SafeMinds Board Member Albert Enayati Testifies at IACC Meeting
Unlocking Autism Presents The Power of One March a World Autism Day Event in DC:

Weekly Wrap: Ted Kuntz on the Real Range of Vaccine Views

AofA Red Logo Ayumi YamadaBy Dan Olmsted

Editor’s Note: I’ve often said that the community that has grown up around Age of Autism is the best thing about it – from our Contributing Editors to our commenters and Facebook friends to those who donate or simply read (simply reading is the heart of the matter for a blog, anyway). We appreciate all of you.

Many comments are so well thought out and add so much to the conversation that I wish we could run them as standalone posts – and sometimes, such as today, we do. This comment below by Ted Kuntz shows how destructive and wrong it is to divide a complicated and critical conversation into two supposedly warring camps – vaccine backers  and anti-vaccine zealots.

So please read it and at the end I’ll make a few comments, not to argue with the observations but to add a couple of my own. – Dan Olmsted.

--

In response to this article: Waking Up To Vaccine Reality:

The media tend to portray the “dialogue” about vaccines as a debate between two groups of people – pro-vaxxers and anti-vaxxers. As a participant in countless conversations about the safety and effectiveness of vaccines I've learned there are many more factions participating in this process. It’s helpful to know who we might be in conversation with. They include:

  1. Pro-Vax Crusaders -- 
These are the most staunch adherents to the current vaccine paradigm. Followers of this position are resolute in their belief that vaccines are “safe and effective” and that “vaccine injury is rare and an unfortunate but necessary cost of protecting the greater good”. Those with the most extreme position are “crusaders” who believe everyone must be vaccinated with or without their consent. They believe the ‘greater good’ trumps the medical ethic of informed consent or individual rights and freedoms. They also believe “the science is settled” and are committed to silencing and censuring any discussion about vaccine safety and effectiveness.
  1. Compliant Vaxxers
 -- These members include those who vaccinate themselves or their children, not out of a well-informed choice, but rather out of compliance with current practices and societal beliefs. The decision of whether to vaccinate, with which vaccines, and when is transferred to doctors, nurses, and other “health authorities”. They simply comply with the recommendations of these “health authorities” and hold the belief that “they wouldn’t recommend vaccines if they weren’t safe and effective.” They may not be advocates of mandatory vaccinations, but also do not fully embrace informed consent.
  1. Hesitant Vaxxers
 -- These members include those who are beginning to question the safety and effectiveness of vaccines. They witness the rising rates of autism, neurological and immunological disorders, seizures, and allergies. They continue to participate in the vaccine program but do so hesitantly. They may delay in getting themselves or their children vaccinated or decide not to receive all vaccines. They are uncertain about what is the best decision for themselves and their children and remain susceptible to persuasion/coercion from the media and medical industry.
  1. Reluctant Vaxxers
 -- These members include those individuals who vaccinate because of state/government mandates and other coercive and punitive measures. They believe they have no choice but to succumb to vaccinations, and/or they live in a community where medical choice and informed consent no longer exist (California/Australia).
  1. Regretful Vaxxers
 -- This group consists of those individuals and parents who may have once been pro-vaxxers, compliant, hesitant, or reluctant vaxxers, and then experienced severe adverse effects, injury, and/or the death of a loved one following a vaccination. They are regretful of their decision to vaccinate and wish they had done more research on the topic before complying. Their goal is to alert others to the potential consequences of vaccination that they have personally experienced. They actively question the vaccine dogma and are strong advocates for informed consent and safer vaccines.
  1. Anti-Vaxxers
 -- This is a small but well educated group of individuals, most often scientists, researchers, medical professionals and sometimes parents who recognize the biological, neurological and/or immunological consequences of injecting vaccine ingredients into the human body. They are open and direct in expressing their concern about the safety and effectiveness of the vaccination program.
  1. Financial and Political Benefactors
 -- This group consists of individuals and groups (vaccine manufacturers, medical industry, CDC, politicians, media) who have a financial and/or political stake in protecting the current vaccine paradigm. They are strong advocates of “more of the same” and dismiss any concerns about vaccine safety and effectiveness. These individuals and organizations are more committed to protecting the vaccine program than in protecting individuals. They hold the position that - "Any possible doubts, whether or not well founded, about the safety of the vaccine (program) cannot be allowed to exist." They advocate for mandatory vaccinations and an increased vaccination schedule.
  1. Internet Trolls
 -- This is a group of individuals who are employed by the medical industry to discourage public discussion about vaccine safety and effectiveness. They “troll” Internet websites, opinion columns, and comment sections of media to bully, intimidate, and silence anyone who expresses concern about vaccine safety and effectiveness. Their means of engagement is primarily personal attacks and name calling.

Hope this helps those new to the discussion.

A Regretful Vaxxer who is on his way to becoming an Anti-Vaxxer."

--

So that is Ted’s much more reasonable look at the spectrum of vaccine safety concerns than the usual media caricature. To that I’d like to add one more category, suggested by Kim Stagliano after Laura Hayes brought this useful discussion to the fore. Kim said:

“Perhaps another layer?  Where would those who emphasize vaccine choice fit in?  The ‘never for my kids but you do what you want” group? Or the “I want just polio but NOT Gardasil’ – they are also important in the dialogue.”

The vaccine choice option is important to me, too. The fundamental idea that parents, as proxies for the developing child, have the right to make these decisions seems fundamental. I wrote last week about how some candidates, such as Rand Paul, who favors less government intrusion overall, see that as the crux of the matter. And Donald Trump, when he links autism with too many vaccines too soon, is essentially pointing to overreach by the medical bureaucracy that denies parents the chance to space out and select vaccines as they see fit.

