Jenny, I am still trying to wakeup this morning. Vaccines don't contribute to oxygen deficiency in the brain. Vaccine components (mercury, live virus, and more) cause direct damage to mitochondria. Mitochondria are where aerobic metabolism takes place.

I don't know much about gluten, but I try to avoid it when possible. My background is in biochemistry, but I would have to lookup "calcium channel blockers" and "nitric oxide" before trying to comment on their involvement in aerobic metabolism. I should look into autism healing protocols, and try to understand stages of recovery in those very few cases where children have completely outgrown autism.

The brain should be the primary focus of research on autism, not the gut. Innervation of the gut was the beginning of neurological control in coelenterate species. Over evolution control of the gut incorporated increasing modulation from a more centralized site (a primeval brain) that could manage neurological control of heart function, respiration, and movement through water.

So, tracing through all the pathways in this tangled network, what finally gets published and touted as 'settled science', at least in the highly sensitive commercial and political topical areas, is what the government and industry sponsors want published and touted. By contrast, the political hacks who 'rigged' the GOP Colorado primary are rank amateurs compared to those who have been able to convince the public what is 'settled science' in vaccines, wireless radiation, etc. The 'rigging' of the political hacks is crude and obvious, whereas the 'rigging' of the research gatekeepers is sophisticated and almost invisible by comparison. I suspect if one digs deeply enough, one will find in fact that the same underlying forces who drive the 'rigging' of these primaries and other elections are the ones who drive the 'rigging' of what the public perceives as 'settled science' in the mainstream research literature (e.g., the large Fossil energy companies, large Pharma, the large Telcoms, large Agrichemical, etc).

*****************
Not sure about about anyone else here, but none of this is new news to me.

Paul Champion,

"The articles submitted have under gone a proper peer-review to make sure that are not junk and are up-to quality"

Linda1,

"Approximate number of scientific journals by year: 2002: 100,000.....Six years ago, John Ioannidis, a professor of epidemiology at the University of Ioannina School of Medicine in Greece, found that nearly half of published articles in scientific journals contained findings that were false, in the sense that independent researchers couldn’t replicate them."

I will address all three comments above.

There are certainly many tens of thousands of journals that contain all or mainly technical/biomedical articles. However, all journals are not viewed as equal by the research community, or evaluators of research, or policymakers.

The 'best' journals are accessed by the Science Citation Index (SCI). The SCI accesses somewhat under 9,000 journals
(http://ip-science.thomsonreuters.com/mjl/publist_sciex.pdf).

Medline is another index that accesses mainly the biomedical journals, and overlaps with the SCI in accessing the major biomedical journals. As far as I know, there is no official ranking for Medline journals.

While there are many ways to rank the journals in the SCI, the one most widely used is the Impact Factor. This is roughly the number of citations received by the journal (over a fixed time period) divided by the articles published, or a rough average of the number of citations per article.

The journals with the highest Impact Factor are the most desirable publishing targets by the research community, and are those given the most weight by the policy and evaluation communities. They include such well-known journals as NEJM, Lancet, JAMA, Nature, Science, Cell, etc. These journals tend to be exclusively biomedical, or contain a substantial number of biomedical articles. All other things being equal, the number of citations for an article will be a reflection of the number of researchers in that field. Within that framework, the 'quality' of the article will also determine the number of citations.

There are two major determinants to what gets published in these journals and what gets cited. The first gatekeeper is the research sponsor. The number of researchers in a field (which is roughly the base determinant of the number of people available to cite an article) will be a reflection of the money available for research in that field from (usually) the Federal government or industry. So, we have essentially a 'daisy-chain' effect. The topics the government/industry want funded receive the most citations, the articles tend to be published in the highest Impact Factor journals and are viewed as the most prestigious and credible, and are used as a basis to justify further funding increases in these government and industry-desired areas.

The second gatekeeper is the journal Editor, and the peer-reviewers selected. If the topic of the paper submitted for review has low commercial or political sensitivity (e.g., cosmology, heat capacity of a new material, etc), then probably the best experts in the field will be selected as peer reviewers, and the remainder of the review process will probably be objective. However, if the topic of the paper has high commercial or political sensitivity, then the journal Editor has two options. If he/she believes the paper will advance the agenda of the journal, then he/she will send it to reviewers who, due to their known biases, will provide a positive review. If he/she believes the paper will not advance the agenda of the journal, then the Editor will send it to reviewers who will reject the paper.

