Peaceful V is For Vaccine Parents Stand at Jimmy Kimmel Show
Mark Blaxill: Vaccine mandates are bad policies based on false premises

Robert Kennedy Applogizes to Peter Hotez Hookworm, Lyin’ and Stinker

SpankFriends, we invite you to read one of the greatest spankings ever administered on social media (Instagram) in which Robert Kennedy Jr. exposes Dr. Peter Hotez shall we say hookworm, lyin' and stinker. He holds not one but three US Patents based on hookworms, reminiscent of Paul Offit, dissected by our own Mark Blaxill in "Voting Himself Rich" with his own vaccine patent. Offit these days seems to have been sidelined in favor of Hotez and Dorit Reiss.  Ah the phlying phickle phinger of pharma (Google Flying Fickler Finger Flying-fickle-finger-of-fateof Fate, young ones, you'll laugh-in.)

Robert Kennedy Jr. previously responded to the blatant lies told by Dr. Richard Pan and also Dr. Peter "Vaccines did Not Cause Rachel's Autism" Hotez. We wrote about Mr. Kennedy's epic rebuttal here - CA Senator Richard Pan Recalls a Debate With Robert Kennedy Jr... THAT NEVER HAPPENED.

Below is a pictorial from Instagram from Mr. Kennedy. In addition, our own Mark Blaxill, an expert in intellectual property, provided 3 patents held by Dr. Hotez.

 

704C3842-80D7-4BAA-8B2D-87863C78EF80

 

F44D3B4A-A297-4538-84AF-F7207ED5D501

2C66DF17-EAB1-4364-90B8-AB3184AD5913

Download Hotez Patent Enzyme

Download Hotez Human Hookwork vaccine

Download Hotez Hookworm vaccine patent

 

959F27A6-E60F-46B4-9477-9CA220105689

0A19AF21-59F7-4E7F-BD88-B00718E6202B

174E6619-ABDA-42A0-8C2B-AE787AF900AE

Comments

John Stone

Joel

No, Larson, Offit and Plotkin - to be clear - were challenged in a professional journal by two senior scientists (David Healy and Christopher Exley) who recognised Offit’s compendium of studies for a collection of junk: they may also have been embarrassed by their initial failure to disclose competing interest, which appeared in dribs and drabs over the weeks that followed, while you performed your smoke and mirrors operation, whether spontaneously or at their request.

Craig

You know what I see here, Joel? You telling parents of children injured by vaccines that what happened to their child(ren), that what they witnessed with their own eyes, did not happen. That they are mistaken. That what they witnessed was not actually what they witnessed.

This is known as gas-lighting, and it is a tactic that bullies, narcissists, and abusers use. Well done.

I'm curious...in your denial of all of these injuries, did you happen to evaluate the medical charts of the the people claiming that vaccines injured their child(ren)?

Jonathan Rose

Dr. Harrison assures us that "a simple search of PubMed...would find 1000s of safety studies." Well, I searched PubMed under the subject "Vaccine safety" and came up with only 277 hits. Many of those mentioned "vaccines" and "safety", but did not specifically deal with vaccine safety. Others didn't actually test vaccine safety, but simply offered strategies to persuade people that vaccines are safe. And some were genuine vaccine safety studies, such as Jacob Puliyiel's "Deaths following pentavalent vaccine and the revised AEFI classification" [Indian J Med Ethics. 2017], which concluded that no, vaccines are not nearly as safe as Dr. Harrison makes them out to be.

Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH

@ Kathy Sincere

It never ceases to amaze me how people ignore the major point and focus on a detail. My major point was that minor adverse events such as low grade fevers, sore arms, etc. are seldom submitted to VAERS; but serious adverse events are at a much higher level. I also explained that VAERS is but one of several programs to surveil vaccine adverse events.

As for Tylenol. I really don’t have time to research it; but, perhaps, I should have just stated mild fevers. I’m sure you or someone else would have found fault with that as well. So, I did e-mail a friend who is a pediatrician and he still recommends Tylenol. So, while there are a few papers recommending against, since I don’t treat kids, not my concern. I don’t have the time or interest in the topic. My point, I repeat, is that serious events are reported more often to VAERS, that there are teams that if they notice even a couple of serious adverse events, research them, and that there are a number of other programs for monitoring vaccine adverse events.

Maybe future research will confirm the few papers. If it doesn’t will you apologize. I doubt it.

Feel free to find some grammatical error in what I write.

Cia

Joel Harrison,

That's what it comes down to, personal belief based on research and personal experience. I'd ask you again to name the VPD(s) which you think are so dangerous that they justify taking the risk of the vaccines for them. And you need to differentiate between the developed world and the developing one, although even that has turned out not to be as significant a factor as we used to believe.

I've lived in three countries: US, Mexico, and Sweden, and traveled in many more. I have a Ph.D. in Spanish literature and a J.D. I've read over a hundred books about vaccines in the last fifteen years, most of them critical of vaccines, but some of them pro-vaccine. I would not go so far as to make a pointblank statement either way about whether one side or the other is the right one to choose. I think usually the risk of the vaccine is much greater than the risk of the diseases for most people most of the time. But if I were bitten by a possibly rabid animal, I'd get the rabies vaccine. I would do my utmost to avoid ever going into a yellow fever or Ebola zone, but I think the vaccines are an option worth serious consideration for those who live in such an area. I'm glad both my daughter and I have had the tetanus series: it would frighten me to get it now. If polio or serious diphtheria were to occur here now, I'd take the vaccines into consideration.

I haven't read nearly all that you have written. Have you considered that many of us have genes which predispose us to an excessive inflammatory reaction to vaccines? As well as to storing vaccine mercury and aluminum in our brains rather than excrete it? Both my brother and I reacted to our first DPT with screaming syndrome (and Asperger's). I reacted to a tetanus booster with brachial plexus neuropathy, both arms being paralyzed the same day (for several days). Later diagnosed with sometime paralyzing MS by MRI. My newborn was given the hep-B shot without my knowledge or permission, and she reacted to it with encephalitic screaming syndrome for four days and nights. After that she seemed to be fine, but delayed in language milestones. She was saying two words at 18 months, both erased as soon as she got the DTaP booster, and she was diagnosed with autism two months later. She's still severely impaired and low-verbal now at 19. She got pertussis at a La Leche League meeting at eight months old, despite having had three DTaPs, and gave it to me. It was uncomfortable, alarming, and a long disease, but not serious or life-threatening, and we both recovered. Until the booster completed the triggering of the disabling condition begun by the hep-B vaccine.