As Mark Blaxill has framed the issue, if market forces – the economic model we claim to follow in this country – were allowed to function, the vaccines that most people felt were safe and necessary would survive, and ones like Gardasil and hep B at birth and chickenpox and – well, a lot of them, would lose out.

Something tells me that the more nuanced view Ted writes about here – along with the focus on choice that Kim and I believe is fundamental – is going to be getting a lot more attention in the next four years than it did in the last eight. And I say that regardless of who becomes president – the issue has been joined, and as the autism rate soars, it will only get bigger.

--

Dan Olmsted is Editor of Age of Autism. 

Comments

Ronald Kostoff

Laura Hayes/Linda1,

Appreciate your comments on dangers of WiFi. I am updating and expanding my published paper on EMF health effects, by invitation. It includes WiFi, but goes way beyond WiFi. It should be published by late Summer, and I will send you copies.

The focus is on combined effects of non-ionizing EMF radiation and other toxic stimuli, both positive and negative health effects. There are many examples where EMF radiation by itself may not result in adverse health effects in a given limited experiment, but in combination with some other substance (which itself may or may not cause adverse effects when used in isolation), will cause serious adverse health effects. In that respect, EMF radiation may be similar operationally to vaccines, as I pointed out in my two previous posts below.

The point is, not every cell phone user gets a brain tumor after a decade of heavy use, but some do (more than expected randomly). Not every child injected with MMR vaccine develops autism, but, according to Thompson's allegations and other data, some do (more than expected randomly). In both cases, we need to be far more specific and nuanced about the conditions under which vaccines, EMF radiation, etc, result in the symptoms of serious disease. Overly general accusations will hamper our credibility in convincing the general public of the real and documented dangers of these toxic stimuli.

Ronald Kostoff

Willie,

"VACCINES CAUSE AUTISM

Ronald Kostoff I have just read several of your post and I could not disagree with you more. As you really have no idea what you are talking about here."

RNK: Frankly, I give little credibility to someone who posts anonymously, and spouts off disparaging insults. If you stand behind your comments, do it in the open.

"First off the Pharmaceutical companies have a duty not only to report the adverse affects which they do not do as this has been proven for years that only about 20 percent of the adverse reactions are even reported to VAERS, but to also accurately report and disclose defects in the vaccines that are marketed to the public."

RNK: I've stated that many times, both in my eBook and in my AoA postings, and in far stronger terms than you do above. As I stated in my book and elsewhere, the numbers reported to VAERS are probably far lower than the 20 percent you state.

"As you clearly have no medical training you seem to have missed the essential fact that children with autism are about 85% ANA positive. ANA stands for Anti Nuclear Antibody."

RNK: I never stated that I have a medical degree. Unlike an anonymous poster like you, my specific educational background can be found in the back section of my eBook, and in some of my published papers.

I have published in medical journals. My most recent medical journal publication was in Current Opinion in Ophthalmology (2013). I have published on infectious diseases. My most recent journal article on this topic (SARS) was in TFSC (2011).

Your main point is self-defeating. If medical training, and specifically medical credentials, is the key metric for credibility on vaccine effects, then we might as well throw in the towel today. The overwhelming message from the articles in the premier medical journals, written by the most credentialed immunologists and pediatricians, is that vaccines do not cause autism, except in possibly extremely rare cases. If we depend on the statements of the so-called credentialed experts, the game is over. Unfortunately, it is left to the less-credentialed to expose the truth about vaccine adverse effects that the credentialed experts refuse to admit!

"The only way for a child or an adult to be ANA positive is for the DNA to be infiltrated by another virus. That other virus would be either the vaccine or another opportunistic pathogen that enters the cell once the immune system has been disabled."

RNK: A recent article that addresses the ANA positive issue is "Systemic auto-antibodies in children with autism", published in Journal of Neuroimmunology in 2014. I have appended the Abstract to that article. As one can see, the seropositivity of ANA in autistic children is quite different from the number you postulate. The authors address this in the full article.

"I hate to appear argumentative but the ideas that you have proffered sound like something you heard on NPR and it simply is not credible and should be regarded as complete and utter nonsense in the truest sense of the word."

RNK: You are arm-waving, and ranting in generalities. What are your specific objections? In the comments I posted immediately below, I offered two specific examples of other potential contributing factors to autism. One was that of glyphosate. There was a graph showing correlation of increasing glyphosate use with increasing levels of autism. The originator of that graph, Dr. Seneff, put forth a plausible mechanism linking glyphosate to autism. And, unlike you, she was willing to sign her name to her findings and beliefs.

The other was that of EMFs. There was a graph showing correlation of increasing EMF RF exposure (using the proxy variable of increased cell phone subscriptions) with increase in autism. I referenced a video by Dr. Martin Pall that offered a plausible mechanism for the EMF-Autism link. Again, unlike you, he was willing to openly stand behind his findings and beliefs.

I also postulated that there could be other contributing factors from the list of 800+ that I identified in my eBook that might have some degree of correlation with the rapid increase of autism we have seen over the last two+ decades. What are your specific objections to these specific statements I made in the previous comment?

"If nothing else read some of the past post about all of the fabricated and ghost written articles from the pharma companies the most famous of course being the Australian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine. A pure fabrication of a peer reviewed journal that was fraudulent from the outset not even one original piece of work."

RNK: In my recent eBook, I devoted one full chapter to the underreporting and distorted reporting of adverse medical events, going well beyond the few examples you quote above. On AoA, I posted some long comments about unethical research, documenting at least twenty books.

