally treated with psyche drugs. Nobody can recover from autism. It's a lifelong mental disorder. We must accept as fact that the numbers have always been there. Doctors are now much smarter than before in that they can now recognize and diagnose the mental condition. We have to accept those with autism and offer them Broadway shows, movies, special library hours, access to Disneyland, free airplane try outs,

Donna L.

Bad Idea Number 20,796:
Vaccine-(purportedly)preventable diseases are much more dangerous, disabling and life-threatening than vaccine-induced immunological and neurological damage (aka 'autism').

Denise Anderstrom Douglass

Here's my contribution to the bad ideas: Bad idea: autism is genetic. Let's throw gazillions of our tax dollars to study this. Let's never prove it, but keep at the expensive task, so that those lucky enough to not yet have it in their families will sleep better at night knowing in their heart that it's "not on my kids side of the family." Until it is... Thanks, Dan! Long may you wave!


it's a bad idea to say the "science is in," the science can never be in and be science.


Especially when the science has never actually been

When it comes to vaccines, all there has even been is dogma, inferred from decades of dubiously crafted statistics.

There is no scientific proof that any vaccine has ever prevented a disease of any kind. There never has been.

angus files

bad idea "trust me I`m a doctor"..

Thanks Dan


Anita D

Great list!
Bad idea: accidentally ingesting a toxin is equivalent to deliberately injecting the same
And it's corollary:
Bad idea: vaccines are magic and break all the rules of medicine and science. Even though for all other drugs dosage is important the same amount of adjuvant is safe for a 5 pound preemie as for a 200 pound man

Ronald Kostoff


"Radon is the second leading cause of lung cancer. Have you had your home tested for radon gas, Vincent? Most doctors, even pulmonologists, don't know anything about radon. Why? Because medical school curriculum is bought and paid for by Pharma and because radon can't be fixed with a drug or a treatment THAT THEY SELL. Right now, at this moment, there are millions of children being raised in homes and attending schools and other places in their communities that have high levels of radon gas, and not a peep out of the CDC or the AAP or anyone else for that matter. Sure, you can get a radon test if you know to do it, but the CDC isn't running around making sure that anyone knows about the hazards of radon gas. They have vaccines to sell.

You know all those new computerized medical record databases that have a link going back to the CDC where you report your patients' vaccination status? If the CDC cared about your patients' health, they'd have a prompt to remind you to ask your patients' parents if they've had their home tested for radon. Would be simple to do, BUT THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT RADON. Why is that? There is no money in radon mitigation for the CDC or their bed partners."

You need to be careful about the adverse impacts of radon. Most scientists agree that there are adverse effects at the higher dosage rates, but the science is not settled about its effect on lung cancer AT LOW DOSES. One theory, linear no threshold (LNT), assumes lung cancer incidence increases with dose for all dose ranges. A second theory, hormesis, assumes there is a protective effect of radon on lung cancer incidence at low radon radiation doses.

A paper published in 2008 showed a hormetic effect of radon on lung cancer ( A recent letter/paper ( concluded "The final and general conclusion of this letter is that excess risk of lung cancer due to low concentrations of radon has been neither empirically detected nor theoretically demonstrated, while the opposite has, in fact, been supported by voluminous evidence. The putative increase in lung cancer risk due to low concentrations of radon is not a real effect; it is an assumption only." The EPA action guideline level for homes is four picocuries/liter, which, according to Thompson's results, is in the middle of the hormetic region.

Bob Moffit

How about the BAD IDEA of providing "product liability" protections to a product that a majority of the Supreme Court declared "unavoidably unsafe" .. a decision which denied citizen's their Constitutional Right to seek legal redress for damages those citizens suffered .. upon appeal .. in State and Federal Courts .. thereby confining citizens to abide by the FINAL decision of the Vaccine Court .. a court that is NOT recognized in the US Constitution?