My father was paralyzed by a flu vaccine for the last three years of his life. My mother reacted to the diphtheria vaccine at four years old with Asperger's and severe bowel disease for the rest of her life. You can see that it is obvious that we have genetic factors which predispose us to severe reactions. So what is being done to screen out those of us in this situation and avoid vaccinating us? (And even if we were screened out, there are still many who would react severely to vaccines.)

I've had measles, rubella, chickenpox, five flus, hep-A, pertussis, and rotavirus. All typical cases, none serious. I recognize that in some people they may all take a more severe course. But everyone in my family would have had excellent lifetime health if it had not been for the vaccines we got and reacted to.

Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH

@ John Stone

You write: “The point stands: the UK and US schedules have not been rigorously safety tested to gold standard - ie pre-market double-blind against genuine placebo. They are not there: when Paul Offit, Stanley Plotkin and Heidi Larson were challenged to present them in BMJ RRs they beat a hasty retreat leaving you to hold the fort, and you found a few threadbare bits and pieces, but it is not good enough.”

Peter Hotez (Twitter): “I express a deep concern that my generation of physicians/scientist is squashing the creativity of the next generation through OVEREMPHASIS (my emphasis) on testing, credentialing, regs, EHR, when we should be fostering cool ideas.”

So, he didn’t reject anything, just expressed in Twitter he felt there was an overemphasis. As for the one post in BMJ RRs, you attacked them for not giving any examples, ignoring, which I pointed out in an RR, that they included a link to a large list of studies, several were placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials. They have busy lives, I had the time to respond; but you ignored what I wrote, giving the URL they gave and giving another URL where you said didn’t appear like placebo controlled trials which I explained some were and you ignored that. As for “not good enough,” first you have to honestly admit that there are placebo-controlled trials, then, it will NEVER be enough for you. As I have mentioned several times, here and elsewhere, a search of PubMed found literally over 10,000 safety studies on vaccines, not all, but many placebo-controlled. You ignore this.

Because they didn’t spend the hours I did in exchanges on BMJ RR, you interpret that as “a hasty retreat.” You are really delusional. They both have full time jobs, which means 50 or more hours per week and families, spending time writing RRs or taking care of sick kids? Which do you think they should be doing?

You write: “it is an insensitive performance: people’s families have been harmed and you (who were not there) keep on citing what you think.”

Well, I actually had a younger brother who if he had been born later would certainly have been diagnosed with autism. In the 1950s my parents were advised to go to a psychiatrist. At the time, psychoanalysis was all the rage, despite having no scientific basis. So, my parents were given the blame. It was never explained why I was “normal.” They paid for private schools that claimed they were experts who took their money and didn’t help. And on and on it goes. My family lived near the poverty line because my father spent every cent he had to help my brother. So, I know what it is like to be taken. I won’t go into details of his temper tantrums, lack of eye contact, idiosyncratic movements, etc. It wasn’t a fun childhood; but I could retreat into my room with my dog and books. And I tried to help my brother, take him to movies, to get pizza, etc.; but I was growing up and had my own life to lead. There are parents who have arranged exorcisms for their kids, one even died. It is a waste of time to continue to accuse me of being insensitive. I am very very sensitive to what families go through with special needs children. In fact, it was a major reason for my studying psychology; but eventually switched to epidemiology and public health. That doesn’t mean I have to agree with their opinion.

Basically, anyone who disagrees with you is a pharma shill, dishonest, callous, etc. And you continue to NOT post some of my comments, claiming they are irrelevant, just opinions, etc. yet post your own and others that are your opinions. How hypocritical!

Patrick

Joel, Don't you wish that they would test vaccines for mutagenicity, and carcinogenicity.

cia

Joel Harrison,

I agree with you that in some cases vaccines can save lives. But they can also take them either by death or disability. And that means that ethically there must be free and informed consent to any vaccine, which implies that refusal is always an acceptable option.

It was undisputed in the years before and after 1950 that receiving the DPT vaccine greatly increased the occurrence of severe and paralyzing cases of polio. It became standard to put a moratorium on the use of the DPT during polio outbreaks. Some have theorized that it was from injection provocation, that possibly the polio virus was on the skin where the injection was placed. I think it's more likely that it was because all vaccinations depress immune function for a period of time, probably usually for around a month, meaning that latent polio infections took hold and were made worse by the DPT injection.

It's just more information to consider in the process of becoming informed as to potential risks and benefits of vaccines. Polio only ever crippled a very small number of the population, but numerically it was a lot. I am convinced that both the polio vaccines were very effective in wiping out polio, that they are both as safe as it's possible to make a vaccine (meaning not entirely safe), that the vaxxed children in India being crippled as a result of getting the vaccine is probably because they often get a large number, too large, in the twice-yearly Pulse vaccination campaigns. India is in a difficult situation, as polio is much worse and harder to control in poor populations in tropical climes, and the Western polio vaccine schedule is not enough to control it there. I'd suggest that they try homeopathic lathyrus sativus both as prevention and treatment.

And it's just more information to consider that in Africa, Dr. Peter Aaby found that overall, the measles vaccine saved lives, but he ALSO found that in the 90% of children in Senegal who got and recovered from natural measles, there was only one-fifth the mortality in subsequent years compared to those who did not get natural measles, whether because they got the vaccine or just did not get measles. Both are true, and all parents have a right to consider the information and then take or refuse the vaccine. The 10% of children there who are significantly malnourished (often from early weaning) or with chronic disease (HIV, TB, malaria, etc.) DO run a higher risk of dying when they get measles. But the other 90% benefit immensely from getting natural measles. Natural measles gives significant benefits to those who get it and recover from it. In the US in 1960, it was almost 100% who recovered from it. Including me. Four million cases a year, 450 deaths. Stronger immune system, protection for future infants, protection from cancer and many other diseases in later life. Parents should know to give the recommended dose of vitamin A and no fever reducers, and, as per another Aaby study, not have more than one measles patient in the sick room, as doing so magnifies the virus.