"This was discovered in 'Australia during the VIOXX civil case when under oath and threat of jail time for perjury an executive admitted the journal was fraudulent and there were 8 such journals with plans for 13 more.

No one went to jail no one paid fines etc."

RNK: I suggest you read my book, for a far more comprehensive analysis of this underreporting and manufactured research issue!

"There is a reason for the 1985 vaccine protection act and it is to shield vaccine makers from civil litigation for product liability which the manufacturer or any commercial retailer that puts into the stream of commerce a defective product that they be held liable for that defective product under the theory of tort causing injuries to consumers. The tort may be intentional or flow from negligence, strict liability, warranties of merchantability or fitness of use or misrepresentation.

Easily these actions could all be applied to vaccines and the vaccine makers."

RNK: I have a sub-section of Chapter 9 in my book devoted to this topic. And, for the record, it was placed into law in 1986, not 1985, as you state (National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986).

"The gold standard of research is the prospective randomized double blind study and this simply has not been done with the majority of the vaccines and hardly any in this country where they could be scrutinized. Everyone here who has been here for 15 minutes is aware of the criminal behavior of the researcher Paol Thoren from Denmark and his dubious offering of research work which is almost certainly a fabrication and a canard. This work is not taken seriously by anyone, as the man is a fugitive and the paper has been roundly and appropriately criticized by nearly everyone."

RNK: When did I ever state that most of the published vaccine research was credible? Read my eBook and most of my AoA comments and my one AoA post; I question the credibility of most of the reported vaccine research. I question the objectivity of the short-term data from most of the clinical trials, and I have emphasized in the strongest terms the lack of long-term impacts of vaccines on serious diseases.

"No Ronald Kostoff the first and last phrase of my intro is quite accurate"

RNK: Stephanie Seneff will state just as firmly that glyphosate causes autism, Martin Pall will state just as firmly that EMFs cause autism, and I'm sure we could identify many more proponents of other pervasive causes of disease who would state that their topic of research causes autism. And, you know what? They're all correct! I have little doubt that each of these toxic stimuli is a contributing factor to autism (and many other diseases), and, in combination, are responsible for the symptoms of autism.

I believe your statement/conclusion is far too one-sided, and is not supported by the published data. I stand by my statements in the previous post: "The question is: how does the MMR vaccine (and other vaccines) contribute to the development of autism (and certainly many other diseases) within the context of parallel increasing exposures to glyphosate, wireless radiation, and many other potential contributing factors?

The short answer is: I don't know. One possibility is that the vaccine(s) reduce the ability of the body's defensive (mainly immune) systems to withstand the onslaughts of the myriad toxic stimuli like glyphosate, wireless radiation, etc. Under this scenario, the vaccine becomes an enabler of autism (and perhaps many other serious diseases). Could the increased rates of autism have come about without the introduction of these vaccines? Who knows; that's not the experiment we, as a society, decided to run. My guess is that each of the toxic stimuli we added to children's exposures contributed to the increasing rate.

In answer to the original question posed at the beginning, we really don't know the degree of contribution of vaccines to the increasing prevalence of autism. We don't have the data, and given all the toxic stimuli in the present background, we may never be able to get the individual contributing factor data based on human being studies."

"VACCINES CAUSE AUTISM"

APPENDIX
ABSTRACT - SYSTEMIC AUTO-ANTIBODIES IN CHILDREN WITH AUTISM
Autoimmunity to central nervous system may have a role in the pathogenesis of autism. A subset of anti-ds-DNA antibodies has been recently proved to be pathogenic to the brain as well as to the kidney. Due to the paucity of studies investigating the frequency of systemic auto-antibodies in autism, we are the first to investigate the frequency of anti-ds-DNA antibodies in a group of autistic children. The seropositivity of anti-nuclear antibodies (ANA) was also investigated. Serum anti-ds-DNA antibodies and ANA were measured in 100 autistic children, aged between 4 and 11 years, in comparison to 100 healthy-matched children. The seropositivity of anti-ds-DNA antibodies and ANA in autistic children was 34% and 25%, respectively. In addition, 42% of autistic children were seropositive for anti-ds-DNA antibodies and/or ANA. The frequencies of anti-ds-DNA antibodies and ANA in autistic children were significantly higher than that in healthy children (4% and 2%, respectively), (P<0.001 and P<0.001, respectively). Autistic children with a family history of autoimmunity (45%) had significantly higher frequency of serum anti-ds-DNA antibodies (48.9%) than patients without such a history (21.8%), P=0.008. There was a significant positive association between the seropositivity of anti-ds-DNA antibodies and ANA (P<0.001). In conclusion, anti-ds-DNA antibodies and ANA were found in the sera of a subgroup of autistic children. However, replication studies of larger samples are warranted to validate whether these antibodies are a mere association or have a pathogenic role in some autistic children.

Willie

VACCINES CAUSE AUTISM

Ronald Kostoff I have just read several of your post and I could not disagree with you more. As you really have no idea what you are talking about here.

First off the Pharmaceutical companies have a duty not only to report the adverse affects which they do not do as this has been proven for years that only about 20 percent of the adverse reactions are even reported to VAERS, but to also accurately report and disclose defects in the vaccines that are marketed to the public.

As you clearly have no medical training you seem to have missed the essential fact that children with autism are about 85% ANA positive. ANA stands for Anti Nuclear Antibody.

The only way for a child or an adult to be ANA positive is for the DNA to be infiltrated by another virus. That other virus would be either the vaccine or another opportunistic pathogen that enters the cell once the immune system has been disabled.

I hate to appear argumentative but the ideas that you have proffered sound like something you heard on NPR and it simply is not credible and should be regarded as complete and utter nonsense in the truest sense of the word.

