THE AUTISM EPIDEMIC - Whom should you believe?
By Dr. Yazbak
During the last year, agenda-driven politicians introduced laws, rules and regulations that went against the wishes of parents in many states. Suddenly, parents who had always been free to make decisions concerning their infants and young children’s faith, health, diet, activities and everything else, lost their right to be concerned and selective when it came to the many mandated and ever-increasing pediatric vaccinations.
A few pediatricians, now immune from vaccine-related liability and litigation suddenly started getting cranky and disagreeable with parents who dared question them about the need, timing or safety of certain pediatric vaccines. Some pediatricians put threatening notices in their waiting rooms or on Facebook, some requested parents to sign affidavits and some simply discharged from their practice those parents they deemed too time- consuming. All those pediatricians, presumably Fellows of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) seemed to ignore the Academy’s responsible advice: “Although pediatricians have the option of terminating the physician-patient relationship, they cannot do so without giving sufficient advance notice to the patient or custodial parent or legal guardian to permit another health care professional to be secured. Such decisions should be unusual and generally made only after attempts have been made to work with the family. Families with doubts about immunization should still have access to good medical care, and maintaining the relationship in the face of disagreement conveys respect and at the same time allows the child access to medical care. Furthermore, a continuing relationship allows additional opportunity to discuss the issue of immunization over time."
*****
For personal reasons, I became interested in everything related to Autism in 1993.
Since then, I noticed that gradually, my busy colleagues who obtained their sporadic autism information solely from medical journals, were having different ideas and reaching different conclusions that I thought were flawed. I have no doubt that some of them similarly thought that I was misguided.
Although prevalence and incidence of Autism/ASD should have been easy to agree upon, it is clearly evident that this did not happen. For decades, parents thought that we had an autism epidemic while psychologists, psychiatrists and the CDC disagreed blaming the tsunami of cases on criteria used, diagnostic substitution, flawed study designs and other mumbo jumbo.
On March 9, it was simply wonderful to go to Age of Autism and find “There Is No Denying the Autism Epidemic” by Professor Jonathan Rose.
The remarkably well researched report had originally been published on The History News Network on March 6, 2016.
Having reviewed medical publications and reports on autism for years, it was suddenly very clear to me that History Professors research, prepare and write better reviews than certain medical authors, particularly those with hidden agendas.
Readers also differ. Busy pediatricians burdened by ever-increasing new duties, rules and regulations have only limited time to flip through a few Medical Journal reports that often contain a whole lot of confusing statistics with sometimes limited but often biased information. In general the more important the subject, the more likely it is to be stated in some unusual circuitous fashion.
In general, physicians tend to trust the accuracy of what they read in reputable medical journals because they have always been assured that anything published has been carefully examined and peer-reviewed.
Peer Review is indeed the “Quality Control” of a medical publication. A careful peer reviewer, most often an experienced practitioner from the same field, must scrutinize the proposed information for completeness, relevance, accuracy and overall fitness for publication. One of the editors will usually then examine the manuscript and the reviews before deciding to reject, request revisions or accept and publish any manuscript. Read the full post at Vaccination News.
Thank you for this encouraging article. One of the burning questions related to the vaccine/autism controversy is why doctors are taking the side of obfuscating scientists like Dr. Paul Offit, and following the rigorous program of the CDC vaccination schedule where animal studies are never included. Studies based only on statistics, which everyone knows can be manipulated, are ideally suited to the needs of the manufacturer. Why don't doctors (especially pediatricians) notice when children fall ill following vaccination. I've heard about the monetary incentive and yet that's sort of hard to swallow because these were the brightest kids in the class. Have they no power of observation?
I am a student of history and in fact am writing a history on an obscure topic. A professor of history, especially ancient and medieval history, know many languages, some ancient. All evidence is documented in primary resources, and an assumption or speculation is clearly labeled. I can trust history professors to be telling the truth to the best of their knowledge.
I'm shocked by the level of corruption within government health agencies, and the known level of deceit in medical journals. Recently I have been studying aluminum adjuvants and reading through all those animal studies that are never consulted. How can this be going on I wonder? How is this possible? We are poisoning a generation of children with aluminum that migrates into the brain and the medical establishment enforces this...