Free and informed consent is the ethical requirement for vaccines, established by the Nuremberg Convention and the Helsinki Declaration. I completely agree that all sides of the argument which are civilly expressed should be allowed to be given, and usually they are. Not all of my comments have been posted. But how can it be justified to force anyone to take the risk of any vaccine if he does not want to take it, believing that the vaccine is more dangerous than the disease? You cannot (at least should not) demand that a certain number be sacrificed in the hope that a greater number will be saved. What vaccine would that be true of, in societies which now have one in 36 with autism and over half with allergic or autoimmune diseases (etc.)? By the 1940s, pertussis and measles had evolved to become milder, and were routine, relatively mild childhood diseases. Diphtheria requires an additional parasite to be as dangerous as it was a hundred years ago, and it very rarely has it now. And regardless of that, the principle of individual liberty and freedom of choice would still mean that it is an individual decision. Those who are very young, old, or immunocompromised, even those who aren't, have the option of homeopathic nosodes to protect them, regardless of how many take or reject the vaccines.

You've probably seen the Guinea-Bissau study and one from a few months ago which showed that giving the pertussis vaccine in Africa INCREASED rather than decreased all-cause mortality. Again, just another piece of information for people to consider.

You don't need to capitalize my name, it's a nickname for Cynthia.

Kathy Sincere

@Joel A. Harrison

I am totally dismayed that you, PhD/MPH, would recommend TYLENOL for a fever post vaccination. “Personally, I don’t care if a kid gets a 100 degree fever that a couple of children’s tylenol take care of.” I think there are MANY things regarding vaccine-injured children that you don’t care about, Mr. Harrison.

My own son with Aspergers would run a high fever after every single vaccine. The pediatricians at Kaiser would simply advise me to give him Tylenol every few hours and cool baths.

Now we know that he has the MTHFR genetic variance (homozygous) which disturbs his methylation process. His little body could not handle the further insult of having his cytochrome P450 liver enzymes shut down by acetaminophen. No heavy metal detoxification.

Acetaminophen Use for Fever in Children Associated with Autism Spectrum Disorder
Stephen T Schultz* and Georgianna G Gould
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5044872/

Did Acetaminophen Provoke the Autism Epidemic? http://www.altmedrev.com/archive/publications/14/4/364.pdf “An online survey of parents yielded 83 children with autism and 80 control chil- dren ages 1-18 years. Children with autism had more adverse reactions to the MMR vaccine and were more likely to have been given acetaminophen than ibuprofen for those reactions. Compared to controls, children ages 1-5 years with autism were eight times more likely to have gotten sick after the MMR vaccine, and were six times more likely to have taken acetaminophen. Children with autism who regressed in development were four times more likely to have taken acetaminophen after the vaccine. Illnesses concurrent with the MMR vaccine were nine times more likely in autistic children when all cases were considered, and 17 times more likely after limiting cases to children who regressed.1 “

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-avoid-tylenol-after-vaccinations/

John Stone

Joel

Sadly, you keep on spouting self referential nonsense. It was Hotez who selected the quote so he should stand by it. The point stands: the UK and US schedules have not been rigorously safety tested to gold standard - ie pre-market double-blind against genuine placebo. They are not there: when Paul Offit, Stanley Plotkin and Heidi Larson were challenged to present them in BMJ RRs they beat a hasty retreat leaving you to hold the fort, and you found a few threadbare bits and pieces, but it is not good enough.

I think it is very difficult to take your stuff because you keep on citing what you think all the time, while insisting how important this is. But actually it is an insensitive performance: people’s families have been harmed and you (who were not there) keep on citing what you think. Every day people whose families have been harmed by the industry are trashed in the mainstream media and all this preempts science, it is an exercise in prejudice, and what you are giving us is an exercise in prejudice. It doesn’t matter what we have seen with our own eyes: it just happens not to be what you think.

You reproached me before not knowing about your background (I never said anything about your background), but you take no notice of anyone else’s knowledge or experience.

Hans Litten

Posted by: Grace Green | December 10, 2019 at 07:24 AM

& more importantly to you Joel

Personally I attribute your insomnia to your guilty conscience, you are a vaccine injury denialist.
I would imagine when you finally come to terms with and openly admit the fact that the vaccine industry is the greatest fraud and crime in all history, then and only then will your insomnia be cured.

Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH

@ David M Burd

You write: “Also, he is so enamored of his own opinions he dismisses the value of countless parents actually witnessing their infants/toddlers becoming severely injured within minutes, hours, or a few days after their vaccine injections. And he completely neglects to realize the VAERS reporting system only registers little more than 1% of adverse vaccine reactions.”

Yep, VAERS registers about 1% of adverse reactions; but studies have found it registers much higher levels of serious adverse reactions. Personally, I don’t care if a kid gets a 100 degree fever that a couple of children’s tylenol take care of. In addition, there are teams who constantly monitor VAERS for any serious adverse reactions and investigate. Plus you, as most other antivaccinationists, ignore that VAERS is but one of several surveillance systems monitoring vaccines, e.g., Vaccine Safety Datalink, which collect real-time data, not voluntary reports. I wrote a comment on BMJ Rapid Responses, “Wrong About Post-Marketing Surveillance of Vaccine Adverse Events. Response to Jacob Puliyel, John Stone, Allan Cunningham, etc.” that discusses this with references which you can find at:

https://www.bmj.com/content/365/bmj.l2268/rr-7

Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH

@ John Stone

First, you still haven’t posted all of my submitted comments, though they were either answering questions posed by other commenters or responding to attacks on me.

You write: “So, while most people here believe that vaccines are inadequately tested the great hero of Eindecker and Harrison, Peter Hotez, finds the idea of testing the products a waste of his time, but is anxious to make sure no one talks about safety.”

What “most people believe” is not the question. Studies have found that a majority of people believe in angels, demon possession, etc. I could give you a list of placebo-controlled randomized studies of vaccines; but, I already gave you a few which you ignore. I could give you lists of peer-reviewed studies of various combinations of vaccines. And, a simple search of PubMed, the U.S. National Library of Congress online database would find 1,000s of safety studies. All, in your mind, part of the world-wide conspiracy.

You write: “I gather Hotez is actually not to keen on trials - this is his latest tweet.”