If nothing else read some of the past post about all of the fabricated and ghost written articles from the pharma companies the most famous of course being the Australian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine. A pure fabrication of a peer reviewed journal that was fraudulent from the outset not even one original piece of work.

This was discovered in 'Australia during the VIOXX civil case when under oath and threat of jail time for perjury an executive admitted the journal was fraudulent and there were 8 such journals with plans for 13 more.

No one went to jail no one paid fines etc.

There is a reason for the 1985 vaccine protection act and it is to shield vaccine makers from civil litigation for product liability which the manufacturer or any commercial retailer that puts into the stream of commerce a defective product that they be held liable for that defective product under the theory of tort causing injuries to consumers. The tort may be intentional or flow from negligence, strict liability, warranties of merchantability or fitness of use or misrepresentation.

Easily these actions could all be applied to vaccines and the vaccine makers.

The gold standard of research is the prospective randomized double blind study and this simply has not been done with the majority of the vaccines and hardly any in this country where they could be scrutinized. Everyone here who has been here for 15 minutes is aware of the criminal behavior of the researcher Paol Thoren from Denmark and his dubious offering of research work which is almost certainly a fabrication and a canard. This work is not taken seriously by anyone, as the man is a fugitive and the paper has been roundly and appropriately criticized by nearly everyone.

No Ronald Kostoff the first and last phrase of my intro is quite accurate


VACCINES CAUSE AUTISM

Laura Hayes

Linda1,

After I sent the link you provided re. WiFi in schools to my email group, someone immediately replied with the link for a very recent TED talk re. this same topic. I just watched it...excellent...and only 16 min. long. For solutions only, begin around the 11 min. mark.

Wireless Wake Up Call
https://www.emfanalysis.com/tedx-wireless-wake-up-call/

Linda1

Dr. Kostoff,

When first reading your comment, I disagreed, thinking, I know enough to make a good decision now. I want none of it. It should all stop. Then I got to the end of you comment and that is your conclusion. GOOD that you think broadly and remind everyone that it is not just vaccines. Please be sure to see the link that I posted under another thread. Australian TV documentary and the other videos at this link, don't miss those at bottom - last is of a Fox News report that is very well done re wi-fi and devices in schools: http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/news/20160219-catalyst-wifried-mobile-phones.asp

Ronald Kostoff

COMMENT ON THE MAIN THEME OF THIS THREAD

This thread puts the cart before the horse. The credible decision to be pro-vax or anti-vax, or somewhere in-between, should be made once the role of vaccination in preventing or accelerating disease(s) is understood. I would argue the necessary data has not been reported in the biomedical literature.

The MMR vaccine, for example, was licensed in 1971 (https://vactruth.com/history-of-vaccine-schedule/). Single dose appears to have been used until ~1989 (http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/43/Supplement_3/S141/F1.expansion.html); (http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/43/Supplement_3/S141.long), at which point the second dose MMR recommendation was made. The graph in the reference above shows the MMR vaccination rate to have been approximately constant since then, although other vaccines have been added to the schedule.

Since the mid-90s, the autism rate (in children age 6) has risen by an order of magnitude (http://www.medicaldaily.com/autism-rates-increase-2025-glyphosate-herbicide-may-be-responsible-future-half-316388). As the figure in the reference shows, that rate mirrors quite well the increase in use of glyphosate. Of course, correlation does not necessarily equal causation, but, when supported by one or more mechanisms, it provides a compelling argument. Dr. Seneff provides a plausible mechanism(s).

Cell phone subscriptions have also risen dramatically since the mid-90s, and, at least of as a few years ago, correlated quite well with the increase in autism (https://www.bellyarmor.com/radiation/health-risks/autism/). A number of researchers have provided plausible mechanisms, one of the more compelling recent ones being Dr. Martin Pall (http://www.autismone.org/content/martin-l-pall-ba-phd-autism-epidemic-caused-emfs-acting-calcium-channels-and-chemicals-actin). He also believes there could be synergy between EMFs and toxic chemical stimuli.

Undoubtedly, there are other contributing factors from the list of 800+ that I identified in my recent eBook (Pervasive Causes of Disease) that would have some degree of correlation with the rapid increase of autism we have seen over the last two+ decades. The point is, if MMR vaccine usage has been roughly constant the last two+ decades, and if autism has been increasing dramatically over that period, it is hard to make the argument that MMR VACCINE ALONE is responsible for the increase. On the other hand, given the vast anecdotal evidence from many parents of how their children regressed shortly after receiving MMR vaccination, it is clear that the MMR vaccine, and possibly some of the other vaccines that have been added to the recommended schedule, ARE CONTRIBUTING FACTORS. The question is: how does the MMR vaccine (and other vaccines) contribute to the development of autism (and certainly many other diseases) within the context of parallel increasing exposures to glyphosate, wireless radiation, and many other potential contributing factors?

The short answer is: I don't know. One possibility is that the vaccine(s) reduce the ability of the body's defensive (mainly immune) systems to withstand the onslaughts of the myriad toxic stimuli like glyphosate, wireless radiation, etc. Under this scenario, the vaccine becomes an enabler of autism (and perhaps many other serious diseases). Could the increased rates of autism have come about without the introduction of these vaccines? Who knows; that's not the experiment we, as a society, decided to run. My guess is that each of the toxic stimuli we added to children's exposures contributed to the increasing rate.

In answer to the original question posed at the beginning, we really don't know the degree of contribution of vaccines to the increasing prevalence of autism. We don't have the data, and given all the toxic stimuli in the present background, we may never be able to get the individual contributing factor data based on human being studies.