John Stone

Dr Iannelli

In the UK a two month old infant is scheduled to receive:

13 strain pneumococcal vaccine (Prevnar)
oral rotavirus vaccine (Rotarix)
Men B (Bexsero)

Do you really have no caution in administering such a load? Do you really think that it would be alright to add further to it?
Would you adhere to the 10,000 vaccine theory openly advocated by British health officials over more than a decade?

If not, what are the scientific foundations of your beliefs?

go Rand

Well written Dan,

Perhaps item one could say "Eric Clapton/Lady Ga Ga" as some might not know the first fellow....

Ronald Kostoff


A good article about vaccines being developed presently, by Garry Kohls, MD.

"the 271 vaccines in development span a wide array of diseases, and employ exciting new scientific strategies and technologies. These potential vaccines – all in human clinical trials or under review by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) – include 137 for infectious diseases, 99 for cancer, 15 for allergies and 10 for neurological disorders. - See more at:"

The article also states: " Below is a list of 146 new vaccines that were in the pipeline as of 2010. The list, PhRMA proudly tells us, is now up to 271 new vaccines as of 2013. For a full listing of these vaccine trials, go to: - See more at: "

If these numbers are correct, that means in three years, the numbers of vaccines in development have approximately doubled. What does the future portend, especially if mandates become prevalent in most states?


At this point o would just outright say that media and doctors (especially Paediatricians) are mother f'g cowards. I realize this may be censored but but I feel that strongly let down by those professions.


Here is a link to back up your statement:

One of the first things that I noticed years ago about allopathic medicine is what is called cascading intervention. The patient presents with a problem, oftentimes caused by a medical misstep, a drug taken or a natural biological rhythm or balance disturbed that needs restoring. To solve the problem, the physician doesn't recognize the cause of the problem, but orders one or more interventions that causes other problems which lead to other interventions which do not solve anything but that cause other problems which lead to other interventions which lead to...and on and on and on until the patient is worse than ever and is tethered to and hooked on a medicine cabinet full of prescription drugs. Side effects are rarely acknowledged, drugs are rarely discontinued, just more are added to cover up symptoms caused by the treatments, as the patient gets sicker and poorer.

Vaccines are drugs just like all the rest. They come from a business model that is not interested in cures or prevention, just in making money. If you believe otherwise, you are a fool.

You want proof? Look around you. We know that environmental toxins and lifestyle choices (especially dietary) greatly impact health. What meaningful changes are being made to protect the public from these toxins? Close to ZERO. I'm not even talking now about the toxins in vaccines. I'm talking about all the horrible garbage sold as food in this country, that wouldn't be allowed to be sold outside our borders. I'm talking about industrial and agricultural contamination of our air, water and food supply, about the horrors of modern industrial animal husbandry and the impact that all this has on human health. These pervasive health destroying toxins are ignored by the CDC and government officials.

Radon is the second leading cause of lung cancer. Have you had your home tested for radon gas, Vincent? Most doctors, even pulmonologists, don't know anything about radon. Why? Because medical school curriculum is bought and paid for by Pharma and because radon can't be fixed with a drug or a treatment THAT THEY SELL. Right now, at this moment, there are millions of children being raised in homes and attending schools and other places in their communities that have high levels of radon gas, and not a peep out of the CDC or the AAP or anyone else for that matter. Sure, you can get a radon test if you know to do it, but the CDC isn't running around making sure that anyone knows about the hazards of radon gas. They have vaccines to sell.

You know all those new computerized medical record databases that have a link going back to the CDC where you report your patients' vaccination status? If the CDC cared about your patients' health, they'd have a prompt to remind you to ask your patients' parents if they've had their home tested for radon. Would be simple to do, BUT THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT RADON. Why is that? There is no money in radon mitigation for the CDC or their bed partners.

Children are being exposed to radiation starting in the womb. Wireless baby monitors are irradiating infants around the clock. Cell phones and other wireless toys and gadgets are being marketed to toddlers. Parents are handing their smartphones to babies to distract them like we used to hand our babies rattles. ALL THIS AND MORE WITHOUT A WORD FROM THE CDC OR THE AAP OR ACOG. NOT. A. WORD.