There are two components to the 'agenda of the journal'. There is the agenda of the Editor, and the agenda of the journal sponsors, direct or indirect. If the journal is sponsored by a professional society, and the main donors to that society are industrial organizations, then that component of the agenda will be alignment with the interests of the sponsors. Also, most Editors have full time research jobs, where they search for, and receive, funding from government and industry sources. Their agenda would be to not displease their existing or potential sponsors by allowing papers to be published contrary to the interests of their sponsors.

So, tracing through all the pathways in this tangled network, what finally gets published and touted as 'settled science', at least in the highly sensitive commercial and political topical areas, is what the government and industry sponsors want published and touted. By contrast, the political hacks who 'rigged' the GOP Colorado primary are rank amateurs compared to those who have been able to convince the public what is 'settled science' in vaccines, wireless radiation, etc. The 'rigging' of the political hacks is crude and obvious, whereas the 'rigging' of the research gatekeepers is sophisticated and almost invisible by comparison. I suspect if one digs deeply enough, one will find in fact that the same underlying forces who drive the 'rigging' of these primaries and other elections are the ones who drive the 'rigging' of what the public perceives as 'settled science' in the mainstream research literature (e.g., the large Fossil energy companies, large Pharma, the large Telcoms, large Agrichemical, etc).

Finally, in response to Linda1's quote about Ioannidis. He does excellent work, and is highly cited (justifiably), but his focus is mainly on technical problems with reported research (e.g., sample size, statistics, etc). My focus is on the other half of the deficient research equation. I focus on the deliberate suppression of sensitive research at all stages, and on the 'manufactured' research that floods the literature. I believe that component is larger than the technical deficiency component. When both these components are added together, they start to get near 100%, which actually may be not far from the truth for the most sensitive topical areas. Thompson's allegations about the MMR vaccine-autism link cover-up may be far closer to the norm than anyone wants to admit!

Eileen Nicole Simon: Personally, I think what you say makes a lot of sense. I think that vaccines are a contributor to the mechanisms of oxygen deficiency in the brain, the straw that breaks the camel's back, so to say. Oxygen deficiency can be an acute problem, and can be a chronic problem.

For instance, what if gluten smothers cells that it binds to, preventing oxygen usage, among all the other nasty things it does?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4352902/

What if vaccines and gluten lead to gut disbiosys where anaerobic bacteria take over the gut and brain, where there should be a plethora of aerobic bacteria?

http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/35/Supplement_1/S6.short

What if antibiotic resistant anaerobic bacteria survive in vaccine vials, only to be shot directly into the blood, and if a person is on gluten they are automatically low oxygen, whereas higher levels of oxygen in the blood would have allowed the body to cope with those invaders in more situations.

What if children with autism that are pale skinned who won't tan aren't just having problems with D3/calcium channel stuff, but also with nitric oxide production from sun exposure: nitric oxide helps with oxygen levels in the body:
http://drmicozzi.com/scientists-uncover-more-benefits-of-sun-exposure

"That’s one reason why doctors give nitroglycerin as a fast, effective treatment for angina pectoris. It releases nitric oxide, which again, dilates the blood vessels that supply the heart. This action supplies more blood and oxygen to the starving heart muscle tissue."

Combine it with low D3 which can have effects on oxygen transport:
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/health-conditions/anemia/

And if a micro biome can shift to anaerobic bacteria, can shifts to other bacteria types increase oxygen availability in the gut causing further healing in the gut, and blood, and any tissue the blood touches, including the brain?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4252572/

If you stop and think about it, so many autism healing protocols directly or indirectly involve oxygen, the cure leading back to the problem.

Dan, neurology should be next on increasing your understanding of vaccine injury. I have submitted several comments to AoA trying to point this out. My background is in science (PhD in biochemistry). I went to graduate school, back in 1969, to learn about genetic disorders. By the time I finished in 1975, I realized that the brain must be the focus of efforts to understand autism.

Lately I am taking a lot of classes and workshops trying to learn how to write. Please let me know where I become unclear. Autism is a neurological disorder. I believe it should be investigated as a form of encephalopathy first described by Wernicke in 1881, a pattern of symmetric bilateral damage within the brainstem. Brainstem damage during early childhood disrupts maturation of the cerebral cortex, especially the late developing language areas.

Mercury and many other substances affect brainstem centers in a Wernicke-like pattern of damage. Measles virus was long ago found to cause subacute sclerosing pan encephalitis (SSPE), and this pan-encephalitic process appears to begin in the brainstem. Does what I have said here make any sense?

Your research has been more useful than the neurodiversity concept recently put forth by other journalists.