The only conclusion that makes sense to me, in the absence of such data but in the presence of increasing trends of many modern-day diseases, is that the decision should be PRO-TOXIC STIMULI VS ANTI-TOXIC STIMULI; the oft-cited question of pro-vax or anti-vax is misleading and limited. The Precautionary Principle would dictate that we remove ALL THE POTENTIAL CONTRIBUTING FACTORS IN PARALLEL until our research shows any of them to be 'safe'. Then, they could be re-introduced if desired. In other words, we transition from the present approach of introducing toxic stimuli before they have been shown to be safe (and pay the severe penalties afterwards), to introducing these stimuli only after they have been shown to be safe in credible and long-term safety studies.

Ronald Kostoff

Birgit,

"I am curious where you got all the details about testing vaccines for 4,000 diseases."

The specific statement was: "Secondly, in my eBook, I identified ~4000 diseases as part of the database. Why would you think the 'researchers' would focus on autism? Why not on the other 4000 diseases, or at least the few hundred major ones, as well?" In my eBook, I describe why I identified these diseases, how I identified them, and what I did with them once identified. I will briefly summarize that here.

As a consequence of identifying myriad causes and treatments for CKD in my CKD study, I decided to identify 'all known' causes/contributing factors for all diseases (as reported in the premier medical literature). No one had ever done anything remotely close to this for even one disease, much less many diseases, before. I generated a query that would recover papers in Medline that contained a link between a disease and a foundational (tangible) cause. I then extracted all the diseases listed on the Pubmed MeSH taxonomy; there were approximately 4000 diseases. I then applied my query to the 4000 diseases, and retrieved those records from Medline.

I extracted the foundational cause-disease links from these records, and generated matrices plotting foundational causes against diseases. There were about 8000 foundational causes, and the 4000 diseases. I integrated over the number of diseases impacted by each cause, and extracted those causes that impacted more than a threshold number of diseases. These were the pervasive causes.

Obviously, vaccines were only a few of the thousands of potential causes. Also, if a retrieved paper stated that vaccine X was NOT a cause of disease Y, the paper was removed from the analysis database. Additionally, if the information relating vaccine X to disease Y was not reported/suppressed, it would not enter the analysis database. This was true for all the other foundational causes as well. So, while I identified far more foundational causes than anyone had done previously, my view was that the results were an underestimation of reality for the reasons above and other similar reasons.

Birgit Calhoun

Ronald Kostoff!
I am curious where you got all the details about testing vaccines for 4,000 diseases. Someone must have fed you all that information.

Linda1

Dr. Kostoff,
I'm not sure what you mean by "We need harder data than that."

The nefarious methods are not hidden. Exploitation IS the method, accepted and rubber stamped by medical ethicists and most everyone else involved.

Michelle Heath

My son has autism. He didn't develop symptoms until AFTER his vaccines, so I'm thinking that since that's was the only "change" we made to him, vaccines caused his autism. However, concerning the new vaccine schedule, my husband has made a valid point himself. He asked, "How many vaccines can we put together BEFORE they become a toxin themselves in the human body? All children are supposed to be born with a bit of immunity. Vaccines are supposed to develop that immunity to it's fullest. But if that child already has an immunity (from parents) that is high, or none at all, the vaccines can cause damage. But no one cares to hear about that since the mighty dollar speaks louder than parents concerns. Vaccines were created to prevent epidemics and plagues. But what if the vaccines are causing them themselves? (Bet the government never thought about that either, or if they did, dismissed it as inconsequential.) Just as they deem those children who get autism (or anther vaccine- related disease) "just part of the ratio to keep plagues from happening again."

Willie


VACCINES CAUSE AUTISM

Greetings,

I was told to come here and get in line in my specific area however I am not quite sure where that is.

I have been expressing this sentiment for some time now and I think I may be lost.

Can you tell me what group I am in?

Thank you


VACCINES CAUSE AUTISM

Ronald Kostoff

Linda1,

" I'm sure that some subjects are recruited at clinic visits and have no idea of what they're getting into. It is customary to provide financial incentive too, to pay expenses, provide free medical care during the study. To a poor person, that could be attractive."

We need harder data than that. From the few studies I examined when identifying the 'unethical research' books and papers, and the studies I examined when assessing the ethics of off-shoring clinical trials, it seemed to me the most vulnerable beings on this planet were being used for many, if not the vast majority, of these experiments/clinical trials. Starting with the 1) small captive animals, progressing to the 2) larger captive animals, progressing to the 3) non-human primates, progressing to 4) those people who are poor, defenseless in other ways, and institutionalized, this constitutes the full spectrum of defenseless beings who undergo these experiments without giving anything resembling 'informed consent'. I have known people who volunteered for clinical trials; they were invariably poor, and were attracted by the meager compensation provided for participating. Isn't that what much of modern medical research is all about: using the poor, captive, and defenseless (at all levels of the animal kingdom, not only humans) to place their health and life at risk so that people who are more well off can benefit from the suffering of the vulnerable?

Ronald Kostoff

Birgit Calhoun,

"At this point pharmaceutical companies test for many things. I do not believe that they test for autism. Autism is invisible in test animals. They could find out. But they won't."

From the Bexsero Report I provided (which is rather detailed), the 'researchers' appear to document adverse effects in the Phase I-IV trials, mainly for a week after the vaccination, but sometimes for six months or a year, especially if multiple injections have that spacing. My first question is, what assurance do we have that they have documented all the adverse effects that were reported, even assuming that those reported were all that actually occurred? Secondly, in my eBook, I identified ~4000 diseases as part of the database. Why would you think the 'researchers' would focus on autism? Why not on the other 4000 diseases, or at least the few hundred major ones, as well? It seems to me that to fully test for all adverse effects at the symptom level and biomarker level (using a broad definition of biomarker), it would be enormously expensive and time consuming. I don't see where the regulatory agencies require it, and why the pharmaceutical companies would be motivated to spend the resources. What's their motivation to do more testing than the absolute minimum required by the regulators for licensing and pharmacovigilance of the vaccines?