Pregnant women sit in OB offices across this country with their cell phones to their heads, in their pockets up against their pregnant abdomens, with lap tops and tablets resting on their abdomens, and no one says anything to them to warn them about radiation exposure to their developing fetuses. Even though the manufacturer's guidelines for all of these products clearly state that THESE DEVICES SHOULD BE KEPT FAR AWAY FROM PREGNANT ABDOMENS. Then, of course, there's the radiation from the wi-fi and wimax that is becoming impossible to avoid, even in doctor's offices.

And, radiation aside, how many pediatricians do you know are warning parents about blue light emitting devices causing macular degeneration and eye disease? Are you telling your patients' parents about the harmful effects of blue light on their children's eyes, Vincent? Or are you so obsessive about the defending the vaccine schedule that you're neglecting to see the big picture?

If public health and medical authorities wanted to eradicate disease, there are a plethora of ways that they could be doing that, but they close their eyes to most of them and only pursue the ways where they can sell a product that will bring them a hefty profit. All this is besides the fact that these treatments and therapies known as vaccines involve insane and frightening exposures that manipulate and alter the human body and genome in horrific experimental ways the results of which would not be known for many generations.


Excellent list!

Betty Bona

Dr. Iannelli,
The problem with your "no worries" position about the new vaccines in the pipeline is that money is more powerful than the best interests of the American citizens. The lack of liability of industry and doctors for harms caused by their vaccine products creates a situation where the safety and efficacy of these products no longer carries as much weight as it should. In fact, it sets up a situation where products that are truly cancer treatments (or treatments for some other non-infectious condition) will be called vaccines so that the product will enjoy the lack of liability. We're no longer just talking about infectious diseases. Aside from the lack of liability, safety and efficacy standards can be so easily manipulated in the vaccine arena. Just look at the HPV vaccine. Everyone knows that we won't know if it is efficacious until the recipients reach the age when they might be expected to contract cervical cancer. Really, is that a vaccine against an infectious disease, or is it a cancer prevention strategy? Didn't we already have a cancer prevention strategy that worked quite well - the pap smear? As for safety, you need look no further than the newly approved, fast-tracked flu shot for the elderly. I don't know if you are 65 yet, but if you are, do you plan on being one of the guinea pigs for this new flu shot for the elderly? I say guinea pigs because it is fast-tracked and not fully tested. The last shot for the elderly included a larger amount of virus per shot. That was unsuccessful, so they are approaching the problem from the adjuvant side, adding squalene and polysorbate 80 to the shot in hopes that it will work better in the elderly. That adjuvant does not have a great safety profile given the incidence of narcolepsy in children receiving the H1N1 squalene/polysorbate 80 adjuvanted vaccine in Europe in 2009. The young and the elderly are vulnerable. Does it make since to fast-track this vaccine? After the failure of last year's high antigen flu shot for the elderly, I think loss of sales that might have occurred in flu shots for the elderly this year prompted the fast-tracking. In other words, I think they abandoned safety considerations for profit. What do you think? Have you received your MF59 adjuvanted flu shot this year? If you feel so comfortable with the ever increasing creep of vaccines, maybe you should get that shot even if you are not 65 just to show your complete trust in the vaccine program. I won't touch it with a ten foot pole, and I sincerely hope I am never mandated to act as a guinea pig like the elderly are doing this year. At least they can still refuse (though that right is somewhat meaningless in some of the elderly).

I wonder, Dr. Ianelli, if you are for real, because I don't see how someone with your background can think like you do.


