Weekly Wrap: Mark Blaxill on How the CDC Manipulates the New Autism Rate
By Dan Olmsted
If you blinked, you might have missed this week’s announcement that the autism rate has remained at 1 in 68. That’s 1.5 percent of eight year olds born in 2004 and surveyed in 2012 (what’s the hurry, right?). Perhaps because the number hasn’t changed since the last report two years ago, the news didn’t make the splash it sometimes does. Yet it’s just as shocking, not least because it highlights the way the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention “manages” the autism epidemic.
Mark Blaxill, my co-author and colleague at AOA and HealthChoice, wrote about this powerfully earlier this week contrasting the CDC report with evidence he obtained from a whistleblower lawsuit in Utah. The suit was filed by Judith Pinborough-Zimmerman, who was fired in the middle of working on Utah’s autism rate. It suddenly and inexplicably took a dive -- raising serious questions about how those numbers are obtained, not just in Utah but around the country.
I asked Mark a few questions to try to get my mind around the significance of these major developments.
Dan: I just thought your analysis of the numbers was a really important look at how this sausage is made. Let me start with this: What would be the right way to do a task like this, to track over time a disease or disorder that's of public concern, that people think might be increasing, and that they wanted to get an apples-to-apples comparison for over a period of time. In other words, if they wanted to really figure out was going on, what would they do: What would be best practices as they say in business?
Mark: You'd want to start early enough, in time to observe the trend in the epidemic. Yet the first thing that they (the CDC) do is start their surveillance in 1992, which is by all accounts after the inflection point -- the autism rates were already starting to get elevated by 1992. We know from the data in Brick, New Jersey, that the difference between the rates in the ‘88 and ‘92 birth cohorts was huge -- that was sort of the critical four years when the whole thing turned from zero to about the highest rates ever recorded. (See last slide)
Dan: The EPA has said that 1988 was in fact the inflection point worldwide.
Mark: Exactly, and that inflection point shows up in other places and in other studies. The first two CDC studies were in New Jersey and Georgia. They have the data on Brick Township starting in the 1988 birth year, and Brick is in some of the other New Jersey ADDM surveys.
By the way, we should be supporting data collection in New Jersey, which by all accounts has some of the best collection methods, and has the highest autism rate – 1 in 46 -- in the ADDM system that determines the national rate. (See slides 4, 5 and 6.) Plus we know that in Atlanta the CDC has been doing their own autism surveillance for a while, and has data going back to the1986 birth cohort.
If you wanted to analyze time trends, you would be sure to capture the history before and after an inflection point, so that you could answer the question, What happened and when? That's what an honest effort would do.
Also, as you add states (to the surveillance network), you wouldn't be capricious about putting states in and pulling them out. Utah was in, then Utah was out, now it's back in. Florida was in for a little while, then Florida was out. Alabama was in, then there’s no Alabama. They are fickle in their management of the state network, and all of that just creates noise for a problem at the scale of autism that justifies really aggressive surveillance.
And then you would do things like collect information on the diagnostic categories within autism. The earlier studies were of the narrower full-syndrome autistic disorder. They have now fudged it up almost deliberately by reporting on the wider spectrum, and saying maybe it’s just better diagnosis that is causing the rates to rise.
No it isn’t. Yes, they added a new category in the 1994 DSM, Asperger’s, but in the ADDM studies Asperger’s is just 10 percent of the overall autism total, so they’re blowing smoke if they want to claim adding Asperger’s explains the increases. But that’s want they want to do -- they want to spin it to take a 10-fold increase and say, “Look how much better we’re doing! We’re so much more aware of autism.”
When you've got a real increase that is tenfold, it boggles the mind that they can somehow spread this lie that it's all just better diagnosis.
Dan: So I started by asking what's the right way to do this. It sounds like what they're doing is kind of the opposite – it’s what you would do if you wanted to manipulate the data. And because of the Utah situation, we can actually see that happening for the first time. Is that right?
