WaPo Reports Dr. Mark Geier May Receive Millions in Restitution
Minneapolis Star Tribune Opposes Free Speech on Vaccine Informed Consent Legislation – Without Knowing Content

Have I Lost It? Promoting Medical Exemptions is not “Pro-Mandate”: No Litmus Test for Vaccine Risk Awareness

James Lyons WeilerBy James Lyons-Weiler

I thank Leslie Manookian for sharing her ideas on her interpretation of my article “As States Push for Reason and Rationality, New York Times Goes Over the Edge, Calls for Mandatory Death for a Genetic Minority”. I thank AoA for inviting me to set the record straight on my position on vaccine mandates.

In her article, entitled “Has James Lyons-Weiler Lost It?” she interprets my position of empowering parents and doctors with the knowledge of biomarkers to identify individuals who are most susceptible as somehow being pro-mandate.

My first defense is point to articles where Manookian herself could be seen as defending mandates with exemptions in which her line of reasoning could be equally misconstrued, such as one entitled “Suggestions on How to Claim a Medical Exemption in CA” by Leslie Manookian, hosted at the very informed and useful Weston A. Price Foundation website; an article on Revolution for Vaccine Choice in 2016 in which Manookian informs readers to:

“Conduct genetic testing prior to vaccinating to better understand your child’s risk…. Test for various disabilities, conditions, and genetic variance such as variation in MTHFR, CBS, COMT, all BHMTs, MAO-A, SOD, cytochrome p450 enzymes, and HLA type which can determine your child’s susceptibility to vaccine injury.”

Her post unfortunately misinforms the readers to use 23andMe, which does not qualify under FDA rules as a clinical genetic test, and while the FDA may be turning a blind eye to consumers who attempt to use 23andMe as clinical data, the assay has proven to be inadmissible in court.  The correct test to use would be either clinical single-gene assay or clinical exome sequencing, which are FDA approved, but which also have their own limitations because interpretation is based on available knowledge to date of association of specific genes to outcomes, and studies have not been conducted to determine which variants in our population are associated with vaccine adverse events. Her FB post also misinforms readers by insinuating that these specific genes can be used to determine a child’s “susceptibility to vaccine injury”. The studies that I am advocating to determine their generalized accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity have not yet been conducted.  For example, MTHFR mutations may be very common in families with ASD from vaccines, but they are also fairly common in the general population, so their clinical utility may be limited. Only studies aimed to characterize a biomarker’s performance can tell us. Those who proceed in legal settings with biomarkers not backed by translational science will waste precious time and resources in their legal fights.

Perhaps her views have changed, and she is now against biomarkers to procure medical exemptions because in her view, that would make her an apologist for exemptions? As many people know, my position has shifted significantly since 2015 - because my journey at the time on the hidden, pathetically sad state of vaccine safety science was only beginning.  While writing "Ebola", I only scratched the surface on vaccine civil rights issues, and, to the chagrin of my future self, stated the oft-repeated trope about "anti-vaxxers" putting others at risk.  To those persons who those words hurt, I have since apologized with an article "My Journey from Ignorance".

My goal in my second book, "Cures vs. Profits", was to highlight the best and most promising current and historical advances made by biomedicine. I made a commitment at the onset of writing "Cures" to include any negative information I uncovered during my research.  I had a book with 15 chapters and decided to add what I naively believed would be an easy chapter to write.  What a journey I unknowingly set out upon.

After writing my chapter on vaccines in which, by the way, I defend Brian Hooker's retracted article, I reproduced the Verstraeten "It Just Won't Go Away" email (courtesy SafeMinds), and I brought forward four major vaccine controversies - even adding an Appendix to the book highlighting those controversies.  Writing that chapter changed my views permanently, and I have worked non-stop ever since to fully characterize the abuses of science that have taken place.  After reading what must now be over five thousand studies and articles on vaccines, and devouring laws and regulations on informed choice, it is my personal and informed professional view is that:

(1) Mandates are scientifically unfounded;

(2) Mandates are unethical;

(3) Mandates violate Federal Regulations on informed consent.

I’ve even been censored (temporarily) by the CDC for saying so.

For me, the urgency for real vaccine risk screening to provide evidence for medical exemptions is that pediatricians believe - incorrectly - that they have no alternative but to vaccinate everyone. However, to equate providing solid evidence for medical exemptions as supporting mandates is a red herring using a drawn conclusion.  Given Manookian’s own advocacy for biomarkers for screening to obtain medical exemptions, I’m left puzzled.  Those who are willing and able to provide scientifically founded medical exemptions can still be against mandates in the first place.

False dichotomies disempower and divide. "Pro-vax" vs. "Anti-vax" is the largest and most limiting pair of false alternatives that has used quite successfully by those historically in control of the CDC and its official and unofficial organs to stifle critical and creative thought, and to shut down meaningful conversations.

Paul Thomas' book is a good example of an approach for those seeking a middle-of-the-road plan to reduce risk.  Other individuals, such as pediatrician Dr. John Hirschfield, spend time every day imploring their colleagues to look at the fact that there is no credible safety science on HPV vaccines. He also stresses the importance of avoiding giving more than one vaccine per day- noting especially the risk inherent to giving the Tdap or DTaP vaccine with any other aluminum-containing vaccine.  These two MDs sit on a spot on the vaccine risk aware spectrum that may not be abolitionist enough for some.  Other MDs, such as Dr. Tenpenny, occupy a more abolitionist view.  Each approach the issue on how they handle their own vaccine risk awareness both in how they approach their patients, their peers, and the public in their own way.

All are doing good, and all are against mandates. There are individuals who are staunchly and forever against vaccination of any kind for themselves and for their families. While that is a position I do not necessarily share, that is a position I deeply respect. Personal choice means personal choice.

However, I cannot imagine why anyone who is considering vaccinating would not want to know their specific risk.  The situation for informed choice in the US is deplorable. Even people with medical reasons seen as valid by CDC and vaccine manufacturers with contraindications are being coerced to vaccinate. Pediatricians don’t read VISs, and vaccine inserts, and many do not know what’s in the vaccines they are injecting into infants, pregnant mothers, and children. Biomarkers could alert them to patients at highest risk. The missing pieces of the inherited risk of autism, not yet directly addressed by any of the genetic studies, is the gene x environment interactions.  I found among the 850 or so genes "associated" with autism, none of the genes could easily explain the full list of symptoms that lead to a diagnosis of ASD under DSM-V.  No gene explains more than 1% of ASD liability in the population, and thus in any individual, genetics alone does not explain autism.

There are those who misconstrue (purposely) that autism "is genetic" (which is a complete non-sequitur given the evidence), and I am not among them. I cannot be successful tied to such nonsensical interpretation of a clear literature that says otherwise. Published estimates of how much "genetics" explains autism range between 38% to 50% (which I have seen exaggerated as high as 80%) - and, in "Causes", I make clear that studies support that much of the "genetic" risk is actually "genetic x environment interaction" risk, due to variation that makes certain individuals more susceptible to toxins in vaccines than others.  These I call "environmental susceptibility genes", and I also state that every human being has the right to express their own genetic variation without fear of being harmed by mandated vaccines for some "greater good".  I’ve even called for the resignation of NIH Director Francis Collins for misinterpreting studies of early signs of ASD in the brain as proof that ASD is “genetic”.

The fact that some people have higher genetic risk of adverse events from vaccines is not widely recognized nor addressed by autism "genetic" studies, which nevertheless consistently report that as much as 50% of autism "is environmental"; i.e., cannot be explained by genetics, and these studies did not even measure a single environmental factor.  The 1986 Act mandated finding those who are most susceptible, and nothing was done.  Thus, biomarkers.