I am not on Twitter or Facebook; but I know that Twitter limits size of messages, so, the complete picture is lacking. Having read quite a bit by Peter Hotez, his reaction is probably in response to people like you who ignore all the studies done and always want more. In other words, he, like many other dedicated researchers, wants to devote funds, time, and energy into vaccines that are needed for the developing countries. You can twist, take out of context, base your understanding on Twitter; but your opinion is just that, an opinion based on a weak foundation.

You write: “Eindecker Putting words in my mouth.
I think I would be wary of any product creator who was anxious to stop public discussion of the safety of their products, as Hotez is These products, of course, would have to be tested on economically disadvantaged human subjects who might not have much choice”

Again, there are thousands of journal articles, including editorials, discussing vaccines. There are Congressional hearings, hearings in States, etc. and antivaccinationists do testify. For you, unless everyone accepts that you are right, then there will NEVER be enough discussion. And almost everyone is aware of antivaccinationists and, thus, can easily find their websites like Age of Autism.

And I should point out one other flaw in your and others beliefs. Because the profit margin for vaccines is low and prior to 1986 the risk for lawsuits high (juries award sometimes ignoring the evidence because the feel sorry for the plaintiff and feel the company has deep pockets), the number of vaccine manufacturers plummeted from over a dozen to three to four. It wasn’t the pharmaceutical lobby who was most responsible for the 1986 law. At the time, they were happy to get out of the vaccine business and focus on more profitable products. It was public health experts who feared the return of vaccine-preventable epidemics. Whether you agree with them or not is not the question, that is what they and I believe.

As for the Aaby study of DPT in Africa, it was a natural study, that is, not a randomized study. Other confounding variables could have played a role, e.g., why were some kids vaccinated and others not? You may also have missed Aaby’s follow up study that found the order of vaccinations was a key component. In other words, if given in a certain order they did confer protection far outweighing any risk. So, though only one natural study, its results may have been accurate and that is unfortunate; but, typical of you to find one study. When peniciilin was first used it literally saved 10s of thousands of lives; but it didn’t work with all bacterial infections and a few people died from anaphylactic reactions. So, should we, based on the deaths, have abandoned penicillin? Nope, we learned from it. So, if the one study is valid, then, while unfortunate and Aaby supports vaccinations in developing countries because they work.

This is from Aaby’s paper [Thysen SM, Rodrigues A, Aaby P (2019) Out-of-sdquence DTP and measles vaccinations and child mortality in Guinea-Bissau: a reanalysis. BMJ open].

“Child mortality has declined significantly between 2000 and 2015. Part of this decline is due to a reduction in preventable childhood diseases much of which is commonly ascribed to vaccines. Vaccines are designed to protect against specific pathogens. However, vaccines may have broader effects aside from the disease-specific protection with the live vaccines stimulating the immune system and reducing mortality by more than can be explained by preventing the target infection. Hence, due to beneficial non-specific effects (NSEs) of live vaccines, vaccines may have played an even larger role in the decline of childhood mortality than usually assumed.

CONCLUSION
Overall, we found that out-of-sequence vaccinations in
children were associated with higher mortality compared
with children vaccinated in-sequence. Vaccination
programmes should monitor the sequence of vaccinations
to optimise the overall effect on child survival.”

So, you look for every possible problem with vaccines, ignoring that they do work. This is the real world, not your fantasy world. No one could have known that the order of vaccinating would have a negative effect. In fact, the order hasn’t been a problem in developed nations. So, you would have us abandon vaccines. If Aaby’s original study was accurate, it was a tragedy; but we learn from them. If we abandoned every possible medical intervention that in the beginning had problems we would be in real trouble.

Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH

@ David M Burd

Yep, I've read several papers of Weston Price. They give a graph of DDT that is from a book that I went to university library and found several editions. Each did give the same graph; but later in the book a table of DDT by year. I'd have to go back to book to find out why; but the graph and table don't match. And the table matches other tables from other sources. I actually collected and read 81 documents on DDT, including the Weston Price and others claiming its association with polio, etc. The book is Hayes (1975) Toxicology of Pesticides. Page 25. Table 1-6 Pesticide Consumption in the United States, 1953-1970 (note 1970) AND Hayes (1991). Handbook of Pesticide Toxicology Vol 1. which discusses, among other things, pesticides found in body fat studies. And Weston Price ignores the half life of DDT, so the cumulative amounts since DDT use began in 1956 - 1960 in the air, water, and soil would, even if discontinued, be huge. And studies found most DDT in bodies from food and water. So, if you are relying on Weston Price, they are wrong and so are you! ! !

I do my homework. When I read books and other papers I often check out the references, get the originals, to see if they were accurately depicted.

You write: “As to objective observation, I completely disagree with your attitude that it is not possible. I have had a superlative career in being a "troubleshooter" in a plethora of high-tech projects where fixed mindsets could never solve the problems they had themselves created -- it took an outsider like me who was actually "objective" and had no internal "politics/reputation" to protect, as so typical of our Medical Leaders today. Joel, you keep saying/repeating the mantra that terrible. severe vaccine damage is rare. It is NOT rare if you would only open your mind. I can only conclude you will never be "objective", by your own words.”

Of course one can be objective with technological problems. I know lots of people who do trouble shooting, e.g., computer programmers, lab technicians, my dad had a degree in aeronautics from 1930s and supervised mechanics repairing fighter planes during World War II; but when it came to my late younger brother, born 1950 who today would certainly be diagnosed on the Spectrum, he saw what he saw. I won’t go into details. Emotions, beliefs, etc seldom play a role in technological troubleshooting; but, of course those directly involved when something goes wrong can be affected by emotions, not wanting to fail, etc. But research is published and others look at methodology, so even if the individual researchers allowed their perceptions to be affected, this would be caught. Unless you believe that researchers around the world, different cultures, different populations, etc. somehow all have the same unconscious biases? That would be absurd. However, do you really believe that your memory of events, your perceptions of them, etc do not have subjective aspects? Believe what you want; but numerous studies in social and cognitive psychology disagree with you.

And again, believe what you want, I have devoted a lifetime to looking at data, data from many sources and having lived in five different nations, know that, despite cultural differences, slight differences in definitions. To the best of my knowledge, the benefits of vaccines far outweigh the risks.

Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH

@ Grace Green

I have collected and read close to 100 peer-reviewed journal articles on insomnia. However, there is one excellent book that does a great job of covering it, Matthew Walker (2017). "Why We Sleep" In it he discusses how we over our lifetime gradually lose nerve cells. He discusses studies, MRIs, etc. that found that different parts of the brain lose cells at different rates. Unfortunately, the area that decreases in size the most with age is the area that is responsible for generating sleep. In some can lose up to 90% by age 80. So, though I haven't had an MRI on my brain, it is a likely explanation. However, I admit that there is probably a psychogenic aspect as well. I try to do some form of meditation before sleeping. And I do lots of exercise during the day, twice long brisk walks with dog and hour at gym, and only drink one cup of instant coffee in the morning. One other thing that could help is a new mattress. Mine is great, a memory foam; but his book also points out that body heat needs to go down a bit to sleep and memory foam gets quite hot. So, bottom line according to two overnighters at sleep lab, is I get, at best slightly less than six hours per night. The one positive is I get enough stage 4 and 5 Non Rem sleep, which is when the brain clears out toxins, so I'm not worried about senility and Alzheimers (beta amyloid is one of the toxins cleared) but stage 2 NREM not enough, which is stage where memory goes from short term to long term so I have to re-read things to make sure I remember them.

Thank you for your concern

susan welch

https://thefedupdemocrat.home.blog/2019/12/08/vaccine-preventable-diseases-spread-among-the-vaccinated/

Here is an article for Joel and Eindecker to refute.

Science (or lack of it apart), when the media/government health departments had so successfully 'dissed' Dr Wakefield, I assume that, having ruled out vaccines as the cause, or at least the trigger for, autism, they would spend their money and time finding out what DID. How naive I was then!

It was not until 2014 when William Thompson admitted that they had falsified the data which linked MMR and autism, that I started my own research and what an experience that has been.

You may use all the words in the world, you may link to as many studies as you can find, Joel and Eindecker, but we know what we witnessed with our children and grandchildren. Some of us are old enough to know that, for a normal healthy child, measles etc. was NOT feared. We 'oldies' also know that the health of our generation and, indeed, the next, is so much better than the current one.

Whatever you say, it cannot be denied that the health of recent generations has decreased in line with the increase the the liability free vaccine schedule.

John Stone

So, while most people here believe that vaccines are inadequately tested the great hero of Eindecker and Harrison, Peter Hotez, finds the idea of testing the products a waste of his time, but is anxious to make sure no one talks about safety.

Somewhere below Harrison accuses me of deceit over double blind safety trials - and it may be that he has located some trials somewhere - but we are talking about pre-marketing double-blind against saline placebo safety trials. When it comes to the British and American routine schedules, these seem to be completely lacking or not visible (so we don’t know what’s in them if they are hidden away somewhere).

So, all the time we are being asked to trust people who behave in manifestly untrustworthy ways. It is not good enough to say we ought to be protected from this or that disease (which would in itself be very nice), we need to be able to trust the salesman. I’ve had people at the door like Joel insisting on their big-heartedness and personal integrity - sometimes I have even bought something to get them to go away - but when it comes to patient safety it should not cut any ice.

david m burd

@ Joel (and darn good information for everyone),

https://www.westonaprice.org/health-topics/environmental-toxins/pesticides-and-polio-a-critique-of-scientific-literature/

Joel, I acknowledge you do lots and lots of homework. Have you read/studied the above url on polio and how politics have twisted and hidden objective science from not only the public but also from other science investigators?

Since you have related so much personal life experience of yourself, let me tell you relevant history of me. In the late 1940s and early 1950s my parents took their three sons every year to Wilmette, Illinois just outside Chicago. New suburbs were being build and occupied literally adjacent corn fields and other crops, literally across the backiyard fence of my relatives and their children (my cousins). It was unforgettable watching the crop-duster bi-planes spraying DDT (and other neurotoxic chems, I guess), with spray literally coming to my relatives yard and house.

One of my young cousins came down with "polio" - and after several years eventually recovered. One of my aunts was a young nurse in Chicago at that time and became crippled in a wheelchair the rest of her life after participating (volunteered) to take experimental "polio-vaccine" shots.

How can you claim neurotoxic chemicals do not cause "polio-symptoms" and/or death??

As to objective observation, I completely disagree with your attitude that it is not possible. I have had a superlative career in being a "troubleshooter" in a plethora of high-tech projects where fixed mindsets could never solve the problems they had themselves created -- it took an outsider like me who was actually "objective" and had no internal "politics/reputation" to protect, as so typical of our Medical Leaders today.

Joel, you keep saying/repeating the mantra that terrible. severe vaccine damage is rare. It is NOT rare if you would only open your mind. I can only conclude you will never be "objective", by your own words.


Hans Litten

Joel , they have murdered literally millions haven't they ? They = the ProVax Hotez-Offit et al
Please discuss & deny if you are stupid enough to try ?

https://raisingnaturalkids.com/protecting-your-baby-from-sids/here-it-is-sids-listed-as-a-side-effect-on-a-dtap-vaccine-insert/

Here It Is: SIDS listed as a side effect on a DTaP vaccine insert

“70% of children who have died of SIDS received the pertussis vaccine within 3 weeks before death.” Within this 3 week time period after receiving the vaccine, children’s breathing patterns became stress-induced, wreaking havoc on their respiratory systems (Pages 120 and 121 of Vaccine Safety Manual For Concerned Families and Health Practitioners). This stressed induced breathing, combined with a baby sleeping face down would seem to make it even more troublesome for him/her to breathe freely. This is the very same vaccine that lists SIDS as a possible side effect. Something to think about (at the very least).

Notice, the CDC is changing their inserts over the last year, leaving out important side effects even though they are very much still side effects.

Any infant death that is ‘unexplainable’ gets lumped into the term SIDS. I believe much of it has to do with a toxic overload. Here’s some more information on that: Protecting Your Baby from SIDS

As far as the childhood vaccination program, Robert F. Kennedy has been studying the ingredients and the program itself, for years. “These guys at the CDC originally were telling me ‘well, there’s a good mercury and a bad mercury,’” Kennedy said. “I knew at that point, their argument was not with me, it was with the periodic table, because there’s no way that could happen.”