Mark: Yes, in reading the court documents, it appears like they were putting a lot of pressure on Judith Zimmerman (at the University of Utah) to do unethical things. According to the complaint, she stood up to it and then they put more pressure on her and she complained, and they went after her and made all sorts of accusations. It's likely she believed the increase was real, because she did research on environmental causation. I can’t imagine the genetics folks there liking that. My suspicion is that there was a bit of a wink and a nod between the department and the CDC to say let's get Zimmerman out of there, she's a problem.
Otherwise, I don’t think the Utah numbers would have suddenly gone down (see Slide 7, What Happened in Utah?). If it hadn’t, the overall autism rate in the U.S. might have increased to one in 62 or something like that. There were “uncorrected errors,” Zimmerman alleges, that got all the way into the final data – that’s part of what the lawsuit is about.
Dan: It's reasonable to wonder whether this might be going on more broadly, to state it mildly. It seems like kind of a pattern where they have so many buttons they can push at their little dashboard of tracking the rate, that who knows what the rate really is and what the trend line is?
Mark: It's probably one or 2% of kids. It probably varies a fair bit between states. That’s another thing they don't do – they don’t include a fair sampling of states with the highest rates, other than New Jersey.
California has never made it in. California is pretty high. There’s Maryland, Minnesota, Oregon, Maine -- all among the highest in the educational data -- and they're not in. Massachusetts is very high, Michigan is high -- eight or 10 states are higher than New Jersey in the educational data and they should have been in there.
You would think they’d want a full range. There is variation; it looks like there's a north-south gradient. Oregon and Minnesota stand out, Maine stands out, Massachusetts stands out. New Jersey’s not the only state with a high autism rate.
So you’d want the sample to include the full range of the problem, from worst to best. You also want to understand where the problem is the worst because there might be some kind of environmental clue in that.
Dan: Exactly. So this is not best practices to take on a task like this and do it this way. I mean, they've done a very bad job.
Mark: Yes, since you presumably are trying to find answers to the root causes of autism. When it comes to tracking infectious disease, the CDC gets everything, everywhere – they’re extremely rigorous in tracking infectious disease.
Dan: Right. We’ve talked about what a good job they did in the beginning of AIDS as opposed to the rest of the government. So I guess this would be my insipid question: why wouldn't the CDC want to get this right?
Mark: I don't think they have an interest in finding a problem. They understand that the implications of a real order of magnitude increase would be huge. If they admitted that, the responsibility on them would be enormous to find a cause. To the extent that the possibility might be real, that the cause might include vaccines, they wouldn’t want to find it.
Me: They don't want to find it because they would be implicated by recommending the vaccination schedule, just to state the obvious?
Mark: Yes.
Dan: As my mother would say, a guilty conscience needs no accuser. Doesn’t this kind of suggest consciousness of guilt? Why else would they not do it in a way that any reasonable businessperson or statistician would accept? That’s what I’m trying to figure out.
Mark: It points to a culture. It points to leadership. It points to what is rewarded and what is punished. It points to all of it. Coleen Boyle started as a midlevel analyst and now she's running autism (at the CDC as Director of the National Center on Birth Defects and Disabilities). She's being rewarded for tucking away the problem. She's also in there supervising Thompson [William Thompson, CDC whistleblower on a manipulated MMR study] and the notes show her giving him orders, telling him to redesign it this way, tweak it that way.
So whether it’s time trends or vaccines, if they tweak the studies enough they can say, oh we don't know if the increase is real but we do know we're doing a better job diagnosing it. And people like Coleen Boyle are the ones who stick around while Thompson is intimidated, Thomas Verstraeten [who did a key thimerosal study] is shipped out of the country, and Judith Zimmerman gets fired from her job in Utah.
There is this little economy of all these people who subsist on government grants. They’re used to things being kind of orderly and not that controversial and this one is just way too big. It requires leadership and continuous management over time. Coleen Boyle is clearly one of the leaders and, in my opinion, is the single-most-guilty person in the whole thing.
Me: “Continuous management over time” is another word for ongoing cover-up isn’t it?
Mark: Yes exactly. They’ve got an orthodoxy of interpretation. There's a “right way” to look at the data and a “wrong way” to look at the data; there are “good outcomes” and there are “bad outcomes.” It’s not an even-handed, straight-up view of the facts.
They will advertise the hell out of the studies that advance their policies and will tweak until it's acceptable any inconvenient evidence to the contrary. So it's really biased. It requires management. And it’s a moral choice.