Due to the CDC and the IOM stifling of science on the causes of ASD, individuals with increased risk remain unidentifiable.  When they do become identifiable, via biomarker screens, they are then entitled, as an identifiable genetic minority, to equal protection from harm under the Fourteenth Amendment. Pediatricians would be shielded from financial penalties for unvaccinated patients if the accountants could properly calculate the proportion of potentially vaccinated in a practice discounting completely those who should not be vaccinated due to medical and religious exemptions.  Does that mean I condone the practice of kickbacks?  No.  They should not exist.  A loophole exists by which practices, but not doctors, can accept kickbacks for prescribing drugs.  The kickback on vaccines come from Blue Cross/Blue Shield incentive.  If biomarkers say a patient should not be vaccinated, BC/BS should not count them at all.  If a patient has a religious exemption, BC/BS should not count them at all.

In the article the Manookian criticizes, I reported that vaccine mandates condemn millions to mandatory death, GBS, paralysis, autoimmunity, allergies, encephalopathy-induced autism, tics, and job loss. It is difficult to understand how the total sum of these populations can be misconstrued to mean a "few susceptible", as Manookian represented.  Exemptions are a necessary steam-valve on mandates, and her article misrepresents mine.

There are many possible futures with Vaccine Risk Biomarkers. In one of those futures, the adoption of risk biomarkers is used as a red herring argument for mandates "for the rest of us".  I personally and professionally strongly reject the notion of add-ons to biomarkers beyond their intended use. I will certainly never contribute to that possible future: that position would be inconsistent with my view that mandates are scientifically unfounded, are unethical, and violate Federal Regulations that guarantee patients with informed consent.  The right to refuse each and every medical procedure available - including vaccines – is necessary for a non-totalitarian pharmatopian police state (please see The Pharma Bulls are Loose, and the It’s the End of Democracy in America), and I will continue to fight for freedom of choice and bodily autonomy every chance I get. Biomarkers will empower patients in a world full of mandates.

Regulations also exist that guarantee every patients' rights to informed choice to be included- or excluded- from clinical trials, and this in my view includes weak and pliable post-licensure vaccine pharmacosurveillance ecological/correlational retrospective "safety" studies, which fall far short of a critical test of the hypotheses of causality anyway.  The fact that the data from such studies have to be abused and the data completely tortured and cooked and key results removed to make associations go away is telling us that vaccine are not as safe as Pharma would have us believe.

In my view, it would be foolhardy for any state to follow California's ludicrous lead in removing exemptions.  Still, I can, and most likely will be conducting new science that shows the value of family risk, genetic and immunologic indicators that are robust (high accuracy, sensitivity and specificity) and useful for medical exemptions.  Does that make me for mandates? No. Not even close.  Does it make mandates more likely?  I don't think so, because, as happened to me, many more biomedical research professionals will find themselves near and in the rabbit hole, and as the vaccine risk screening research is conducted, many more independent estimates of vaccine adverse event rates will result.  The consequences and likely future that I see will be widespread calls to reformulate approaches to artificial immunization when biomarkers demonstrate the full extent of measurable harm, and an opening of the markets to novel and creative approaches to artificial immunization.

In the best possible future, my view is it means firing ACIP and the CDC, and allowing innovation to occur by which new approaches to immunization can emerge and compete on the platform of safety.  Risk biomarkers can even the playing field and allow real science to do its job.

There are many benefits to vaccine risk biomarkers, the most obvious being a reduction in the incidence of vaccine injuries.  In addition to reducing the extent of neurological, developmental and immunological harm due to indiscriminate vaccination, finally, after decades of vaccine risk denialism and a lack of real science on how vaccines cause myriad injuries, independent research will bring forward a full and accurate account of the rates of vaccine adverse events and injuries.  Biomarkers also require an understanding of the functional relationship between the biomarker and the disease, disease state or health outcome, and therefore a full comprehension of the molecular, genetic and environmental causes of autism and other conditions will result.

To the extent that biomarkers might perpetuate the widespread negative effects of vaccines that are not yet recognized, mistrust of science from families of loved one injured and killed by vaccines is all those involved in faux vaccine "safety" science can expect.  They had the hubris to proclaim that no further science was necessary - and the incredible hubris to proclaim a short lists of vaccine injuries to be recognized by the National Vaccine Compensation Program. Manookian does not report the multiple times I’ve called for the repeal of The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act.

I must, as an objective scientist, also warn against the same type of hubris that proclaims that safer means of artificial immunization cannot ever be made.  Such generalization requires full knowledge of all possibly conceivable approaches to artificial immunization. If the assessment is based on the past performance of evil-doers, I cannot place blame on those who mistrust scientists – but those who mistrust those scientists must avoid mistrusting all scientists. I must state that a gross generalization has being made by insinuating that I am some type of wolf in sheep’s clothing.  I am a scientist who was never involved in the past evils of faked vaccine studies designed to mislead and defraud the public, and lead to the denial of their rights to informed choice.  All my professional career I have advocated for objectivity in science, staring down people with a larger number of degrees than I hold.  It’s easy for me.

It is a pleasure to have the chance to say that I am, and I will remain, staunchly and forevermore supportive of anyone who wishes to refuse artificial immunization of any kind, for themselves and for their families for any reason -  and that I am unabashedly 100% against vaccine mandates.   I commit that I will continue to hold and state this position at every opportunity.  My record speaks for itself. While pointing out that newer approaches to artificial immunization might be possible, I have also made the point that if I were involved in the invention and patenting of new technologies for artificial immunization, I would ask the FDA to not classify them as a biologics or vaccines, but rather as a new device, so that my (completely hypothetical) company would be held liable under the law for any adverse consequences, so the product could be recalled, and that knowledge use to improve the product.  I would conduct randomized prospective clinical trials with long-term total health outcomes awareness for the participants of the studies and insure that the studies were large enough to guarantee that adverse events with rates as low as 1-2% could be detected.  Expensive?  Yes.  Time-consuming? Yes.  Will this be easy to conduct?  No, it will be fought by those who seek to maintain the status quo at every turn. But it will be easier and not nearly as expensive and time consuming as the widespread ill health effects resulting from the indiscriminate use of current vaccines on population denied informed choice and kept in the dark by the CDC and the media.  Our community currently has the best opportunity we may ever have to change immunization science permanently by working together to repeal the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act and if the vaccine makers rage quit and pack up their vaccines and go home, so much the better.

Let me state this as clearly as possible: as currently formulated, vaccines are filthy, nasty vials of toxic sludge that every American citizen and parent should be able to refuse for any reason.  Doctors are not qualified to and should not be put in the position to "vet" whether any individuals’ claim to a religious exemption is "valid"; they certainly are not trained on comparative theology in medical school, and they cannot know the hearts and minds of individuals who do not want to collaborate with the past evils of abortion by injecting products made with and containing proteins and DNA from aborted fetal cells and tumor cell lines. I defend religious exemptions, and I am an evolutionary biologist!

Fifty out of fifty states currently have mandates.  Due to losses of local political fights, fewer now allow full both philosophical and religious exemptions – and this is more reason for rapid action on biomarkers. I believe individuals should be entitled to invoke without encumbrance.  In my view, a simple "no thank you" should suffice.  But exemptions to mandates are under serious legislative threat around the country.  Rights to informed choice are under threat due to medical kidnap cases used as a pretext for precedent for state-enforced vaccination. Again, so I am not misconstrued: I would prefer no mandates at all.  In providing evidence that can be used by patients and doctors to warrant medical exemptions, I am not, intentionally nor unintentionally, condoning mandates.  

I can also not enjoin in “belief” (for me) as a guide for knowledge, because, as a scientist, my understanding is not based on belief, but is instead based on empirical results from properly designed and conducted studies (which are wanting for most current vaccines) and based on cumulative evidence.  Do I doubt, as insinuated by Manookian that any parent who says their child regressed into autism after vaccination?  No. When I cited in the article being critiqued that not all vaccines have been tested for association with autism, I was criticizing the generalization made by CDC, the media and Pharma when they claim Vaccines (plural) do not cause autism.  I was not claiming that parents' observations were invalid - in fact, all science begins with observation.  Our society is filled with millions of "observations" - children with autism, ADHD, food allergies, etc. many of whom are now becoming adults – and I do not doubt a single reported observation.