But, all of this makes little difference. Whether there are side effects or not, whether they are reported or not, and whether they are suppressed by the CDC and other Agencies or not, is irrelevant from the perspective of the pharmaceutical companies. All they care about is getting the vaccines licensed and on the schedule. If adverse effects occur, the plaintiffs can go to the Vaccine Court. The few cases that actually make it through the Court may get some compensation, but you and I, the taxpayers, foot the bill.

This is unlike most drug testing. If test data have been manipulated or suppressed, and adverse effects occur, the plaintiffs can take the case to a real Court, and get substantial judgments. In that case, the pharmaceutical companies will be far more careful in their testing, and what they release to the public.

Birgit Calhoun

Ronald Kostoff!

At this point pharmaceutical companies test for many things. I do not believe that they test for autism. Autism is invisible in test animals. They could find out. But they won't.

Example: The first time Thimerosal (aka Merthiolate), a vaccine ingredient, was tested on animals was in 1929. The animals were killed after a few days. The length of time it would have taken to see effects would have been at least six weeks. Organic mercury takes quite while to affect someone and a lot longer to kill. The people that the "preservative" was tested on were 22 meningitis patients all of whom died. Did they blame Merthiolate? No, they presumed that those people died of meningitis. Merthiolate was never tested after that because it was grandfathered in before the pertinent regulations went into effect.

The pharmaceutical companies are indemnified by the Supreme Court. Vaccines are "unavoidably unsafe". So why would the companies put money into something that "can't be caused by vaccines."

My main point is that what is not apparent is most likely ignored.

Linda1

"Why would a parent with a healthy child volunteer to participate in a trial of a vaccine to potentially prevent a historically mild childhood infectious disease, when the adverse effects of that vaccine are completely unknown? What are the incentives here?"

I'm sure that some subjects are recruited at clinic visits and have no idea of what they're getting into. It is customary to provide financial incentive too, to pay expenses, provide free medical care during the study. To a poor person, that could be attractive.

If tolerance and effectiveness is tied to the nature of the microbiome though, human studies are not apt to be predictive of either across populations or among unrelated individuals within populations.

Ronald Kostoff

Birgit Calhoun,

"Now to vaccines, I think new vaccines are tested on rats. The little knowledge I have about rats tells me that I don't trust the vaccine makers to test properly. They do not ever test the whole slew of whatever is being injected nor do they test the synergistic effects of anything nor do they look at a possibly compromised immune situation of a particular child at the moment. Too little is known."

There are typically five phases of testing/trials

(e.g., http://www.vaccineseurope.eu/about-vaccines/key-facts-on-vaccines/how-are-vaccines-developed/;

http://www.sanctr.gov.za/Phasesstepsinconductingclinicaltrials/tabid/187/Default.aspx).

The pre-clinical phase tests the vaccine on animals; e.g., mice, guinea pigs, rabbits, perhaps non-human primates. Phase I involves testing in a small group of usually healthy persons for the very first time. Phase II involves testing in a larger group, with the option of including non-healthy people. Phase III involves an even larger group, with more effort expended (in theory) on effectiveness and possible undesirable effects. Phase IV involves post-licensing trials on thousands of people to: define its safety, effectiveness, long-term undesirable effects, test the vaccine in certain high risk sectors of the population like children, the elderly, people with liver and kidney diseases, and find new uses (indications) of the vaccine.

In the pre-clinical case of Bexsero, for example, it was tested on rats, guinea pigs, rabbits, and monkeys
(http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/EPAR_-_Public_assessment_report/human/002333/WC500137883.pdf).

The clinical trials involved increasing numbers of human participants.

Some salient statements from the above Bexsero report:

"THERE WERE NO STUDIES ON GENOTOXICITY AND CARCINOGENICITY, WHICH IS IN LINE WITH APPLICABLE GUIDELINES"
"The primary endpoint of studies contained within this dossier is to determine the proportion of subjects with hSBA titers equal to or above the threshold of 1:4 against each of three reference meningococcal serogroup B strains."
"Although the immune responses measured by SBA are expected to be protective, NO EFFICACY DATA ARE AVAILABLE. This does not preclude the granting of the marketing authorisation based on immunogenicity data."

I would recommend reading the above report to ascertain what other safety measures were not examined. Some of the missing safety measures are stated; are there others that are not stated? In addition, there are no long-term safety studies listed in the report or in any of the other vaccine clinical trial studies I have examined. In my eBook, I identified some papers showing medium- moderately long-term impacts from vaccines. Since that time, in parallel with my posting of some comments on AoA, I have found studies that address the potentially protective nature of childhood infectious diseases from more serious chronic diseases later in life, and that raise the concern that vaccines could remove this protection.

The latency period for lung cancer from smoking is on the order of two-three decades. The latency period for certain cancers from EMF radiation is from one to two decades. I have seen reports of other cancer latencies up to five decades. There are chronic diseases that tend to strike in the 60s and 70s, like Alzheimer's and dementia. To what extent have vaccines contributed to these diseases? Insufficient time has passed to identify 1) serious diseases resulting from most vaccines (assuming serious tracking is being done for these vaccine-disease relationships) and 2) the latency periods associated with these vaccine-disease combinations.