Me: Yes, and a pretty serious choice when you think about the ongoing numbers – 1 in 68. It seems to me like we’re watching them succeed at this at the moment. It just seems so malignant that I wonder how to stop it.
Mark: I don't know. But I think at some level we have a little microcosm here of things that are enraging all kinds of Americans against the establishment, coming from the left, from the right, from libertarians, from the Tea Party. There’s a range of very fundamental critiques of Washington – a primal scream that says let's change the culture in Washington.
Me: Maybe that's hopeful -- the idea that this is part of a pattern that is becoming more and more evident to people of all stripes, who are maybe more open to looking at things freshly.
Anyway, thanks for shedding light on all this. I think it’s an important thing to do.
Mark: You bet.
Thanks, Jeanette - I think it's a really relevant question. No one can convince me vaccines are safe to begin with, but we know that there are people out there who will never be convinced not to vaccinate, but who would logically welcome the opportunity to reduce the potential risks. Their children deserve that opportunity. Perfection and progress are not mutually exclusive.
Posted by: Jenny | April 16, 2016 at 11:27 PM
Jenny,
Thanks for shaing. That's a very interesting finding.
Posted by: Jeannette Bishop | April 16, 2016 at 06:39 PM
"Increased Mercury Levels in Patients with Celiac Disease following a Gluten-Free Regimen"
Or, in other words, gluten could be facilitating tissue retention of mercury and mercury may be liberated from tissue and move into blood and urine, (or never get into the tissues?) in the absence of gluten. Maybe this turns an acute exposure into a chronic exposure. Also, if a person tries heavy metal chelation, it could be more successful for person who is gluten free (for what amount of time?) then for a person who ingests gluten. And, is the effect dose dependent (i.e. could how much gluten is in the body make a significant difference), so if the newer versions of wheat bred in the 1900s increased gluten content in the early 1900s and again in the 1980s, does that then increase mercury retention from amalgams and vaccines? (Also increasing mercury in the gut tissue, creating micro biome shifts and leaky gut and food sensitivities and starting a downward spiral of autism symptoms). Could the problem be seriously mitigated simply by never starting a child on gluten? Especially if you are a parent who wants to vaccinate? Even without mercury, what other bad effects from other bad things are amplified in the presence of gluten? What about the MMR - does gluten prevent the body from handling live viruses or even any kind of virus or vaccine. Has anyone studied how lab animals react to vaccines when they have gluten in them vs not having gluten in them?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4352902/
Posted by: Jenny | April 16, 2016 at 05:34 PM
Oh Bennedetta, I know that. Totally and completely. Vaccines cause intestinal malfunction. No arguments there, ever.
But what if it's a 2 way street? Wouldn't a parent want to know whether vaccines react differently in a child who does, for instance, a gluten free or paleo diet, versus how vaccines react in a child with a high gluten diet? I.E. could a paleo diet in place PRIOR to vaccination prevent or minimize vaccine damage? Has there been a study of this sort yet? For people who want to vaccinate, but want it done with less risk, do they have the right to investigate this hypothesis?
Can you show me the studies showing me that gluten does not increase the toxicity of vaccines? If you can, then I'll stop wondering about it. Until then I will continue to wonder what if the seriousness of vaccine damage is directly correlated to the amount of gluten proteins in a person's body? What if gluten is a catalyst, or somehow there is a combined synergy such that 1+1 = 100, like when mercury (toxic on its own) and aluminum (toxic on its own) combined end up resulting in seriously higher toxicity. What if gluten (a word that means glue) glues the toxins in the vaccines to cells and tissues preventing the body from fighting and clearing them, contributing to ongoing longterm unstoppable damage? What if when the liver is trying to clear the heavy metals and they are excreted in the bile into the intestines, the presence of gluten in the bowels glues the toxins to the intestinal lining, destroying the micro biome and opening up the system into "leaky gut?" which then allows the toxins back into the body in a vicious repeating cycle that's much worse and drawn out and serious than it would be if there was no "glue" to begin with?
Any idea that contributes to improving safety and reducing the prevalence of autism is worth pursuing, because achieving improvement is not mutually exclusive from achieving perfection.