Dr. Iannelli,

We already see vaccines on the mandated list for children in the U.S. that have no logical reason for being there. Thus, it is not a big leap to think that additional unnecessary vaccines will be added in the near or distant future. Hep B at birth, for example, is beyond absurd; it is criminal. A simple blood test is available to determine whether a pregnant mother-to-be is infected with Hep B and likely to spread the infection to her unborn child. No child of any age, other than a newborn exposed by an infected mother, needs or should receive this very heavy duty vaccine, which has killed and injured many infants already. Hep B is a disease of drug addicts and sexually promiscuous individuals. It is not spread through normal everyday human contact. No child is endanger of being exposed to Hep B at school unless children are shooting up drugs or having sex with multiple partners in their school's bathroom. Yet there it is, on the mandated schedule, at day one of a child's life. Gardasil is another example. It is mandated for entry into middle school here in Virginia even though the HPV it purports to protect against is only spread through sex; again, unless children are having sex in the school's bathrooms, there is no way to acquire this illness at school. Yet, there it is on the mandated schedule. Tetanus is not a contagious disease at all. Yet, there it is on the mandated vaccine schedule. If the drug companies can get these dangerous and inappropriate vaccines added to the compulsory schedule, it is not hard to imagine that they will likewise succeed in getting vaccines for HIV, various forms of cancer, and many other illnesses that cannot be acquired through appropriate behavior at school, added to the mandatory list.

Also, I find your choice of the word "treatments" to describe future vaccines an interesting one. It does appear to be a trend among drug companies to get their new drug "treatments" registered as vaccines. There is a very obvious reason for doing so: If their drugs are registered as vaccines, the drug companies have absolutely zero chance of being sued for the damages caused by their products. I think we all need to be on the lookout for this new trend.


It's a bad idea to say the "science is in," the science can never be in and be science. Scientific thinking began in the Renaissance with the idea of measuring the known but with a clear understanding that precision was impossible. Modern scientists forget about the unknowable part and so they claim that that have a precise science, a precise vaccine...and when it turns out that they were wrong--like big time wrong--they shove it under the rug and repeat "the science is in." Every day I read an article on some aspect of the real science, that is the science that is ongoing and based not on hubris but respect for the evidence--so how could the "science be in" if scientific research is ongoing. However, the worst idea goes to science as dictatorship... now that the science is in we have a new religion and if you don't follow what we say you don't get an education... so tax paying parents have their children banned from school for some flawed idea such as "vaccine acquired immunity" when in reality what we have is "leaky vaccine acquired immunity" with so much breakthrough disease they have to find someone to blame, and those are the unvaccinated. Put them in jail shout the so called "scientists" So the worst idea is scientists as inquisitors.

Vincent Iannelli, MD

"There are hundreds of new vaccines in the pipeline, which is unalloyed good news."

You do need to be a conspiracy theorist to think this statement means something.

Many of these vaccines are for things like treating cancer and Alzheimers. Or for smoking cessation, etc.

Of the 137 new vaccines that are aimed at infectious diseases, many are related to the same vaccine. For example, 24 of these new vaccines are related to new HIV vaccines and 35 are related to flu vaccines. Many others are related to vaccines for anthrax, small pox, Ebola, cholera, malaria, and other infectious diseases that likely won't result in a vaccine that would be added to our routine childhood immunization schedule.

And almost all are in early trails, so simply being 'in the pipeline,' doesn't mean that they will ever be developed unfortunately. We certainly won't see hundreds of new vaccines. I'd be happy with a handful, especially if they were new treatments for Alzheimer's and cancer or could prevent malaria or Ebola or RSV.

Patience (Eileen Nicole) Simon

Dan, thanks for the invitation to add to your "bad ideas" list.

The medical establishment has promoted so many bad ideas. Two more that I think should be brought up for discussion: (1) Mitochondrial disorders may be even more serious than evolution of super-bugs from overuse of antibiotics. (2) Use of a clamp on the umbilical cord immediately after birth will lead to oxygen insufficiency unless respiration can be quickly enough redirected to the lungs.

Damage both from asphyxia following amputation of the placenta and loss of mitochondria from antibiotics will be exacerbated by overdosing with vaccines.

Dan E. Burns

Looking forward to the fix!

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.)