Long-term safety tests in rodents and small animals may not extrapolate to humans. Such tests would have to be done on humans for maximum credibility, or possibly on primates most related to human beings, such as chimpanzees. At a minimum, such tests would involve five or more decades. Given the usual pressure for accelerating the approval of vaccines, the above time-scales for long-term safety tests are completely incongruous with approval times.

Even with the shorter-term tests, such as contained in the above report, how credible are the data? Have they been duplicated and triplicated by independent sources? Have all the adverse effects been tracked and reported?

One final point. What are the demographics/characteristics of people who volunteer their children for these clinical trials? Are they representative of our society? When I posted comments about unethical drug trials on AoA, including trials that had been off-shored, the participants tended to be from the most vulnerable sectors of society: the poor, the institutionalized, etc. Many times, they did not provide 'informed consent' before participating in the trials. Is this true for the multi-phase vaccine trials? I can understand a parent with a potentially terminally ill child volunteering for a drug that has not completed the full testing protocol; the options are not great in either case. Why would a parent with a healthy child volunteer to participate in a trial of a vaccine to potentially prevent a historically mild childhood infectious disease, when the adverse effects of that vaccine are completely unknown? What are the incentives here?

Hans Litten

Allie | February 20, 2016 at 05:41 PM

I'm totally anti-vaccine 100% and so should ALL here be.

The secret ingredients within vaccines are enough to write the whole technology off .

SV40 , carcinogen given to 120 million americans as admitted by the CDC

HCG , in Mexico74, Phillipines95 & Kenya15 and the other countries where its said to have also occurred a too numerous to state.

Nagalase , is it in all the vaccines or not ? we are still waiting to hear , it leaves a whole generation unable to defend themselves against cancer .

And the scandals about vaccines go on and on . Where do you want me to start ? Thompson , Thoresen , Hilleman

All the major characters here on AoA are all fully aware of all the details and the debate still occurs ?

The continued use of Themiserol can only be interpreted in one way (toxic at nano-grams Frank Engley 1948).

Birgit Calhoun

I would like to add to my earlier comment one more thing. The birth defects that occurred after mothers' exposure to thalidomide are very visible. Nobody can overlook them. And I am not trying to equate thalidomide to vaccines.

I am not equating autistic children to those affected with short limbs and all those defects that are caused by thalidomide. I am talking about how pharmaceuticals are tested and how the administration of a vaccine may cause unforeseen unanticipated damage.

The thalidomide catastrophe was many years ago. The crisis with autism is now. The children with thalidomide caused shock all over the world. And for some reason the plight of autism within a family has remained invisible to a large segment of the general public. That's why there is disdain for "us anti-vaccers." We all have this invisible disability that apparently makes us less worthy of consideration.

Ted Kuntz

HI Dan
Thanks for your comments. You are right. I did miss one important faction - those who consciously and intentionally choose to vaccinate with some or all vaccines and honor the right of everyone to choose. Thank you for this.

British Autism Mother

@ Richard and others

In 1993 we were told that our child was being given a provisional diagnosis of ASD which would not be confirmed until about five years because a small percentage of children, for unknown reasons, appeared to grow out of the diagnosis. We were told that our child was joining one of several clusters in our community. I hadn't heard of Dr Andrew Wakefield who, as far as I am aware, did not reach public knowledge until 1998 with the publication of "Through a Glass Darkly". @Jenny Allan, are you able to shed any light on the dates involved in the UK?

I was first made aware of difficulties with the MMR vaccine in a short article (no photo) in an American news magazine (Newsweek or Time?) in the autumn of 1991, reporting that some parents were claiming vaccine damage to their children. Is anyone able to find this article? I managed to delay the MMR from 12 to 16 months but, eventually, to my lasting regret, gave in to the constant nagging of the health visitor. The rest of the story is all too familiar.

Richard

I just can't understand how so many people still believe the media spin when it comes to vaccines, anyone who questions the recommended schedule being given the same label, misrepresenting history (Such as describing Andrew Wakefield as the father of the anti-vaccination movement, that people question vaccines only because of his 1998 study, when in reality there have been people questioning vaccines since they were invented, mostly because of personal experience of their deleterious effects on their family, friend or themselves). Many of the pro-vax crusaders can't even speak on the subject without resorting to name-calling and bullying tactics of the sort used by 12-year-olds.

Its amazing the difference in discussing vaccines versus discussing antibiotics and their downsides. There are plenty of different opinions regarding antibiotics for sure, and big pharma propaganda for them too, but if I bring up the topic of how I think antibiotics are vastly overused, wreaking havoc in our microbiome, promoting resistant bacteria, and even polluting the environment, I can at least usually have a reasonable conversation about the subject even if they don't entirely agree. I don't get slapped with the label "anti-antibiotic" and accused of wanting to kill children, yet this is what constantly happens to anyone questioning the ever-increasing vaccine recommendations.

I still believe the tide is turning, albeit slowly. Resorting to name calling and schoolyard bullying tactics shows their arguments have no substance behind them and they're frantically trying to keep their bubble of prestige and influence from popping.

Allie

The whole dichotomy of "pro-vaccine" vs "anti-vaccine" is a manufactured one. The term "anti-vaccine " is a political construct, intended to and deliberately used to marginalize and demean. If we have concerns, even harsh criticism against auto manufacturers like Ford and Toyota for how they handle reports of stuck accelerator pedals, that doesn't make us "anti-accelerator pedal" or even "anti-car."

We should likewise be able to criticize vaccines, vaccine manufacturers, and industry-bought research and representatives without being labeled, "anti -vaccine," "anti -science," or "anti -ANYTHING."