If I am not for mandates, even with vaccine risk biomarkers, what am I.  I am for science, for informed choice, for titers checking, against re-vaccination when titers fail to show immunization, for considering familial risk, and for formalizing methods to measure risk of injury from vaccination.  A thorough review of the literature indicating the plausibility of vaccine risk biomarkers is underway, and it includes Th1/Th2 skew as worthy of testing for its ability, along with many other measures, to accurately predict adverse outcomes from vaccination. I am against fraud, against pseudoscience, against contaminants in vaccines, against mercury, against aluminum, against vaccination in the NICU, against vaccine risk denialism and against vaccine injury denialism.  I am pro-buffering against vaccine injury with alternative schedules.  I would love to see studies that demonstrate that supplement can protect the human brain against vaccine injury. Do I recommend or not recommend vaccines?  I cannot answer that question, because I do not practice medicine. The best that I can do is to try to reform medicine from within, and inform legislators considering specific bills. While I cannot endorse or rally against any bill or support any political candidate running for office while wearing my NFP scientist hat, I earnestly wish all great success in their efforts to end mandates completely.  Should that fail, we need to protect those at highest risk. Addressing the realities of the evils of mandates by providing biomarker evidence for use for medical exemptions may not go far enough for those who would ban mandates, and not go far enough for those who would ban vaccines, and I get that. I am aiming for rationality in a world in which unwise mandates that already exist for attendance to public school are wisely tempered by philosophical and medical exemptions - for those who choose to opt out based on religious/ philosophical exemptions, and/or based on medical exemptions.  Biomarkers would go a long way to inform the latter and bring reason and rationality back to the practice of medicine.

For those who express concern that I may be representing vaccine industry "propaganda", I am happy to report that I have no financial conflicts of interest to report, no relationships of any kind with any company involved in the sale, manufacture, or distribution of vaccines - or biomarkers.   To the contrary, the only COIs I must report is compensation I have received for the time I have spent bringing science into cases of vaccine injury filed in the National Vaccine Compensation Program.  The COIs in my book sales are obvious, but I’ve spent far more promoting the last two books than I will likely ever see from their sales. I've spent time, energy and my own resources specifically helping moms in my area defeat proposed mandates for HPV vaccine in Allegheny County, informing the public on the realities of vaccine risk, fighting alongside parents in court to maintain their rights to philosophical and medical exemptions, and standing up for their character.  Biomarkers will make procuring safety for those most at risk much simpler than prolonged court battles and end the nonsense of our community being on the defensive.

I do not wish to control anyone’s narrative. I’m no wolf in sheep’s clothing. I don't follow any play book other than science, and I employ rational skepticism.  And I don’t pretend to have all the answers, nor own any of the initiatives. Everyone in our community needs to push in the same general direction to increase vaccine risk awareness.

Manookian brought up Hannah Poling; I should point out that had loss-of-function mitochondrial mutations been in play as vaccine screening biomarkers, Hannah Poling’s doctors and her parents could have been alerted and her vaccine injury avoided.

Comments

bob moffit

@ James Lyons-Weiler

"Many of the comments disparaging the goal of making vaccines safer make knowledge claims that are not backed by science"

@ Remember Dr. Healy

"We should follow through on Dr. Healy's call to find susceptible subset(s) of children who could be harmed by vaccines."
------------------------------------------
With all due respect .. your efforts to "make vaccines safer" is welcome ... however .. searching for and identifying that "susceptible sub-set" of children who could be harmed by vaccines .. would only serve to protect that "sub-set" of children.

What about the millions of children who will be exposed to what a majority of the Supreme Court has defined as "unavoidably unsafe" vaccines?

Four questions for you

#1 .. do YOU BOTH agree that vaccines are "unavoidably unsafe"?

#2 .. do YOU BOTH agree the likelihood of manufacturing a "one size fits all" vaccine is not only scientifically "implausible" .. but .. more likely scientifically "impossible"?

#3 .. do you believe the ONLY way to truly answer the first two questions .. is to conduct a scientific .. independent .. study of vaccinate v unvaccinated populations .. to ascertain once and for all .. if the vaccinated population has lived healthier lives than the unvaccinated population?

#4 .. do you agree the data to evaluate the life-long health of vaccinated v unvaccinated populations exists, is available .. and .. can easily be researched retrospectively .. to ascertain the answer to question #3?

Please do not interpret my questions as a criticism of your efforts to create a "safer" vaccine .. which I greatly appreciate .. my only intention is to remind you of history ... where for DECADES .. heavily marketed "one size fits all" infant medications were pulled from shelves because they were found to be extremely dangerous to that "small sub-set" of infants who suffered tragic consequences for having been treated with them.

Those infant medications were not pulled to protect a "small sub-set" of children .. they were pulled because they were proven to be "unavoidably unsafe" for ALL infants .. PERIOD.

James Lyons-Weiler


Many of the comments disparaging the goal of making vaccines safer make knowledge claims that are not backed by science.

-No alternative to aluminum hydroxide. INCORRECT.
Calcium hydroxide is a comparable substitute to aluminum, and has been known to be an effective adjuvant since the 1970s. The use of adjuvant altogether is, in part done as cost-savings because antigens are expensive.

-I'm quite aware that grants are funded by novelty, tractability, and robustness (and by back-scratching). But grant programs can be established by earmarked mandates to the NIH from Congress.

- I must re-iterate that vaccine-flexible MDs ARE doing good - spacing them out give the body time to detox, to grow (put on weight, reduce toxicity as body weight makes the dose make the poison) AND they are respectful of parents' rights to choose. They tell me they don't see ASD in their practice. Allergies are rarer. They are doing SOME GOOD - and they are all voices calling for less toxicity and bolstering CHOICE. I cannot see how having these voices involved does not help. Every infant that does not get HepB shot at birth is a win - every child not given >1 vaccine per visit is a win - every child that skips a vaccine - by your own standards - is a win. There seems to be a lack of understanding of the continuum of good.

- Yes, we must be on alert for controlled opposition, including proposing unwinnable strategies.

-Yes, the medical community will profit - massively - from biomarkers that accurately screen people who are highest risk. What I care about is the accuracy, sensitivity and specificity of the biomarkers, not profit (I cannot profit from biomarkers, or anything else we develop at IPAK, it's in the by-laws to ensure minimization of bias.

-Yes, large studies will have to be conducted, but not millions, no. The beauty is the question of the science is "in comparing injured and non-injured, could we have predicted who was likely to injured?"

-I propose to detractors of biomarkers that we are NOT in a competitive race. If you can ban vaccines altogether before we develop biomarkers, great, you win. Calls for bans on vaccines have been around for a long, long time, and to date they have not worked. Do you, yourself, have a deadline by when you will say "calls for bans do not work?" Because if use the same logic that has been plied against me, I would say "as long as you continue to push for bans, children will continue to be injured. And worse - you call for bans, they work for mandates". Think of biomarkers as a safety insurance policy - just in case you fail in your attempts to ban vaccines, wouldn't it be nice to know that safety biomarker research will help identify those who would be injured, and save them from certain injury, and imbue rational discourse into medicine on the practice of artificial immunization? What if medicine became deeply interested in vaccine injury as a medical research field? I understand the perspective of the injustice of the same medical community profiting from "saving" people from injury from medicine that are, according to the US Supreme Court, "unavoidably unsafe". I think that's a cop-out by SCOTUS, nothing has been done to try to make them safer, there exists the Congressional mandate to make them safe, and to identify susceptible subgroups.