Kennedy said according to well-known vaccine proponent and rotavirus vaccine developer Paul Offit, who he spoke with by phone, ethyl mercury leaves the body so fast that it doesn’t have time to do damage. However, Kennedy said that he had read Thomas Burbacher’s monkey studies which confirmed that although ethyl mercury does clear the blood quickly, it goes directly into the brain, where it rapidly metabolizes into highly toxic inorganic mercury, and then lodges there, creating inflammation and brain damage.

Grace Green

Joel,
I'm sorry to hear about your insomnia. Perhaps, instead of the various conditions you say are not the cause, or indeed autism/ME/Alzheimer's, yours might be psychogenic?

John Stone

I gather Hotez is actually not to keen on trials - this is his latest tweet:

“In my new interview with
@ZDoggMD
, I express a deep concern that my generation of physicians/scientists is squashing the creativity of the next generation through overemphasis on testing, credentialing, regs, EHR, when we should be fostering cool ideas”

So, we can dispense with ground work and just subject population to “cool ideas”!

https://twitter.com/PeterHotez/status/1204156309051830273?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

This is awfully reassuring, as isn’t the fact that Prof Hotez and ZDoggMD get themselves up to look like madmen.

John Stone

Eindecker

Putting words in my mouth.

I think I would be wary of any product creator who was anxious to stop public discussion of the safety of their products, as Hotez is. These products, of course, would have to be tested on economically disadvantaged human subjects who might not have much choice, and would if successful in their objective result in some basic modification of human biology, along with hundreds of other such biological products developed or being developed. But if there were adverse consequences would the inventor be upfront about them? If children died during the experiments how would the experimenter feel about it? Might they not be anxious to have blanket suppression of public discussion? This is not to say that hookworm is not a serious affliction but actually the ethical issues are far from straightforward.

If I was planning interventions in regard to hookworm I would be looking at water supply, food supply, housing, civil engineering projects to give people a wholesome environment.

Eindecker

John please tell me what your objection is to trying to develop a hook worm vaccine, a debilitating and sometimes fatal disease caught by wading in helminth infested rivers in Africa?

John Stone

Joel

The terms in which you address this are absurd ie you are saying that you are good sort of person who understands these things and others people are bad sorts of people who don’t. You may or may not want to shut them up entirely but Hotez wants to shut them up for sure. And you keep on caricaturing what the critics think. Vera Sharav is OK when she talks about Holocaust but emotional when she talks about vaccines. Oh dear!

Well, part of the problem here is that vaccination is practiced on people so if this were humane science you would be happy to listen them if they did not like the effects. Instead you come to a site where there are lot of people with injured children and you do your patronising BS. This is not charming behaviour.

Obviously, the issues manifest differently for the “developed” and the “developing world ”, but in the developing world they have lots of vaccines and they still have high mortality because of the conditions - as to the vaccines not all of them always do good as Aaby and Benn testify.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29616207

In the U.K. they quietly paid off 600 cases of severe DPT damage in three years and went on using the same product for a further 25, while the dangers were denied. This is unacceptable. Often, the adverse effects of vaccines are not rare.

PS I expect Vera is quite emotional about the Holocaust too!

Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH

@ CIA
You write: "You have also posted a lot at Shot of Prevention, which completely blocked me from posting there, as well as several other commenters I know. It allows for NO robust discussion of vaccine safety, wishing only to put forward its one propagandistic narrative."
I posted articles and comments; but did not work for them and had no say so in what they posted. However, I remember quite a few antivaccinationists, far more than the few provaccinationists I've seen on Age of Autism. In addition, there are many other websites that I monitor that have quite a few antivaccinationist comments, e.g., Science-Based Medicine, Respectful Insolence, and Skeptical Raptor.
I don't know why they banned you. If you have any of the comments they didn't post, please post them in a comment here.
All I can say is that monitoring multiple websites, I have seen very few provaccinationists on Age of Autism and many antivaccinationists on several of the pro vaccine websites i monitor. If they banned some they still allowed quite a few, more than Age of Autism.

Posted by: Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH | December 09, 2019 at 07:07 PM

@ Benedetta
First, you are tired of hearing about my parents; yet, you discussed your parents and I responded with empathy. I also explained why I brought up my parents, that I never would have exposed them to something I thought harmful. You can disagree with me; but it is outrageous that you want to believe that I knowingly would ever harm loved one, typical of you and others on Age of Autism.
As for me being "pompous." I guess that means anyone who takes the time to post opinions you disagree with, who explains how they arrived at their opinions, whether you agree or not, is pompous. If so, I take pride in being "pompous."
Second, you claimed Peter Hotez had a for-profit vaccine company. Doesn't matter what else you say if you can just claim anything, regardless of its validity. If you can't give a reference and URL, then why should I believe anything you claim.

Posted by: Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH | December 09, 2019 at 07:16 PM

@ David M Burd

You asked me for my explanation of the rise in cases of autism and I gave mine.

You write: "However, he has cited many references that I would bet do not hold up if indeed we had the time for it. Nevertheless, Harrison fails to pass the litmus test of honest, unbiased "observations" of the tens of thousands of doctors from the 1940 to the mid-1980s when the austism spectrum had begun to be recognized albeit quite rare.”

So, you won’t take the time to check my references; but automatically assume them defective. Must be nice to have such perfect knowledge. As for “unbiased observations” absurd. Everyone’s observations are biased which is why we have developed instruments specifying what to look for and validated them by having a second independent party carry out the same observation. Typical that you want to trust individuals when I have written that overwhelming evidence has found that individuals have selective perception, interpret things they do perceive based on previous experiences and unconscious attitudes, and have time distortion. But you know this is all wrong. You reject not only vaccine science; but all social and cognitive psychology. And you reject, for instance, my example of multiple sclerosis, etc.