References:
[1] Thomson AD et al. Wernicke's encephalopathy revisited. Alcohol & Alcoholism 2008 Mar-Apr;43(2):174-9.
[2] Thomas M et al. Subacute sclerosing panencephalitis with bilateral inferior collicular hyperintensity on magnetic resonance imaging brain. Ann Indian Acad Neurol. 2012 Oct;15(4):329-31.

I've been so effectively turned on my head that I tend to give more credentials to those who've lost some or don't seem to have much with the "mainstream:"

Huffington Post having trouble with this post?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lance-simmens/why-our-kids-should-hate_b_9707164.html

https://www.laprogressive.com/children-should-hate-us/

If you can't link to The guardian in my post below – my bad. So I'll try again.

“How computer-generated fake papers are flooding academia
More and more academic papers that are essentially gobbledegook are being written by computer programs – and accepted at conferences”
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/shortcuts/2014/feb/26/how-computer-generated-fake-papers-flooding-academia
Here's another link but to robotic journalism this time:
Do you know whether this story was written by a human? Computer generated vs. journalistic content
from Science Daily: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/03/140314164137.htm
Yes, its what we have been suspecting. Instead of clinicians studying the scientific literature and making their own minds up – they prefer to let robots instruct them how to think. 90 years on we are now living in Aldous Huxley's Brave New World. In his novel people, worshipped ''T'' (after henry ford's model T that was taking over America). To-day we are expected not to just approve but to worship and be thankful that ''V'' has delivered us from the evils of nature. When really, our good health to-day, came about through better living condition, sanitation, clean water supply’s, etc. Non of which was installed by learned doctors at all.

PS. Dan. For a credential photo you need a back-drop showing shelves of books. Not your children’s books – as Dr. Seuss may give the wrong (right) impression. If I lived in your part of the country I would happily pop-over and do some credentialed-looking photos. Images matter. Not that you look at all bad – a little subtle emphasis that you have indeed studied the subject helps the undecided who are still sitting on the fence (I was in sales and marketing).

One doesn’t even need to “ get the broken English style broken down pat” these days. News science article can be written by robots. For (a simplified example.. read this article _ or rather don't but just look at whom authors are the top to get my point.

http://scigen.csail.mit.edu/cgi-bin/scigen.cgi?seed=613&type=pdf&author=Champion+P&author=Orac&author=Offit+&author=Andoffit&

The Guardian article below tells how it done.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/shortcuts/2014/feb/26/how-computer-generated-fake-papers-flooding-academiahttps://www.theguardian.com/technology/shortcuts/2014/feb/26/how-computer-generated-fake-papers-flooding-academia">https://www.theguardian.com/technology/shortcuts/2014/feb/26/how-computer-generated-fake-papers-flooding-academia">https://www.theguardian.com/technology/shortcuts/2014/feb/26/how-computer-generated-fake-papers-flooding-academiahttps://www.theguardian.com/technology/shortcuts/2014/feb/26/how-computer-generated-fake-papers-flooding-academia

Robot reads the news wire – which the PR agency feeding in - gets the story published. As Dr A.W. said we need to go an the attack now. We need to fight fire with fire. Just my personal view of course. Orac may disagree...

IF you read many of these science papers you can get the broken English style broken down pat -- so be careful; You are too good of a writer to turn into a science writer. The world would lose much.

There was a brief movement 30 years ago to stop these guys from writing in such a mundane way - but the movement did not last long cause it is jut a really good way to cover up much a do about nothing in most cases, or to hide a horrible study, or to manipulate data.

Dr. Dan:
Dr. Ed just made me laugh so hard that I spit my coffee out.

Well done!

Louis

Clear and well-said, should be conclusive. Helpful in dealing with the "autism has always been with us" trolls. Thanks!

Not only are you indexed in pubmed (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26231203) but I can buy the full article for $39.95 :-) It is "free" on deepdyve service, though, as part of its regular $40/month subscription fee.

Cheerful greetings, Doctor. Maybe at conference you will have for one another meet Paul Offit, and ideas!

Call me a cynic if you wish. These emails seems to be a fishing exercises to find the soft underbelly of ones opponent by offering a juicy worm on the end of a hook.
http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/fishing+expedition

The email header may provide clues to who 'really' sent it. The header does not appear in the email as presented in front of you. However,

http://whatismyipaddress.com/find-headers

tells you how to see it. From there one can find who really sent it and if it was from an agency's ISP rather than from the Neurological Disorders Summit organizers or whom ever themselves.