-Other various points, I don't see why people think they can ask a person who is working on one aspect of a problem why they are not addressing topic x, y or z either in a given article, letter, or in some cases in what they consider the right paragraph. Taken as a whole, my messages can inform those who want to know what positions I hold. To politicize different strategies is not a luxury we can afford. I am working to improve overall brain health in our nation, and worldwide. Treatment options are in the pipeline to get aluminum out of the brain. Pardon me if I don't discuss mandates when I'm focusing on those already injured, and pardon me if I don't focus on those already injured when I'm focusing on preventing injuries, and pardon me if I don't focus on how wrong mandates are when I'm working to ensure informed consent in a world already filled with mandates. Again, I wish all well in their endeavors, see you online everywhere! if you're not already befriended to me as Jack. Also, please drop by and see if any of the many projects we have are worth your attention.

Hera

I am grateful to James Lyons Weiler for all his activities on behalf of vaccine injured kids.Identifying who is going to end up with encephalitis/brain damage from vaccines is a good first step. Identifying what the long term effects are from seizures following dtp for example; that would be helpful too. At the moment, too often the official story is
ALL vaccines are safe for everybody
Well occasionally, coincidences happen and people die or are injured...
Well if these coincidences are caused by vaccines, they are really rare.
When looking at the science,after studying encephalopathy, we can also start to see who is more likely to develop cancer, asthma, type 1 diabetes. ( MTHFR mutations have already been linked with smallpox vaccine reactions.)
Having science that shows that vaccines can be dangerous in particular ways to different subsets of people is a good first step.
And this information can be used to fight against mandates.
Medical choice without mandates of course, should be a basic human right ,regardless of vaccine safety .
However, once we can identify markers, then at the very least,the vaccine injury compensation board will have a much harder time denying compensation, and thousands of people will at least be able to get money to help their disabled children live better lives.

Remember Dr. Healy

Funny how there was no outcry from our community when Dr. Bernadine Healy called for finding the "susceptible subset" of children who have adverse reactions to vaccines: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3o2R8j4QpBE Yet James Lyons-Weiler is attacked for suggesting essentially what Dr. Healy called for in an interview that received high praise from our community.

Since vaccines will probably always be with us, there's nothing wrong with offering parents and doctors a marker or test of some kind that signals an increased susceptibility to harm if a child (or adult) is vaccinated, even if such a test is imperfect.

Such a test would not be protected by the NVICP and the manufacturer could potentially be sued, therefore it would be incumbent on the manufacturer to employ measures to ensure that parents and doctors are informed that the test is a guide only to show increased susceptibility and is NOT a guarantee that the child will be free of vaccine injury, despite "passing" it. Parents might have to sign a consent form that says they understand the test does not cover all biological makers for vaccine injury or that the test is not 100% reliable. This is nothing new. Many medical tests can determine a higher likelihood of contracting a disease or condition, and some of those tests have a wide margin of error. But we don't throw out those tests or make them unavailable to the public just because they're imperfect! They're still offered with proper caveats. It's absurd to deny information to people because a medical test has limitations or because the information could be misinterpreted or misused.

Furthermore, such a test would have the benefit of raising awareness among parents and doctors that vaccines are not safe for everyone and that it's impossible to know for certain who could be harmed. More information is always a good thing. We should follow through with Dr. Healy's call for finding the susceptible subset(s) of children who could be harmed by vaccines. To oppose such tests for fear of them being abused, misused or misinterpreted is simply wrong. That's not a good reason to deny medical information to parents and doctors.

We should follow through on Dr. Healy's call to find susceptible subset(s) of children who could be harmed by vaccines.

John Stone

Hans

Truth is a much better weapon against lies than more lies. We must not descend to that level.

Having said that we are off topic.

Hans Litten

Posted by: John Stone | February 08, 2018 at 06:09 AM

JDS , a story like this definitely has its uses . Same as the Putin story .
The CDC is lying continuously and brazenly .
Maybe Bill & Melinda will respond ? Lets drag them out into open , get them talking , and then the very first thing we do , is ask them about William Thompson or Poul or SimpsonWood or sv40?

JDS , the CDC has played the three card trick on all of us for 40 years.
The CDC are just fairground tricksters , on an unimaginable scale.
Why would we want to be playing fair John ?
Dirty War this one . We must play dirty .

John Stone

Hans

While I would be very surprised if Bill Gates had vaccinated his own children this story is not credibly documented - it is just sort of thing which is put out to discredit social media. The same author also claimed a hotline to Vladimir Putin. In this case no doctor is named, no explanation of how tape/transcript came to light.

Hans Litten

Here is a good one for all - love this !! https://yournewswire.com/bill-gates-doctor-vaccinate/ Bill Gates’ Former Doctor Says Billionaire ‘Refused To Vaccinate His Children’ Bill Gates DID NOT VACCINATE HIS OWN !!!!!!

david m burd

James, you say:

"My record speaks for itself. While pointing out that newer approaches to artificial immunization might be possible, I have also made the point that if I were involved in the invention and patenting of new technologies for artificial immunization, I would ask the FDA to not classify them as a biologics or vaccines, but rather as a new device, so that my (completely hypothetical) company would be held liable under the law for any adverse consequences, so the product could be recalled, and that knowledge use to improve the product. I would conduct randomized prospective clinical trials with long-term total health outcomes awareness for the participants of the studies and insure that the studies were large enough to guarantee that adverse events with rates as low as 1-2% could be detected."

1) You say "trials with long-term outcomes" coupled with "studies -- large enough." How many hundreds of thousands of babies would be in these trials? Actually I suggest a couple million in both the placebo cohort and in the vaccine-injected cohort. At least those couple million babies left unvaccinated would remain healthy.

2) Apparently you are completely unaware that patents are granted solely on their novelty (i.e. originality), and NOT as to their being beneficial. Our patent system long ago stopped requiring a benefit, as originally intended by U.S. patent law. Being professionally involved with patents for over 50 years I know of what I speak, and I've spent 15 years in the world of medical patents. Hence, we now have tens of thousands of patented pharmaceuticals on the market wreaking havoc and death (but, they sure are original, and granted, and prescribed).

3) Your well-intentions I compliment; your naive belief in ever making vaccines safe is as naive as it gets as is your trust in coming up with genuine " biomarker" and genetic tests to ever accurately determine the fragility of babies to certain vaccines. And, to repeat, such patented tests never have to prove they work in order to be patented. Just so you know.

Laura Hayes

Linda1, thank you for your comments to JLW...they are spot on.

Although it was good to read that JLW opposes vaccine mandates, here are problems I still have with what he writes:

1. "...my position of empowering parents and doctors with the knowledge of biomarkers to identify individuals who are most susceptible..." Many will fall for this pit-filled approach. It is wrongful arrogance to think that one can predict how another will react when injected with all types of ingredients that have no business being injected in the first place, and into a closed system at that. In my opinion, all that will do is make money off of innocents, expose them to painful and unnecessary testing procedures causing emotional and physical harm, set the stage for doctors to say your child has "pre-this disease" or "pre-that condition", setting into motion further testing, procedures, and pharmaceuticals which will cause harm creating the "need" for further testing, procedures, and pharmaceuticals. Doctors, hospitals, and pharmaceutical companies will continue to laugh all the way to the bank, leaving children and families to suffer a lifetime of pain, illness, and regret.

Here in CA, it is now mandated that all newborns be genetically screened for scores of conditions. A parent must sign a self-incriminating waiver to avoid this invasion, an invasion whose results will be used who knows how in the present and future. Of course, it is always for "the good of the baby". Yeah, right, where have we heard that before. No doubt, lobbyists for testing companies and pharma were behind that "public health" bill.