Our 1996 law doesn’t protect vaccine makers. If some government wants a bridge built, has its own architects develop the plan, then puts it out for bids, if a company builds the bridge exactly as specified and it collapses, should it be liable? However, if it uses substandard materials or some other way doesn’t follow the plan, then it would be. Public health considers vaccines an essential part. The profit margins on vaccines are minimal. One lawsuit could put some companies out of business, even if they followed the plan, the FDA requirements. In Marcia Angell’s book, Medicine on Trial, she gives details of a trial, not vaccines, where the plaintiff didn’t even document the alleged injuries that the produce was believed to cause. Juries can do whatever they want. In this case, the jury awarded such a huge sum that the company was put out of business. Lots of subsequent research found NO causal relationship. So, the 1986 law, based on the science that says vaccines confer far more benefit than risk; but rare risks exist, so if public policy mandates vaccines, then the public must take responsibility for them. The vaccine court has awarded approximately 3 billion dollars over 30 years. They also pay for plaintiffs lawyers and witnesses. Since the awards are quite generous, sometimes up to $1 million, given lifetime of care required, this means that over 30 years probably 1,000 or so cases, out of literally 10s of millions who were vaccinated. If lawsuits were allowed against the manufacturers they would drag on for years, no guarantee they would win, and the lawyers would take a huge chunk. And if one can show that the vaccine was improperly manufactured, one can sue directly the company. And if you lose in vaccine court you can also sue the companies. And the companies pay for the court. They are assessed a fee for every vaccine sold that goes to the court. So they pay the awards.

As for your belief that DTP or DDT causative of polio, dead wrong. After the vaccine’s introduction in 1955, cases of polio plummeted despite continued use of DTP and despite that DDT continued to be used in large quantities in the U.S. until 1970 and the half life of DDT is quite long, so the cumulative effect of DDT just sprayed from late 1940s - 1955 would mean large quantities in soil, water, and air.

So, wrong again. I have already written part 1 of a 4-part series on polio and polio vaccine. I do my homework. I have well over 1200 documents, journal articles, etc. and a dozen books. And this includes documents on amount of DDT sprayed by year, not one but several independent documents.

Gary Ogden

Joel A. Harrison: You mention that research linking vaccines to autism which you have read is "methodologically weak." What of the safety studies of vaccines themselves? This is robust science? No, it is not science at all. Not a single vaccine licensed in the U. S. has ever been subject to a controlled trial, with the exception of one of the four Gardasil trials submitted for purposes of licensing. I have read the entire text on the CDC website. There was indeed a (very small) proper placebo group, in addition to the treatment group and the adjuvant-only group. However, in the published report, the the results of the placebo group and the adjuvant-only group were combined, making it appear that there was no difference in adverse events between the two groups. The results from the placebo group were buried. What it really showed is that the adjuvant-only group had a slightly higher rate of adverse events. The mortality rate in the Gardasil and adjuvant-only groups was 17 times (1,700%) the background rate for the age group on which it was tested. These girls were selected, like those in drug trials, using exclusion criteria, so only the healthiest, and least likely to die in youth, were enrolled. One more point: you speak of scientific proof. In a court of law, proof beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard for criminal conviction. In science no such standard exists. Hypotheses are always tentative. In other words, science deals not in proof, but disproof. The evidence, from multiple lines of inquiry, is irrefutable that vaccines can and do cause a cascade of events resulting in severe disability, including severe autism. Hannah Polling is the best-known example of this, but there are at least seventy-two other children compensated by HHS for vaccine-induced autism. It is a very difficult mountain to climb to receive such compensation, but this is irrefutable proof that vaccines cause autism.

Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH

@ Benedetta

First, you are tired of hearing about my parents; yet, you discussed your parents and I responded with empathy. I also explained why I brought up my parents, that I never would have exposed them to something I thought harmful. You can disagree with me; but it is outrageous that you want to believe that I knowingly would ever harm loved one, typical of you and others on Age of Autism.

As for me being "pompous." I guess that means anyone who takes the time to post opinions you disagree with, who explains how they arrived at their opinions, whether you agree or not, is pompous. If so, I take pride in being "pompous."

Second, you claimed Peter Hotez had a for-profit vaccine company. Doesn't matter what else you say if you can just claim anything, regardless of its validity. If you can't give a reference and URL, then why should I believe anything you claim.

Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH

@ CIA

You write: "You have also posted a lot at Shot of Prevention, which completely blocked me from posting there, as well as several other commenters I know. It allows for NO robust discussion of vaccine safety, wishing only to put forward its one propagandistic narrative."

I posted articles and comments; but did not work for them and had no say so in what they posted. However, I remember quite a few antivaccinationists, far more than the few provaccinationists I've seen on Age of Autism. In addition, there are many other websites that I monitor that have quite a few antivaccinationist comments, e.g., Science-Based Medicine, Respectful Insolence, and Skeptical Raptor.

I don't know why they banned you. If you have any of the comments they didn't post, please post them in a comment here.

All I can say is that monitoring multiple websites, I have seen very few provaccinationists on Age of Autism and many antivaccinationists on several of the pro vaccine websites i monitor. If they banned some they still allowed quite a few, more than Age of Autism.

Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH

@ John Stone

I have read Vera Sharav's account under the Nazis. I am Jewish. The Cantor when I was young, one who leads prayers and does the singing, was a Holocaust survivor, who doted on me. During the 1950s my parents had barbecues where I noticed one or two people in short sleeves with numbers on their forearms. My parents did their best to explain. Since then I have read dozens of books, hundreds of papers, and watched probably every documentary possible. When I started graduate school in Sweden, I went to the local synagogue where several families basically adopted me as Gothenburg had a small Jewish community, around 2,000. Many were sole survivors of the Holocaust who came often to Sweden on stretchers after World War II. I was at their homes often for Friday night sabbath dinners, for Passover, and several had nice cottages by a lake outside of Gothenburg where I spent time. And I lived in Israel for six months, again meeting lots of holocaust survivors.

So, yep, I know about the Holocaust. I've had nightmares my entire life. In addition, I have read several books and numerous papers on unethical medical experimentation, not just the Nazis; but in U.S. And Vera Sherav earlier emphasis was right on; but her approach to vaccines is more emotional, biased, that her earlier work. Of course, this is my opinion and you apparently don't believe I have the right to have an opinion, whereas anyone who sides with you does. So, as usual you throw something at me out of ignorance. I grew up with Holocaust survivors. I won't write what I think about you.

As for shutting down social media. People can post on Age of Autism and literally more than 100 websites. The social media is privately owned. I personally am conflicted at not allowing; but I would prefer that, instead, they allow to post; but include links to websites that give other testimonies and studies. I doubt you would allow someone to post on Age of Autism who wanted to relate how they lost a sibling to measles in the 1950s or someone who has been in a wheelchair from polio since 1952. I grew up knowing several polio survivors, even met someone in late 1980s who had been in an iron lung since early 1950s.