Posted by: Jenny | April 06, 2016 at 10:55 AM
So, I wonder;
If we paint 1 or 1.5 percent of the population blue, would there be as many blue people living in my community as there are young people living with autism living in my community, right now?
But wait a minute; that would be just painting 1 percent of 8 years olds. We would also have to paint people blue for each different year this vaccine/autism thing has continued.
So what would that look like in a community. Painted up blue people for each age group? Lot of blue people.
Jenny; I think that we are not taking Dr. Fasano's work seriously. He worked for 20 years to make a safe cholera vaccine and n the end his vaccine gave his test subject celiacs.
Vaccines cause food sensitivities, and that include gluten.
Posted by: Benedetta | April 04, 2016 at 11:43 PM
Thanks, yet again, for pointing out the fruitlessness of trusting that these tracking mechanisms are meant to reflect reality.
Researcher & Kostoff -
Neither of you mentions the fact that with the increased number of vaccinations on adolescents, college students, and adults (Dip/per/tet boosters, MMR boosters to combat mumps outbreaks, HPV, meningitis, flu) there will, without doubt, continue to be an increase in the rate of undiagnosed inflammation and autoimmune conditions in potential parents, so that if they become pregnant, it increases the number of damaged babies being born, regardless of other contributing environmental factors (which, yes, I believe, make things even worse). I think it will, and probably has already, led to babies with problems who may never have been vaccinated themselves, the damage in the previous generations being continually compounded.
But I appreciate the 80/20 rule. If 80 % of the problem can be rectified with only 20 % of perceived effort, well, vaccine manufacturing and administration carries the overwhelming bulk of the effect, and so if our public policy changed, it would take very little human effort to turn the stats around. And those positive effects would resonate across all environmental sustainability efforts, hence the danger of the public finding out about vaccines - it wouldn't just affect 1 industry.
If you look at the vaccination schedule in the 60's, well, kids who were increasingly vaccinated in the 60's were generally beginning to have their own kids in the 80's. Assuming a 20-30 year lag time between what were once baby vaccinations only and pregnancy, someone should be looking at the number of vaccinations in the parents. With the increase in the 80's - those babies are now trying to have babies. Not only should we be looking at increased autism numbers, but the rates of infertility and adoption, and be comparing those with other countries that vaccinate less. Sometimes I wonder if this will end up being a self-limiting situation. Those with autism and cancer and chronic diseases are the survivors, but infertility will eventually win out and there won't be any babies, autistic or not - not even for the rich and powerful, like in Margaret Atwoods book "The Handmaids Tale." If vaccines are shown to be incompatible with life itself, maybe someone will finally pay attention. How many vaccine package inserts say that the vaccine hasn't been tested for effects on fertility?
Eileen Nicole-Simon: I hope your son has returned, I recall a few weeks ago you mentioned he had disappeared again. In addition to cord clamping in the 80's, after reading Wheat Belly, by Dr. Davis - I realized that the 2 major propagated changes to
wheat in the 20th century which increased gluten both times, coincided to the general time frame of 1. Kanners original patients with this new "autism" and 2. the huge rise in autism numbers in the 90's (the newly changed wheat hit the market in the 80's, if I recall the details in the book, meaning soon to be parents were eating it every day). I still feel like there is still a connection between increased gluten (and whatever else was accidentally changed in wheat) maybe decreasing vitamin D3 levels thereby increasing inflammation and maybe lowering oxygen uptake, leading to the perfect storm when combined with vaccines, which probably deprive the brain of oxygen through their own various pathways/inflammatory reactions. I often wonder whether and what, if any, relationship (direct or indirect) there is between the micro biome and oxygen availability. Someone ought to look at it in correlation to non-regressive autism.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21349488
Posted by: Jenny | April 04, 2016 at 11:10 AM
Co factor if you are susceptible to lead you are also to Mercury. Flu shots must be stopped in flint yesterday . I wonder if this explains the children who got autism first --like in steel towns ...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/20601101/?i=3&from=/19515364/related
Posted by: Anita Donnelly | April 03, 2016 at 06:01 PM
I wonder if we could do our own surveys of school districts.