2. "For me, the urgency for real vaccine risk screening to provide evidence for medical exemptions is that pediatricians believe - incorrectly - that they have no alternative but to vaccinate everyone." This potential expansion of the the ME criteria is what some wrongly used in CA as we fought SB277. Instead of demanding the return of the unfettered use of a PBE in CA, which was restricted and essentially turned into a ME as a result of AB2109 when a doctor's signature became required, or more importantly, demanding the immediate elimination of mandates, many steered the fight to the expansion of the ME. That was a tragic mistake, possibly instigated and nurtured by infiltrators strategically placed to control the opposition. Pediatricians and parents need to be educated as to the facts, i.e. that there is no vaccine, nor combination thereof, that has ever been appropriately tested or proven to be safe, effective, or needed. Furthermore, they need to be educated that every vaccine will cause harm, and that it is more likely than not that the harm will be significant, including to the point of lifelong illness, permanent disability, and premature death. We need to return to the basics, and that includes the ethical practice of medicine, which includes the oath to first, do no harm, and the right of the patient/parent to decline or refuse any medical, treatment, or procedure, without any government interference, coercion, cost, or penalty...nothing more that a simple "no thank you" should ever be required, sought, or permitted.

3. In reference to Drs. Thomas, Hirschfield, and Tenpenny, "All are doing good, and all are against mandates." There is ample evidence that those vaccinating are not doing good. Due to the fact there is absolutely no reliable evidence that even one vaccine is useful, beneficial, or anything other than damaging to the human body both short and long term, not to mention in subsequent generations, those still vaccinating are not doing good. They are inflicting harm of cataclysmic proportions.

4. "Pediatricians don’t read VISs, and vaccine inserts, and many do not know what’s in the vaccines they are injecting into infants, pregnant mothers, and children. Biomarkers could alert them to patients at highest risk." Presumptuous and dangerous assertion, and the Russian Roulette of vaccine damage would continue. Additionally, subjecting newborns, infants, and toddlers to testing because doctors are too lazy to do their jobs correctly is not the solution. Absolutely no prophylactic medical treatment or procedure should be on the market whose efficacy, benefits, and necessity have not been proven by the most stringent means of testing. Vaccines fail on all 3 accounts.

5. "The 1986 Act mandated finding those who are most susceptible, and nothing was done. Thus, biomarkers. Due to the CDC and the IOM stifling of science on the causes of ASD, individuals with increased risk remain unidentifiable. When they do become identifiable, via biomarker screens, they are then entitled, as an identifiable genetic minority, to equal protection from harm under the Fourteenth Amendment."

I can't even imagine where biomarkers testing will land us, but I suspect and predict it won't be good. And what will happen to those who "pass" the screening, but who then succumb to myriad vaccine injuries, both short and long term, and who also forever forfeit the benefits of naturally acquiring childhood infections? And what will happen to those who "fail" the screening, who will be targeted/stigmatized/penalized for their less than optimal "biomarkers"? In our world of technology, the sharing of results will be rapid and widespread, and used to victimize those tested while financially benefitting all who figure out how to profit off the new biomarkers business.

6. "It is difficult to understand how the total sum of these populations can be misconstrued to mean a "few susceptible", as Manookian represented." Leslie's comment is most likely in response to this statement from your article: "I would recommend not reading the New York Times until they retract their call for injury and death in a genetic minority of people who, through no fault of their own, are susceptible to vaccine injury." Specifically, your reference to "a genetic minority of people who...are susceptible to vaccine injury." There is no person alive who is not susceptible to vaccine injury given the ingredients and given the fact that they are injected. To argue otherwise is akin to saying only a genetic minority will be harmed by drinking a glass of arsenic.

7. "The consequences and likely future that I see will be widespread calls to reformulate approaches to artificial immunization when biomarkers demonstrate the full extent of measurable harm, and an opening of the markets to novel and creative approaches to artificial immunization." Your mentions of artificial immunization and an opening of the markets are both disturbing. I do not believe for one minute that the focus should be on artificial immunization, rather, it should be on health and development optimization, which inevitably lead to naturally-acquired immunity, resulting in all types of known and as of yet known benefits. And the opening of markets for artificial immunization sounds like what we are currently living with, and trying to end.

8. "There are many benefits to vaccine risk biomarkers, the most obvious being a reduction in the incidence of vaccine injuries." The way to reduce the incidence of vaccine injuries, which occurs in 100% of recipients, and which often also harms those with whom vaccine recipients come in contact and recipients' offspring, too, is to eliminate vaccines. The vaccine paradigm is a dangerous one that does not produce or optimize health. A new health paradigm is needed, and it includes: a return to time-proven, risk-free ways to protect, maintain, and enhance health, development, fertility, and longevity; a complete overhaul of our "food" system; a massive elimination of legally-permitted toxins presently in widespread use; and additional common-sense measures which don't require years of study and billions of dollars.

9. "While pointing out that newer approaches to artificial immunization might be possible, I have also made the point that if I were involved in the invention and patenting of new technologies for artificial immunization, I would ask the FDA to not classify them as a biologics or vaccines, but rather as a new device, so that my (completely hypothetical) company would be held liable under the law for any adverse consequences, so the product could be recalled, and that knowledge use to improve the product." Profits ahead, and no doubt big ones at that as the "fear of disease" will continue to be taught to and indoctrinated into the public, beginning at the earliest of ages.

10. "Let me state this as clearly as possible: as currently formulated, vaccines are filthy, nasty vials of toxic sludge that every American citizen and parent should be able to refuse for any reason." The caveat, "as currently formulated", certainly leaves the door wide open for new, very profitable formulations, which will still be predicated on the lies of safe, efficacious, and needed "artificial immunity".

You can't unbreak china, in the words of a wise friend of mine. Let's stop breaking our children via vaccines, and via the pharmaceuticals that often precede and follow them.

Ottoschnaut

Bill- you are preaching to the proverbial choir about psychiatry here, especially the Freudian stripe....

One of the more fascinating analysis was published right here on AoA authored I believe by the late Dan Olmsted perhaps with Mark Blaxill.

The article discussed how Freud probably misdiagnosed mercury poisoning as some kind of hysteria by tracing the medical histories of his first patients.

Linda1

"All that matters is that I am a free human being. "

AMEN.

Bill

Lyon-Weiler makes one small, but glaring error. there's no such thing as the "DSM-V". Use of Roamn numerals was ended by the APA, and it's now officially the "DSM-5". And, psychiatry is a pseudoscience, a drug racket, and a means of social control. It's 21st Century Phrenology, with potent neuro-toxins. The DSM-5 is nothing more than a catalog of billing codes. All of the bogus diagnostic allegations in it were invented, not discovered, to serve as excuses to $ELL DRUG$, and act as means of social control. Psychiatry creates the very stigma which it then purports to decry. Much of the same greed and pseudoscience behind vaxxes is also found in psychiatry and psych drugs.
*BUT*, I have to also agree with one other comment here. Lyon-Weiler and Leslie Manookian *BOTH* need to re-learn what "concise" means, and consider hiring a PROOFREADER!....
Hey, if that's the most negative criticism I got, we're all doing pretty good!
KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK, People!

Benedetta

Oh, and I asked the head neurologist at the University medical center about the testing of my husband's type of mitochondrial disorder only two weeks ago. So, that information is current.

Benedetta

Well, since mitochondrial diseases are mentioned----
Some years back some one on Age of Autism said that they can now figure it out who has it by more simpler test than a muscle biopsy.

Spitting in a cup, or a swab on the inside of the mouth cheek, or blood test?

I asked the neurologist , at the university, who is in that special position of being some head guide over mitochondrial diseases.

He says that the type that my husband has -- the one that he acquired from a DPT vaccine; the same kind as Hannah (I did not say her last name, but you all do know who I am talking about) Still requires a muscle biopsy to figure out who has this type of mitochondrial disease.

By the way, it is acquired.
So slicing a rather big piece of muscle off of both upper arms and the thighs and leaving a scar before the vaccine would be kind of useless. Yeah, cause they don't have the mitochondrial disease till after the vaccine.