Posted by: kapoore | March 26, 2016 at 05:39 PM
Vaccines are finished its just a matter of when to end them.
MMR RIP
Posted by: Angus Files | March 26, 2016 at 04:00 PM
Benedetta,
I am happy about the negative tests of course but I am still sorry to hear about your daughter's difficulties at that office.
As physicians, the least we can do to patients who trust us with their lives and health is to treat them effectively, considerately and politely. Unfortunately some of us have forgotten that.
Posted by: Ed Yazbak | March 26, 2016 at 11:17 AM
I was going to say the drug test came back negative. Which my daughter knew already.
This is not how you treat people.
Posted by: Benedetta | March 26, 2016 at 10:44 AM
Thank You Ed for the list.
There is another reason they want rid of a patient and that is some one that is on a low dose pain reliever like Ultram.
Her doctor that left had my daughter on Ultram.
The states are all finally coming down on the doctors for prescribing anything toward that line.
So, the nurse practioner was extremely rude to my daughter, misread a drug test - to insult her and hurt her feelings. It was sent away - more money (which she told the nurse practioner that she would not pay for) they sent it away and spent the money themselves and it
They do not want to treat these patients that have pain in the legs and generally all over - some what in the joints but not really. I do believe they are food sensitivities caused by vaccines.
A low carb diet helped - and no gluten, we are working on the list of what else.
When I called another group of doctors that are closer, right off the bat they said they do not treat any nerve disorders. I was confused? What is that. Well I forgot the entire list but it includes anxiety. I asked if it was seizures too, since I was confused on what nerve disorders are.
Looks to me like it might be some endocrine disorders they are now not treating.
It is all coming back to bite them, looks lie.
Posted by: Benedetta | March 26, 2016 at 10:43 AM
Well bob let's make our own bumper stickers --and put them on our cars!
My child is recovering from vaccine poisoning
Alzheimer's = too many flu shots
Vaccines contain GMOs heavy metals and human tissue
Do you know where your vaccine was shipped from?
I used to be pro vaccine until my child got vaccine injured
Autism Avoidable Undeniable Toxin Induced System-wide Malpracice
Posted by: Anita Donnelly | March 25, 2016 at 09:13 PM
Busy pediatricians burdened by ever-increasing new duties, rules and regulations have only limited time to flip through a few Medical Journal reports that often contain a whole lot of confusing statistics with sometimes limited but often biased information. In general the more important the subject, the more likely it is to be stated in some unusual circuitous fashion.
*******
Oh come on. Pediatricians aren't just injecting vaccines … they're are making a damned good living from it. It's their JOB to understand the risks! It's also their job to disclose those risks, and to honestly report when they KNOW that a vaccine has hurt someone!
The truth about vaccine damage is going to come out , it's just a after of time. And when it does, I seriously hope that pediatricians can respond with something better than:
"… Hey, don't you know that I'm an important doctor! I'm way too busy to actually do my own research, and make sure that the vaccines I'm injecting aren't actually hurting my little patients. "
Posted by: Barry | March 25, 2016 at 06:36 PM
Mrs Melleck,
It is great to hear from you again.
I hope things are better every day
Posted by: Ed Yazbak | March 25, 2016 at 03:54 PM
Dr. Kostoff,
Thank you for your remarks. They are most appreciated and you certainly do make some excellent points.
Posted by: Ed Yazbak | March 25, 2016 at 03:51 PM
Benedetta
The following are the rules every one must follow when discharging a patient from one's practice
Adults
http://www.thedoctors.com/KnowledgeCenter/PatientSafety/articles/Terminating-Patient-Relationships
Children
Pediatrics
http://www.aappublications.org/content/33/4/1.2
Posted by: Ed Yazbak | March 25, 2016 at 01:58 PM
Thank you Doctor Yazbak. You probably don't remember me, my grandson Joshua and daughter Natalie, but we were part of one of your studies on the MMR many years ago.