By the way my son got an Autism diagnosis by a dr but ca services called him PDD --so that means many milder Asd kids aren't even counted. Also recovering kids get different labels.
Posted by: Anita Donnelly | April 03, 2016 at 03:35 PM
my comment didn't relate to vaccines, but to the coverup of the rising rate in brick by the cdc. for the purposes of this conversation -- the unreliability of the cdc as a rapporteur on autism rates -- i'll leave it at that.
Posted by: Dan Olmsted | April 03, 2016 at 03:33 PM
Dan, in your book, The Age of Autism, Bobbie Gallagher of Brick Township says that she brought two autistic children home from the hospital. A newspaper story says that she started thinking something was wrong when her 2yo daughter started spinning in circles and obsessively lining up her toys. Can you fill the picture in for us?
Posted by: Carol | April 03, 2016 at 03:17 PM
Oh posh AnaB! There is no evidence of an environmental issue triggering brick's numbers, and if there were you could be sure the cdc would have been all over it. instead, they covered up the true increase -- there were NO CASES at the start, and now there are 1 in 41 in New Jersey.
Posted by: Dan Olmsted | April 03, 2016 at 01:18 PM
To AnaB,
While I have no doubt that industrial waste is horrible for human health and a contributing factor to today's chronic illnesses, developmental disabilities, infertility problems, and premature deaths, I did want to point out that at the same time Brick Township, NJ experienced an explosive rise in the number of children with Autism, a small city clear across the country, which is residential and without the industrial waste of Brick Township, experienced a strikingly similar rise. That would be Granite Bay, CA, where I live. We have only 1 local school district for elementary school, so it was easy to obtain the number of students with Autism: 1 in 132. Bear in mind that home schoolers with Autism would not have been included in that number, so if anything, it was an underestimate.
Rick Rollens of Granite Bay wrote about this in testimony he presented before Congress in 1999:
http://www.whale.to/v/rollens2.html
Thus, at the exact same time, in communities that shared little in common...one east coast, one west coast...one blue-collar, one white-collar...one industrial, one residential...the rise in the number of children with Autism was virtually identical. What was the common denominator? VACCINES.
Hope this info is helpful.
Posted by: Laura Hayes | April 03, 2016 at 12:54 PM
Problem with using numbers from Brick is during that area Brick was the site of one of the most egregious corporate waste dumping sites in with century history. The contaminants bled into their water table. So environmental exposure could be at play there.
Posted by: AnaB | April 03, 2016 at 11:44 AM
I do believe with all my heart that vaccines is the sole driver of autism.
And I know that the autism rate was pretty high in the 70s.
So it all started way before glycophospate, and extra strange electromagnetic waves flowing through the air.
I do know that the MIR my son was given during some seizure activity did affect him afterwards, making him dizzy and sick. The next one he had a few years later did not. So, there is some sensitivity there - possibly.
We are forgetting the books; "Shot in the Dark" and that other book - I can't remember the title off the top of my head - but it was about vaccinations and the American Criminal System. Both began to be written back in the 70s. Those books and the fact that many, many kids were being hurt starting back in the EARLY 70s, so many that parents with damaged kids impacted Washington D.C. Congress answered back these parent's concerns with the passing of the 1986 vaccine court because big pharma knew the impact back in 70s had been working the system every since.
That vaccne court did not suddenly appear in 86. Pharma had been working hard for a good 16 plus years to make that little piece of Congressional legislator come together.
Why would we expect autism to rise, in these last few years since there have not been more vaccines given to kids?
For two reasons; 1) Vaccines are accumulative within the population. Give it to the parent, and the next generation will be affected even if they did not receive any vaccines. That is a fact! Too bad we did not find out by using generations of rats and mice, but actually humans. I come from a long line of a people that were given extra vaccines - the typhoid; and as a result, my section of the country first experienced the big bad drug problem that is now spreading everywhere.
2.) They are giving more vaccines; that is not true that the schedule has remained unchanged. They are pushing to give pregnant women not just flu shots, but the most insidious vaccine of all the DPT, or some form of it.