Leslie Manookian

Jack/James,

In our past interactions, you’ve hesitated to condemn mandates and you have advocated for testing the genetically susceptible. My experience with you and the language you’ve used in your writing, coupled with the language in the specific article in question, is what I was responding to. But I want to be very clear, I’m delighted to know that you have shifted your opinions and now oppose mandates!

Moreover, you wrote, ".... as currently formulated, vaccines are filthy, nasty vials of toxic sludge that every American citizen and parent should be able to refuse for any reason ..." Bravo to you for stating this truth. You have indeed come a long way!

I want to make a couple of other comments as well.

When you write, "(1) Mandates are scientifically unfounded; (2) Mandates are unethical; (3) Mandates violate Federal Regulations on informed consent.”, I still don’t think you go far enough as it is my right to decide how I treat my body and stay well. MINE and mine alone. Federal regulations should be irrelevant, whether mandates are scientifically founded is irrelevant. All that matters is that I am a free human being. This is the kind of language that concerns me.

Regarding your belief that I misinterpreted your article, I respectfully disagree. I’d ask, if you truly condemn mandates as you wrote in your AOA piece, why was that not the gist of your article to the NY Times? Why not use it as an opportunity to educate readers about the errors of that type of thinking, about the unethical notion of mandates? Why not go right to the source of the problem: the implicit belief that it is acceptable for the state to force someone to inject something into their body?

You allege that I defended medical exemptions, but this is twisting the truth and intent of my article. Not once do I defend medical exemptions. The only purpose of the article was to help frightened parents who’d just been stripped of their rights by an out of control government – precisely because those parents had no other option! While FDA may not recognize 23andMe genetic testing, in California, medical exemptions are given at the discretion of doctors and doctors can and do use 23andMe and other genetic testing to determine potential susceptibilities. And to be clear, I suggested getting a genetic test - 23andMe was just one option. I also wrote in the same section, "given the toxins and adventitious ingredients in vaccines, ALL individuals should qualify.” [For a medical exemption.] This can hardly be construed as a defense of medical exemptions!

When you write that you don’t know why someone wouldn’t want to know their specific risk, I believe you are missing the point. It’s not that people might not want to know the risk, it’s that a test will NEVER be able to ascertain the entirety of one’s specific risk and even if it could, it doesn’t matter because people should still be free to decide for themselves. We must never cede that ground to the state - sadly I believe your language often does. Imagine I take a test and am told that I have no genetic polymorphisms that make me susceptible to metal toxicity so I don’t qualify for a medical exemption. In a world of mandates with exemptions, would I still have to receive the vaccine? In California I would. What if I don’t want to inject those poisons into me, no matter what the test says?

You write, "Exemptions are a necessary steam-valve on mandates, and her article misrepresents mine.” I couldn’t disagree more. And this is really the crux of my whole critique. Mandates should not exist in the first place - then there would be no “need" for exemptions. This language suggests readers accept the loss of their rights - which I strongly oppose. It also subtly conflicts with your statements that you oppose mandates and as such confuses readers.

The other issue I take with biomarkers is it’s putting the cart before the horse because vaccines have not been proven safe. Until vaccines are proven safe, they should not be administered. I understand you have a strategy and believe you are helping the cause and you may be correct that others like you will come along with you and discover what you’ve discovered - and for what it’s worth, having read this today, I do believe you’ve shifted - a lot, and I truly applaud that.

I wonder, what if every doctor and every scientist out there stood up and unanimously stated that vaccines have never been properly tested, that vaccines in their current form are not safe, and that mandates are unethical. Wouldn’t that really shake things up? Wouldn’t that really cause debate and questioning of vaccine ideology? Wouldn’t that go much further than just one scientist or doctor sticking his neck out and getting whacked by the establishment? That’s when I think real change would occur - and it would spare many more lives.

To conclude, I don’t take issue with different strategies to further our shared goals, I take issue with language which I feel undermines those goals. When you use language which implies mandates are acceptable as long as there are exemptions, I have a problem with that. Further, I believe uneducated readers are subtly brainwashed to accept the state’s power, rather than stand up and exercise their own power which ultimately undermines our shared goals.

I once read in a parenting book that parents should be careful of every word they use when speaking to their children as they are subtly brainwashing them with every word. I think this is really good advice - and true. I often slip up, but I find paying attention to my words is important and in this context, I believe it's critically important.

All the best on the journey!

Ottoschnaut

As I posted yesterday, I am a friend of JLW and on IPAK board.

I read with interest all the comments. I admire the passion of our communtity.

As to whether we should have a big ten or a little one- if there should be a "no vaccines no way!" barrier for inclusion in our political movement to out the truth about vaccines- my viewpoint is no. For at least the two following reasons:

1) The following group, for example, would not be available to help us beat back mandates:

https://physiciansforinformedconsent.org/

2) When I lobbied my state legislators and school board to get FluMist out of my county schools, and to beat back a proposed HPV vaccine mandate in the state house- if I had started the conversation with, "All vaccines are poison," I would have been disregarded from that moment. Even if all vaccines are poison. The truth doesn't matter. What matters is dialog and compromise. If you don't believe me- think about abortion. The truth is that abortion kills an unborn fetus (a person)- or it is simply scraping a zygote off a uterus wall. Politically, there is no truth, only point of view. The same is true with the vaccine argument.

We all can agree that we own the right to decline vaccination for any reason. After we inalienably secure that right, which is under constant attack, the next battle could be "ban all vaccines."

Speaking from my personal experience, medical doctors get more credibility than non docs on vaccine issues in a legislative setting. Not accepting the help of doctors who support our common goal of securing vaccine refusal rights is a strategic and tactical mistake.

Is SB277 more likely to be repealed if the dialog on our side (repeal SB277) starts with: "All vaccines are poison?" No, that argument makes our side less likely to win that political argument. 2/3 of the legislators will tune you out from that second. That's the way it is.


Donna L.

This has been a fascinating series and I do appreciate that Dr. Lyons-Weiler was given the opportunity to clarify his position. But in all honesty, how can we ever believe that doctors would take the time to learn about vaccine risk biomarkers and then order and appropriately interpret the test results when they cannot even read vaccine package inserts or report adverse reactions to vaccines? Here we are twenty to thirty years into massive vaccine injury casualties, and outside of alternative/biomed physicians, doctors still have no clue about what is even in the vaccine vials, let alone the possible health effects on infants, children, pregnant women and adults?

The only way to ever get out of this mess, in my opinion, is to repeal the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Act (which Dr Lyons-Weiler recommends), and to go back to holding doctors, nurses, and vaccine manufacturers legally/financially liable for whatever damage they create. I mean, look how long we've been attempting to educate them. It doesn't work! Outside of the few outstanding physicians in the autism biomed movement who've given up their careers and their very lives to do the right thing by their patients, there are no doctors out there who will educate themselves enough to put the health and safety of their patients above their own personal comfort level. It's just not gonna happen.

Cait from Canada

"Everyone in our community needs to push in the same general direction to increase vaccine risk awareness."

Amen!

Jeannette Bishop

Thanks, Age of Autism, for a platform for this and many related discussions. Thank you, Dr. Lyons-Weiler and Leslie Manookian for all your work to increase informed consent on this aspect of disease (and population) manipulation.

Dr. Tenpenny broadly canvasses the topic in this hour lecture. I think her idea of vaccines as the industry's economic loss leader (maybe less of a loss lately) for pharma could be an effective way to talk about them:

https://youtu.be/ZDg7CUh53ys?t=7m35s

go Trump

War is when the government tells you who the "bad guys" are...

Revolution is when you figure it out for yourself.

cia parker

Several commenters seem to be saying that Dr. Lyons-Weiler claims that autism is "genetic." I and many more often say that there is a genetic propensity to react to vaccines, which everyone in my family has, but if we don't get the fateful vaccine(s), then we're fine and healthy. That should be indisputable, as is the fact that many children with no known genetic predisposing factors react to vaccines with autism anyway.