Even though every single vaccine has inherent problems with safety (both known and unknown), resorting to labeling diverts the focus from where it's needed, which is the fact that the INDUSTRY has successfully made the discussion about whether we have the right to question what they call "science," and start taking a good hard look at who is funding, directing, manipulating, and selling that "science."

Birgit Calhoun

For some reason the post I wrote wound up in Kate's cause. I really wanted to post it here. So Here it is:

I don't like to be categorized. I basically think vaccines on the face of it are a great invention. Here comes the but: When I was young I was going to be a pharmacist. I studied the subject for two years. During the first year when I worked at a hospital pharmacy, I found out how much pregnant women loved Contergan as a sleeping pill (that was the brand name for thalidomide in Germany). At the end of that year my boss dumped the jar of blue pills down the drain. I asked him why he was doing that, and he said that somebody in Hamburg had discovered that these pills caused severe birth defects.

Later I read a book "Suffer the Children" which gave me more insight about how the by-product thalidomide was tested and what mistakes were made. One of those huge mistakes was that the scientists did not know that rats do not generally have birth defects. The deformed litters would be absorbed in the mother rat's womb. The pregnant rats on which the thalidomide was tested had smaller litters or did not have any babies at all. The tests were useless. Therefore there was not a clue that mothers might have deformed children when thalidomide was given.

Now to vaccines, I think new vaccines are tested on rats. The little knowledge I have about rats tells me that I don't trust the vaccine makers to test properly. They do not ever test the whole slew of whatever is being injected nor do they test the synergistic effects of anything nor do they look at a possibly compromised immune situation of a particular child at the moment. Too little is known.

I can accept individual doses of vaccines but not tri-valent or hexa- or hepta- or whatever-valent if things have not been tested to my satisfaction. I do not like flu vaccines at all, and I only like one vaccine at a time if there is no choice. And all vaccines should give lifetime protection. If that can't be promised something is amiss. This business of booster shots' effectiveness is hypothetical. Countries with the fewest vaccinations seem to do better health-wise.

I generally don't trust pharmaceutical scientists to be trust-worthy. It's a shame. I used to be naïve.

Dorie Southern

There are also the religious exempters. I was a religious exempter who survived, as did my two brothers and two sisters. My four children all survived without vaccines. We opted for uninformed exemption. None of us died or were even very sick. I do think people should be allowed to exempt themselves for reasons other than religion. Of course a child should be kept at home if he/she isn't feeling well. It would be great if the medical profession could heal every case, but they can't and no other system does either. Someone needs to tell Bill Gates that.

Dana

Bob Moffit, I really appreciate your comments. Thanks for sharing your experiences too.

Reader

Interestingly I met a regretful vaxxed the other day on a walk. His last dog died after a vaccine that it had and 'allergic reaction' to. The poor dogs kidneys failed. The owners absolutely knew it was the vaccine.

susan

Love this article. Sums it all up. Hope Pharma, medics and members of Government read this as it demonstrates how many 'Regretful vaxxers/anti vaxxers' there will be in future if the march to mandates continues.

Angus Files

Another article on Anti-humans needed please.

MMR RIP

Greg

Yes, an excellent list of the different classes of vaxxers! Yet, where I think Ted's list can be improved is pointing out a certain hypocrisy in one of the classes: The 'antivaxxer' group should actually be divided in two -- 'true antivaxxers' who have genuine concerns about vaccises and act accordingly, and 'closeted antivaxxers' such as the aforementioned Internet Trolls, and Financial and Political Benefactors. These 'closeted antivaxxers' like 'true antivaxxers' are well aware of the harms of vaccines, and a great many of them secretly refuse vaccines for themselves and loved ones, despite publiclly extolling their virtues. As shocking as this may sound, I would argue that there are more 'closeted antivaxxers' than 'true antivaxxers'.

Bob Moffit

"A Regretful Vaxxer who is on his way to becoming an Anti-Vaxxer

If I had to choose a label for myself .. this would be the one for me .. inserting the word "well" on his way to becoming Anti-vaxxer. What changed?

As someone of advanced age .. as a youth .. I witnessed and experienced first-hand the fear that everyone felt as the dreaded "polio season" approached every year .. approximately 15 years old when Salk's "polio vaccine" arrived .. and .. at that young age was pretty confident that Salk's vaccine would be the greatest contribution to mankind that I would see in my lifetime.

At 30 .. a father of two .. witnessed first-hand my then perfectly healthy-happy 4 year old daughter suddenly develop Idiopathic thrombocytopenic Purpura (ITP) .. a serious blood disorder that .. after many weeks in a hospital .. receiving ineffective, often experimental treatment with steroids .. required the surgical removal of her spleen .. leaving her with a seriously compromised immune system for the rest of her life. The only explanation the best doctors we could find for her sudden illness was the single word .. "bizarre".

Fast forward 35 years or so .. my second grandson inexplicably "regressed" .. and .. for the first time in my life I heard the word "autism". How the hell did another of my precious children .. a full generation removed from the first .. develop a disease that I had .. once again .. never heard of before?

This time .. grandpa had access to the internet .. which was not available when I first heard of ITP .. and .. was not only stunned to learn that vaccines may have caused my perfectly healthy-happy grandson's autism "regression" .. but .. vaccines were now identified as the "bizarre" cause of ITP that my daughter suffered so many decades before.

While I wouldn't advise anyone NOT TO VACCINATE their child if that is what they want to do .. I'll be damned if I am going to remain silent as public health officials and State legislatures seek to "mandate" vaccines for my family ever again.

Regrets? As the saying goes .. NEVER AGAIN!

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

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

Working...
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.

Working...

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.)