I miscarried 28 years ago because of a tetanus shot (aka) DPT. The next baby I gave birth to, a year and half later reacted to each and ever DPT shot -fast. Or I still would probably not know. Even though I had a daughter have Kawasakis from a DPT shot in 83, and a husband react with a seizure in a few hours after receiving at work - a tetanus (aka DPT shot) .
In the fullness of time all things will become known. My fullness of time has come, and yours will too.
3.) Geesh more than 2; They knew it was not going to go down and were making plans in 2011.
I watched a meeting of the IACC, on U tube. A blonde headed woman came in, and said they had been working on the DSM Manuel. The results of their work was this: With the changes they made, they found that the types of autism: Severe, Moderate, and Mild -- that is classic, PDD-NOS, and Asperger's--- they were able to reduce the number of those with autism.
Tom Insel head of the IACC committee was thrilled.
IT became obvious in the meeting that the whole reason for RE- doing the DSM Manuel was to change the numbers.
In this meeting there were a couple of guys on the IACC committee that had Asperger's. This scared them to death, until they were informed that an older diagnosis would not be changed, and even so - the milder form of autism would not be effected, it would effect the moderate forms of it, PDD-NOS.
Yes, that is right the group that was the largest the moderate PDD-NOS would be the most impacted. The Asperger's guys were relieved, that their type of autism would not be touched. After all; Cause they liked their diagnosis of autism - sitting on a big government committee, and running some kind of large Asperger autism group.
SO, what to do with this largest middle group of PDD-NOS; I mean even if the DSM Manuel did not put them in the group of autism - they were still damaged, not normal, or sick or what ever.
The blonde psychologist said that most would go under social communications disorders, and other things in the new DSM Manuel.
Nothing like having to list five or six things disorders, instead of a simpler PDD-NOS.
I Hate them all, it is a game. It is the vaccines, it does matter what kind and how many vaccines, your Mother had, your Father had, and even your grandparents; IT IS ACCUMALATIVE. IT is increasing, there is no way it cannot. Autism is not the only thing involved here either by the way.
They have announced in our newspaper that there is a community action meeting to focus on solution to the growing drug problem Enough is Enough: It will be held April 7th at 7:00pm at the middle school. All are going to get together to brain storm why this is happening and what we can do.
Well they have mild vaccine injuries that do not show up till these kids become young adults as mental health problems and manifest in drug addiction. I can't go there and tell them the truth, I would be laughed out of the meeting .
One of our local girls that was the school counselor, who has a son that became addicted is on my face book. She has become the head of UNITE. She has had two picture of herself standing beside two different head guys in the CDC.
Surgeon General Vivek H. Muthy who showed up on Sesame Street to vaccinate Elmo. He is very concerned about the drug problem -- really? He has to know.
The other that keeps showing up to all these big drug problem meetings really regular, is Dr. Tom Frieden. He is the head of National RxDrug Abuse. Director of US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. He went to Yale and majored in infectious diseases, he has worked at the CDC and such on Ebola, and HIV/AIDS and oh, yes very involved in TB.
Don't be naïve.
Posted by: Benedetta | April 03, 2016 at 10:39 AM
There were 3 opportunities to correct all of this:
1. 1992 - Follow Denmark's lead and internal recommendation to remove ALL Thimerosal from vaccines in USA (that did not happen);
2. 1998 - Post Wakefield press conference and study on dangers of MMR given too early, break up the Merck monopoly on the triple shot and give single does Measles and Rubella (Mumps is not needed--mild disease);
3. 2000 - Secret WHO-CDC Aluminum Meeting (weeks before Simpsonwood) in Puerto Rico knowing that Aluminum adjuvants (3 types of aluminum salts) be removed from all vaccines they were in (that didn't happen).
2016: None of this happened. Thimerosal partially, but not all the way. The experimentation continues. And the same clowns are in charge at CDC with the Golden Girl of BioTerrorism Julie Gerberding living large as president of Merck's Vaccine Division since 2009.
And we wonder why the rates continue to rise--or in this case, magically plateau off when they haven't.
Posted by: James Grundvig | April 03, 2016 at 10:01 AM
Dan and Mark, thanks for unearthing all this data. Once again I want to point out another medical coverup that could contribute to the increase in autism. Is there any justification for terminating placental circulation immediately after birth? This became a mandated policy in the mid 1980s.