Dr. Lyons-Weiler said: "Published estimates of how much "genetics" explains autism range between 38% to 50% (which I have seen exaggerated as high as 80%) - and, in "Causes", I make clear that studies support that much of the "genetic" risk is actually "genetic x environment interaction" risk, due to variation that makes certain individuals more susceptible to toxins in vaccines than others. These I call "environmental susceptibility genes", and I also state that every human being has the right to express their own genetic variation without fear of being harmed by mandated vaccines for some "greater good"."

The "environment interaction" risk we're talking about here is vaccines. And the range of those with these predisposing genes is speculated to be between 38 and 50%, possibly higher. But that still leaves a lot of people who get autism for unknown reasons. How can anyone take offense at Dr. Lyons-Weiler saying this? Has it become a tenet of the anti-vaccine faith that there can be no preexisting genetic factors which predispose to autism when vaccinated, and anyone who says there are must be soundly rebuked?

cia parker

Dr. Lyons-Weiler,

Thanks you for your detailed and impassioned rebuttal. I recognized from the beginning that you were not in favor of mandates.

I don't know how vaccines could be made safer. Taking out aluminum would be good, but I just read yesterday in Dr. Richard Halvorsen's All About Vaccines that there are no viable ideas as to what could be used to adjuvant killed-pathogen vaccines in its stead. Maybe calcium phosphate, but it might also be that it would prove as poor a substitute as the other chemicals they have tried.

Reading Dr. Richard Moskowitz' Vaccination reinforces how dangerous vaccines are just by the fact that they are designed to irritate the immune system into often very dangerous, disabling, or fatal reactions to them. With any vaccine you are taking a chance, and you are altering immune and neurological function, usually for the worse.

And I agree with you that vaccines are toxic sludge. But beyond that, they are usually effective at causing the desired antibodies to be made to prevent the targeted infectious diseases. I'm sure you've read my cautious approval of the DT series after the age of two, possibly the dangerous Hib series between 4 and 18 months for those babies not breastfed and in daycare, and the polio series if it were to come back here. All of these vaccines have a proven record of effectiveness. They're still dangerous, but not nearly as dangerous as the pertussis, flu, measles, mumps, rubella, and HPV vaccines. And no one should be forced to take any of them. The rabies vaccine is also very dangerous, but if your child is bitten by a rabid bat, most people would accept the risk of the vaccine rather than the risk of rabies.

I said last month commenting on your article that testing children for known biomarkers for heightened risk is only sensible. Knowledge is power. I think it would be cutting off your nose to spite your face to refuse available testing because you're afraid the industry will use it to force vaccination on those who have no known biomarkers. Better to fight any such proposed legislation and find out where you or your child stands. And even if your child has certain biomarkers, the parent might still decide to take the chance of getting some of the vaccines if the danger from the diseases seemed very great.

And I believe that children getting the less serious diseases is very beneficial for training their immune system and optimizing their long-term health. It is a very foolish thing to get the MMR, pertussis, hep-A, rotavirus, or chickenpox vaccines. But diseases like tetanus, diphtheria, and polio are worth preventing, which usually means vaccines. Homeopathic nosodes are safe and effective, and available for all the VPDs, but I don't think anyone knows at this time how long their protection may last. Probably not for as long as vaccine protection, which isn't as good as protection from going through diseases like measles, mumps, and chickenpox naturally, but we really don't know at this time. Some children in pilot studies in South America have been shown to have antibodies to the VPDs after several years of taking increasingly high potencies of the nosodes: antibodies aren't the only way they protect, the cellular immunity provided may last for many years even when the antibodies fade, but we really just don't know at this time. Some people can't make antibodies at all, and yet they often have disease protection by other means, probably a mechanism of the cellular immune system.

I wouldn't put my trust only in the powers of a well-nourished, basically healthy immune system. Even healthy, well-nourished people often die, even with the best of hospital care, when they get toxin-mediated diseases like tetanus or diphtheria. Or meningitis.

It shouldn't be a war between the all-recommended-vaccine cohort and that of the no-vacciners. No matter what a parent chooses may turn out to be the wrong choice. All anyone can do is look at the known factors for increased risk in an individual child, study the frequency of the occurrence of VPDs in his community and also the frequency of disability or death they cause, and make a choice. But it's just not morally superior to let your child get and be crippled by polio (if it returns) or Hib disease because it establishes your credentials as a real anti-vaxxer. Nor is it proof of your being a card-carrying member of the religion of Science if you get your child every last one of the recommended vaccines at the recommended ages. That's just being a fad groupie, or a member of something resembling a cult. The lifetime health of the individual child in a specific time and place should be the primary consideration. The law of Nature has always been a cruel one, and Nature thinks nothing of extinguishing entire populations with contagious disease. It's important to try to ride the waves, but not be fooled into thinking that either Nature or Science cares about your child. Only the parents do.

So now we see that we all agree that there should be no mandates. Even if the bubonic plague returned, there should be no mandates. If it did, and there were a vaccine which appeared to be effective and not particularly deadly, then most people would get it, and it shouldn't matter to them if their neighbors chose to decline it.

Thank you for your impressive research, Dr. Lyons-Weiler! Again, knowledge is power, and we need a lot more of it to use in making our decisions.

cherry Misra

Thankyou Bob Moffit, once again, for setting the needle of the compass straight. We must hang together and fight in the same direction. Our enemies will try their best to divide us . We have, each one of us, evolved in our journey as we saw things more clearly and got more scientific information. Lets accept that we are all evolving but our goals are similar. Thanks to Age of Autism for giving us this forum for discussion. Hey- Dan Olmstead would have enjoyed this one.
And speaking of supporting those who fight for what is true and right, I ask everyone here to see the recent news of the legal case won by Mark Geier A two and a half million dollar settlement for someone who was steadfast in pursuing the truth of autism, over many years of harrasment. Let us all join in his praise and rejoice tonight.

david m burd

Linda1 (we agree),

Our understanding the infinitely complex interactions of our biological/molecular health is simply not possible. Vaccine makers/inventors/promoters/CDC-Leaders, et al. are politically driven by the their urge to control others, however "well intended" - along with their incredible callousness toward their individual victims. The following sums up the toxic world of pharmaceuticals and vaccines.

"Nature is not benevolent, but just, gives pound for pound, never tempers her mercy, or winks at any infringement of her laws" ---

It is utter hubris to assert otherwise.


Ted Kuntz

A am grateful for this rich dialogue. This is what is missing in mainstream medicine with regards to vaccines. Having a forum where we can discuss, debate, disagree, clarify, and deepen our understanding benefits us all.

Twyla

Thank you so much for your work, for wading through these complex issues and making sense, for falling down the rabbit hole and applying your scientific background where it is sorely needed. No easy answers, but for sure we must have the right to make choices, and we need better, disinterested science and medicine.

Linda1

"I must, as an objective scientist, also warn against the same type of hubris that proclaims that safer means of artificial immunization cannot ever be made. Such generalization requires full knowledge of all possibly conceivable approaches to artificial immunization. If the assessment is based on the past performance of evil-doers, I cannot place blame on those who mistrust scientists – but those who mistrust those scientists must avoid mistrusting all scientists."

That's not hubris. That's not even science. At this point in time, that's common sense. Because even if one can get away with removing the risk of infection from one individual without serious adversity, the process still manipulates the microbial environment in unknown ways. THAT is hubris and why I will always mistrust scientists who think they have a right to answer any question they ask. Just because we can do something, doesn't mean we should. Scientists didn't know that vaccinating for mumps would greatly increase the incidence of ovarian cancer. They had no idea that naturally acquired mumps antibodies killed ovarian cancer cells. But even with that knowledge, they still want to vaccinate for mumps.