Best, maurine
Posted by: Maurine Meleck | March 25, 2016 at 01:20 PM
Dr. Yazbak,
"In general, physicians tend to trust the accuracy of what they read in reputable medical journals because they have always been assured that anything published has been carefully examined and peer-reviewed."
In your statement, there is an implied link between 'accuracy' and 'peer-review'. Let's remember the process, and it is conceptually the same for journal peer review, project peer review, program peer review, tenure peer review, proposal peer review, etc. For journal peer review, the article is effectively submitted to the journal Editor. The Editor then (depending on the journal) assigns it to an Associate Editor for the next step in the review, or assigns it to him/herself for the next step in the review. The next step, in either case, is to identify the actual peer reviewers desired, ask them whether they will agree to do the peer-review, then send the document out for review.
The final result of the review will only be as good as the quality of the Editor and the reviewers. By 'quality', I mean not only skills and competence, but objectivity and integrity as well. If the Editor has a predetermined agenda, and wants a certain result, then he/she can select reviewers who will provide the intended result.
If the topic under review has strong commercial and/or political sensitivity, then all bets are off about the 'accuracy' of the review and the quality of the final review product. If the topic under review has little commercial and/or political sensitivity, then the review has a high chance of being trustworthy.
For the biomedical literature that relates potential causes/contributing factors to diseases, I have little faith in the quality of the literature. As I pointed out in my eBook, the literature abounds with 'manufactured' research designed to suppress these linkages. It is difficult to separate out the 'manufactured' research from the honest research, and the literature serves only as a resource for any side of a debate to pick and choose whatever studies they want to bolster their arguments.
Conceptually, it's no different from the mainstream media. For topics that have little commercial or political sensitivity, they are reasonably accurate. One can probably trust their sports pages, fashion pages, and local happenings. For topics with high commercial or political sensitivity, forget it.
The present political campaign is a perfect example. I inserted 'Trump' in Google, and retrieved thousands of articles. I examined the first ~100 titles, and EVERY ONE was negative. Now, there are many negative aspects of Trump's campaign, and certainly some of these articles are justified. But, many of the other candidates are no angels. When one examines their specific policies, they are in many cases actually worse than Trump's. But, one would never get that impression from the Google retrievals.
So, we have a biomedical literature and a mainstream media that are trustworthy where it is immaterial and untrustworthy where it counts. Is it any wonder that we are headed in a downward spiral on the health front and many other fronts?
Posted by: Ronald Kostoff | March 25, 2016 at 12:18 PM
Well it don't end even when they grow up.
My daughter was just fired from her ---- clinic.
They fired her - she should have fired them years ago - after a series of doctors that over dosed her condition with Prozac - We let it go, I let it go - instead of mopping the ground up with them
It was not a doctor that fired her - it was a physician assistant, which my daughter walked out on.
Physician assistances - more ways to rake in a lot more money in just a few minutes, and in return - nothing.
Posted by: Benedetta | March 25, 2016 at 10:38 AM
"Suddenly, parents who had always been free to make decisions concerning their infants and young children’s faith, health, diet, activities and everything else, lost their right to be concerned and selective when it came to the many mandated and ever-increasing pediatric vaccinations."
I pray to God I am wrong .. but .. I suspect .. as the Affordable Care Act continues .. overtime .. it will strengthen the medical profession's "control" over patients .. where doctor's .. not their patients .. will be making "decisions concerning health, diet, activities and everything else" .. which by the way .. will include "ever increasing mandatory vaccinations for ADULTS" .. by the year 2020.
-----------------------------
"In general the more important the subject, the more likely it is to be stated in some unusual circuitous fashion."
Unfortunately .. ANYONE .. pediatricians, media or the public .. who does not have either the time nor the inclination to wade through "complex" voluminous Medical Journal reports .. are left with a "bumper sticker" understanding of those reports .. such as ..
"The benefits of vaccines far outweigh the risks"
"The science is in .. vaccines do not cause autism"
"Not vaccinating your child is a great threat to all those children with compromised immune systems who cannot get vaccinated themselves".
These "bumper stickers" then become the media's "talking points" .. effectively shutting down anyone who dares raises a concern about vaccines.
Posted by: Bob Moffit | March 25, 2016 at 06:34 AM