Umbilical cord clamping was not something I ever thought about until, after I posted my website, conradsimon.org, 16 years ago (April 2000). Within a few months I began receiving email from nurse midwives, and a retired obstetrician, asking how soon after birth my son Conrad's umbilical cord was clamped. Clearly it was before he was breathing. He nearly died, and I was told he was stillborn but brought back to life by resuscitation.
This started me on a new line of research. I sat on the 4th floor of the Harvard medical library, and pulled one old textbook after another off the shelf. Until the 1950s the instruction was to wait for pulsations of the umbilical cord to cease before tying or clamping it.
In the 1950s it was decided that all women needed an episiotomy, and to provide a "sterile field" for its repair, the umbilical cord was clamped for immediate removal of the infant. Textbook teaching remained to wait for pulsations to stop, until the mid 1980s. The increasing schedules for vaccination occurred at the same time.
Clamping off placental circulation immediately after birth is a clear medical error. The damage caused by even a brief period of oxygen insufficiency has been available in the medical literature since 1959 (Ranck & Windle, Experimental Neurology1959 1:130-54).
Posted by: Patience (Eileen Nicole) Simon | April 03, 2016 at 09:07 AM
Researcher,
"Why would we expect to see autism increasing for kids born in 2004 compared to kids born in 2002, if the number of vaccines given to infants did not increase between those years?"
You are assuming that vaccines are the sole driver of autism. I believe their effect is enabled by other toxic stimuli, for the following reasons.
The doses of MMR vaccine given in the USA followed a step-function trend over time, as shown in (http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/43/Supplement_3/S141/F1.expansion.html). There were roughly seven million doses annually from 1971 to mid-1989, and approximately twice that number (because of a recommended second dose) thereafter. Autism began a noticeably increasing rise starting about the early-mid-1990s, paralleling the increase in e.g. glyphosate usage and cell phone subscriptions (http://www.medicaldaily.com/autism-rates-increase-2025-glyphosate-herbicide-may-be-responsible-future-half-316388);
(https://www.bellyarmor.com/radiation/health-risks/autism/). While the glyphosate and cell phone curves are correlations with the autism time trend, the researchers who generated these curves also offer credible physical mechanisms for a causal linkage.
If vaccines were an isolated driver of autism, why would a significant increase in autism rates not have been seen starting in the early 70s? It seems clear to me that an MMR vaccine-autism association was not observed in the period from early 70s to early 90s because some of the key synergistic components were not in place in sufficient strength. While I have identified glyphosate and RF radiation as potential contributing factors to the increase in autism, this does not rule out other potential contributing factors that may have co-existed as well. The last two decades have seen a dramatic increase in potentially toxic stimuli in our environment, some of which could also be contributing factors to autism. It appears that once these critical contributing factors were in place, the impact on the immune and other critical systems was sufficiently large to enable the MMR vaccine to effect the observed behavioral and intestinal problems characteristic of autism. This comports with the observation of many mothers of these children that the symptoms occurred soon after the vaccine was given. Could the autism have occurred without the MMR vaccine if the non-vaccine environmental components had become sufficiently large? Who knows; that was not the large-scale global experiment we decided to run.
Posted by: Ronald Kostoff | April 03, 2016 at 05:39 AM
I'm confused by 2 things :
1) Why would we expect to see autism increasing for kids born in 2004 compared to kids born in 2002, if the number of vaccines given to infants did not increase between those years?
2 Why DID the Utah autism rates decrease?
Posted by: Researcher | April 03, 2016 at 12:54 AM
Linda1,
it would be quite something to see the "Doctors'" faces when he chose to pursue this. I wonder for how long some of these higher profile vaccine advocates will stay the course defending the current vaccine schedule. It begs the question as to their smarts or integrity, the longer they resist the growing evidence of corruption and bias in this area.
Posted by: Glyphosate and vaccine science | April 02, 2016 at 07:26 PM
Thank you Dan and Mark. You are so correct that people are enraged. I may never again vote for another politician, I'm so disgusted with them. Hopefully, Vaxxed will educate a whole lot more folks. Good timing to release it in a presidential election year. I have a feeling that, at some point, the house of cards will fall, and the CDC criminals will be prosecuted.