As you know, the history of vaccination shows that vaccination causes other, oftentimes greater, problems. As Dr. Wakefield puts it, "mother nature will always win" and as Dr. Humprhries put it, 'it's like playing whac-a-mole'.

"I would love to see studies that demonstrate that supplement can protect the human brain against vaccine injury."

Who would you use as subjects? The most ethical course would be not to vaccinate while providing optimal nutrition. Vaccinating puts people and the population at great risk.

Jenny

I think Leslie Manookian does great things and have always appreciated her take on things and will continue to take her opinions seriously. Having gone back to read the Lyons-Weiler article to which her article referred, I didn't have the same interpretation of it that she did, but I could see how that one particular sentence could be isolated and taken on its own interpreted in her light. We are all human and subject to material challenges like typos, omissions, word choices, and even periodically leaving out an entire thought process that is clearly in our mind that we may think is obvious or that in our rush we think we have already conveyed when we actually haven't, inadvertently leaving the cart disconnected from the horse on paper. Couple that with the fact that the longer one reads up on vaccines, the more obvious become the inherent problems of their safety, efficacy, and legal and ethical standing making it very easy to forget that there are "newbies" out there every day reading on the subject for the first time and NONE of it is obvious to them. Suffice it to say, clear writing is critical, and we all can and should ask for clarification from each other when we need it. Most likely if one person needs clarification, there are others out there also wishing for it.
That being said, I appreciate Mr. Lyons-Weiler's response here in all its detail, I've learned a thing or two from it, and thank-you Age of Autism for allowing both writers to speak their mind.

I also like that Lyons-Weiler acknowledges the various ways we could affect the future.
I've said this before and I feel this way even more after reading this exchange: Doctors should be completely prohibited from vaccinating their patients. All vaccinations should only be done specifically in vaccination clinics run solely by the vaccine manufacturer themselves, on their property. They already have offices all over the place and certainly have the money to install them. This would clearly delineate vested interest and remove conflict of interest from MDs practicing medicine who have been "mandated" to give vaccinations with the incentive of making extra money upon reaching coverage percentages while said coverage is being monitored by an AFIX setup up looming over on their practice like a silent threat. It would remove coercion. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/programs/afix/site-visit-answers.html

Such a change would pair nicely with reinstating financial liability to the party that should be responsible for own product, and a new mandate that PATIENTS report ALL perceived vaccine reactions as well as any and all new diagnoses made within 6 months of any vaccine to an independent body trained in the recognition of vaccine injury patterns, who could then directly advise families if it looks like they are showing signs of susceptibility to damage exceeding benefit.

Also, involvement in vaccination should be an "opt in" not "opt out" and maybe a family should have to actively get a "license" to obtain a vaccination, and maybe that vaccination license could only be granted if certain immune indicators, hormone, and microbiome, and who knows what else, are all confirming that each particular patient's body is ready and able to handle a vaccine, IF THEY WANT ONE. Without the specter of mandates or minimum coverages, Doctors could supplant $ lost by writing prescriptions for the lab tests, for before and after vaccination. The lab tests should be interpreted by whomever the family thinks should interpret them, including themselves. After analysis, if the family member is ready and willing, they could be issued a vaccine license to present to the vaccine clinic for said vaccination. If the patient doesn't pass the test showing ability to be vaccinated, a notice would be sent to their care provider of choice, whether doctor or nutritionist, with directions to improve their biomarkers, forcing doctors to learn about nutrition and immunology through continuing education and giving them another point at which to regain income lost from vaccination coverage requirements, and ushering in true personalized medicine.

The licensing bureau, really being a independent consumer advocate, would also have to post all reaction rates publicly on their sites, by vaccine, so that consumers could easily see which product has a better safety track record regarding the patient's individual concerns, (Gardesil or Cerivax for instance), thereby incenting competition among the manufacturers to improve their products.

Taxes should be raised on vaccines and any money not allotted to cover injuries at the end of the year should be given to the states for special education programs and respite care for families dealing with the consequences of vaccinosis, currently and retroactively, based upon science as it evolves our recognition of the damages.

annie

Thank you so very much Ms Manookian and Dr Lyons-Weiler for all you do!

Gary Ogden

Dr. Lyons-Weiler: Thank you for this. A battle of words over an apparent misunderstanding does nobody any good. Leslie Manookian does a world of good for this community; it was her film, "The Greater Good" which was the beginning of vaccine-risk awareness for me. So, knowing your position well, I was, frankly, baffled by her article. We're all on the same team, the team that knows the difference between right and wrong.

Science os pure.  People are corrupt

It is impossible to determine who is at risk from a vaccine by the individual's genes, and I am doubtful that it will ever be possible since the fact that approximately half of the current generation of children have been diagnosed with a chronic illness suggests that all will be harmed with sufficient environmental assault. That micribiomes are shared by families may have at least as much influence on familial patterns of illness than human DNA, and that some react to a given vaccine while others do not may be down to variation in contaminants,

Also, informed consent is impossible while science has no understanding of both the level and nature of risk.

The goal of all who are fighting on behalf of public health needs to be the removal of the corruption that pervades the scientific and health establishments; in the interim any delaying action against the rise of human suffering will be helpful.

I have only scanned over both this article and the article yesterday, and would encourage both authors to work harder at incorporating brevity.

bob moffit

"False dichotomies disempower and divide. "Pro-vax" vs. "Anti-vax" is the largest and most limiting pair of false alternatives that has used quite successfully by those historically in control of the CDC and its official and unofficial organs to stifle critical and creative thought, and to shut down meaningful conservations."

Since the beginning of time .. "Divide and Conquer" .. has always been the easiest way to "shut down meaningful conversations" by those in power .. breaking up whatever "unites" those seeking to wrest that power from them.

Common sense dictates it is far easier to defeat an enemy .. if the strength of that enemy can be reduced by turning them against each other.

It's only my personal opinion ... but ... I welcome James Lyons-Weiler into my "anti-vaccine foxhole" .. and .. unequivocally believe him when he writes:

".... as currently formulated, vaccines are filthy, nasty vials of toxic sludge that every American citizen and parent should be able to refuse for any reason ..."

I also agree with his comment: "Everyone in our community needs to push in the same general direction to increase vaccine risk awareness."

After all, isn't "increasing vaccine risk awareness" .. what unites us as a community?

James Lyons-Weiler

Also, Hans, if you read the entire article, you would see that I made it clear that autism is not "genetic".

James Lyons-Weiler

Hans, as I stated in the article, I'm against mandates. Please read the entire article. I wish you the very best of luck in removing mandates. And banning vaccines if you can.

I help Health Freedom groups around the country defend the exemptions. If you think you can help them remove mandates, go for it.

Hans Litten

Sir , nevermind Leslies opinion , its your opinion I want to know .
Autism is never a genetic condition , and your book title intimated you think it is ?
The Seneff projection (which I am happy to believe now) says 1 in 2 by 2032
& 80% of all boys , doesn't that discount the genetic factor ?
1 in 36 now (& I believe those govt figures to be massaged to be lighter than they are !)

Total resistance to all vaccination is the only route.
You know the KenyaHCG saga, this totally invalidates all trust in vaccines to my mind ? no ?
Not to mention all the other rumours (& I believe them all).

Every vaccine harms ! Every Time . Its bleedin obvious.

I have had hardly any vaccines, I had the measles , I had the mumps , I had scarlett fever
I had the BCG (luckily I don't have diabetes on that one) , I had mercury amalgams (& yes I do wear glasses with a heavy prescription - who would believe it ? almost as though that one is deliberate ).
I am as strong as an OX , no vaccines required.
While you are on, what is your take on the fluoridation of the water supply ? & Chem Trails ?

Mandates , forget them , never . Total Resistance , Total refusal . Vaccines are a complete lie.
You know it. I know it.

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.)