Posted by: Gary Ogden | April 02, 2016 at 06:52 PM
No shame the liars at the CDC..jobsworth.com
MMR RIP
Posted by: angusfiles | April 02, 2016 at 04:21 PM
One of the graphs was tracking Utah identical to New Jersey then if falls off while New Jersey keeps a climbing on up.
What did happen in Utah.
Zimmerman pretty well explains it.
Do they really think they can get away with this stuff?
Do they really think that the American people as a whole will never wake up, or there is not courts of law. This is like the wild west; like no laws exist.
Posted by: Benedetta | April 02, 2016 at 03:51 PM
Thanks so very much for further explanation of the whistleblower suit and for keeping tabs on CDC methodology.
Posted by: Jeannette Bishop | April 02, 2016 at 03:29 PM
Glyphosate and vaccine science,
I have only seen that show once, years ago, but I bet that the whole staff has been effected by their former colleague's leaving the show to make Vaxxed with Dr. Wakefield.
Posted by: Linda1 | April 02, 2016 at 02:33 PM
Regarding manipulation, I just watched Dr. Donna Farmer, scientist for Monsanto on The Doctors. I was very much struck by the parallels to the vaccine controversy.
In a moment of breathtaking irony she stated that injecting rats with glyphosate and resultant cancer was a poor way to test glophosates effects because it was not a normal mechanism of entry. Isn't that funny, since many scientists and parents are saying that injection of substances like Mercury, aluminum, live viruses...are very much different and may have catastrophic effects than actual disease routes?
They also, similar to the vaccine industry, want to compare one pesticide (poison) to another.
Dr. Travis Stork concludes that we all have to read, read, read. Do our own research. Would his say this about vaccines and their ingredients or effects?
Posted by: Glyphosate and vaccine science | April 02, 2016 at 01:14 PM
I have to wonder at the states of Mississippi and West Virginia.
Esp. Mississippi cause from my talks and visits to the area every last kid is kissed by something. I have a feeling it is - boy, it would be interesting to know.
As for Michigan, I meet with special ed the summer before school started. They actually had vaccine exemptions in the drawer of a class room and they almost insisted that I not get my son anymore. Some times I think that God has been watching over us some what, and that big across state move was God's answer to my prayers.
I gave me a back bone to say no, when I returned to Kentucky.
Like really like the color orange. I love pumpkins, and Fall leaves, and I have some tights that are brown and orange -- I would love to see Colleen in orange.
Posted by: Benedetta | April 02, 2016 at 10:20 AM
"And it’s a moral choice."
Yes, indeed, it is.
And in the case of denying, trying to cover-up, and allowing the Autism Epidemic to continue at breakneck speed, all the while refusing to acknowledge, dismissing, and maligning the victims and their families, it is a moral choice of the most immoral kind.
Thank you, Dan and Mark...great interview.
Posted by: Laura Hayes | April 02, 2016 at 08:47 AM
"California has never made it in. California is pretty high. There’s Maryland, Minnesota, Oregon, Maine -- all among the highest in the educational data -- and they're not in. Massachusetts is very high, Michigan is high -- eight or 10 states are higher than New Jersey in the educational data and they should have been in there."
Has the CDC given any explanation for what they believe is responsible for the disparity of autism rates in different states? Is it because each state uses different criteria to count autism?
If that explains it .. then why .. AFTER 10 YEARS .. hasn't the CDC implemented stronger public health regulations ... uniform mandated guidelines on criteria .. to assure autism rates are being counted the same in each state?
Of course .. common sense suggests the CDC would only do that if they were truly interested in "clearing the muddy waters" that cloud any meaningful understanding of what may truly be causing the ever growing problem.
In any event .. we ought not be surprised that the CDC hasn't made any effort to do that .. as the CDC is perfectly content to continue to pick and choose .. at that moment of time .. whichever state statistics is most favorable to their own .. morally bankrupt .. vested interests .. which can be capsulized in a single "bumper sticker" statement .. "DELAY, DENY HOPE THEY DIE".
Posted by: Bob Moffit | April 02, 2016 at 06:58 AM