And despite your once again absurd use of language: " it is demanding that the population accepts an unending list of ill-tested products on the ideological basis that they are all magically safe." Given your refusal to accept that there have been placebo controlled randomized clinical trials, that you don't even understand the requirements for vaccine approval, etc. an absurd statement. And, really, "magically safe". CDC and many other websites list the benefits, the mild adverse events, and the rare adverse events. The CDC Pink Book that can be downloaded for free gives more detail. And the WHO website also lists. In addition, anyone who knows how to search PubMed can find umpteen articles on vaccine safety. I did a search a while back and found over 10,000 peer-reviewed published articles on vaccine safety and then searched for just, for instance, measles, and found a large number.

No, they aren't magically safe, based on a mass of research, understanding of the immune system, etc. my opinion and that of many others not shilling for anyone is that the benefits far outweigh the risks. And if, a rare adverse event occurs, then we, as a society need to take responsibility and see that the child and family are given as much support as they need.

Vaccination is a public health issue. If a child who cannot be vaccinated is exposed to a vaccine-preventable disease by another child who could have been vaccinated; but wasn't that is NOT acceptable. I wonder how you would feel if you had a child with an autoimmune disease, took him/her shopping where him/her was exposed to a vaccine-preventable disease and died?

Especially in developing countries where vaccine-preventable diseases are prevalent and health care not, vaccines save countless lives, prevent countless disabilities, and, yes, since they aren't magical, do harm a few. So, when it comes to something that affects the community, mandates make sense. We have laws against drinking and driving; however, if you have your own ranch, on your own property you can do as you wish. What about someone who enters the country with a clear case of a serious infectious disease, should they be allowed to just travel around. Before smallpox ended, we quarantined them. You don't seem to understand that in densely populated communities or where travel is easy that we have both rights and responsibilities. For you, you come first, second, and last, community be damned.

And you still haven't posted some of my comments; but allowed others attacking me.

John Stone

Joel A Harrison

Perhaps, you ought to read about Vera Sharav’s experience as a child holocaust survivor. Let’s be clear about Hotez (and probably about you): he does not want people to have a choice about vaccine products and he wants to stop people from criticising them. That is a totalitarian project - the lobby is taking over the state, it is buying up the politicians, it is demanding that the population accepts an unending list of ill-tested products on the ideological basis that they are all magically safe. Hotez led the charge earlier this year to close down vaccine discussion on social media, so that people are deprived of public discussion of their own experiences, of their beliefs, of the inadequacy of the science. Even if the products were much better than they are it ought to be indefensible.

cia

Joel Harrison,

You have also posted a lot at Shot of Prevention, which completely blocked me from posting there, as well as several other commenters I know. It allows for NO robust discussion of vaccine safety, wishing only to put forward its one propagandistic narrative.

Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH

@ John Stone

You write: "i think it would have been inappropriate to post Joel Harrison's unfounded comments about Vera Sharav."

Thank you for proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are DISHONEST. You don't post my comment, so nobody can decide if what you say is valid or not. And while you post many ad hominem attacks, you project them on to me. Well, it isn't an ad hominem attack to point out that you refuse to post my comments, comments about them, so what shows is a very one-sided argument. And I have as much right to give my opinion of Vera Sharav as your supporters have of me and others, at least if you had any sense of decency.

And when you wrote: "The allegation of a “echo chamber” is a shameless piece of projection by the totalitarian vaccine lobby."

"Totalitarian" just shows your extremist black and white approach to reality. I suggest you study what totalitarian means, e.g., read about Nazi Germany or Stalinist Soviet Union. Or read George Orwell's 1984. Or, for the U.S. during World War I, if someone said in public: "this war is just to make profits for the corporation" some cases got up to 10 years in prison.

While some private websites have limited or banned antivaccinationists, your many websites are still up. No one has gone to jail for promoting against vaccines.

Yep, the pharmaceutical companies do have a strong lobby and our government is corrupt; but strong lobbies include the oil companies, agribusiness, military-industrial complex, Wall Street, and the billionaires and I wish our so-called democracy did not allow such. But we have members of Congress, e.g., Senator Rand Paul, who support your side and others. And as I wrote, you have been given the same amount of time in Congressional hearings as others. Your websites are up. Nobody has gone to jail or prison for their antivax opinion, etc.

Using "totalitarian" just shows how fanatical you are, your lack of reality testing.

david m burd

Joel Harrison's opinions and his supporting 'facts' are too voluminous to resolve or validate here on this comments thread.

However, he has cited many references that I would bet do not hold up if indeed we had the time for it. Nevertheless, Harrison fails to pass the litmus test of honest, unbiased "observations" of the tens of thousands of doctors from the 1940 to the mid-1980s when the austism spectrum had begun to be recognized albeit quite rare.

Also, he is so enamored of his own opinions he dismisses the value of countless parents actually witnessing their infants/toddlers becoming severely injured within minutes, hours, or a few days after their vaccine injections. And he completely neglects to realize the VAERS reporting system only registers little more than 1% of adverse vaccine reactions.
Joel Harrison asserts it is only more accurate medical testing and refined definitions that have revealed the massive autism explosion (and other very serious disabling damages) that have arisen lockstep with a tripling/quadrupling of toxic vaccines.

There is an old saying: "if you do not look you will not see" - but more than that is unbiased observation is THE cornerstone of any further scientific investigation, and our CDC has proven it is completely in bed with vaccine makers, and conveniently forgets our 1986 Federal Law protecting vaccine makers and medical practioners was enacted BECAUSE vaccines were obviously causing so miuch damage and death. How convenient this is never mentioned in our totally corrupted mainstream media so in bed with such as CDC, NIH, et al.

Joel Harrison and our National Health Leaders have bricked themselves in a corrupted corner, and they cannot admit how wrong they are, and have been, by objective observation of vaccine-destruction of our defenseless infants and their families, as easily evidenced by both observant parents and family doctors back in the 1940s before the vaccine onslaught beginning to be encouraged in 1949 by the brand new DTP vaccine having toxic ingredients (excipients), in exact concurrence with emerging cases of "polio". Along with hundreds of miilions of pounds of agricultural neurotoxic pesticides each year beginning late 1940s, even sprayed along town streets among playing children. "Polio" clinical effects are the same as environmental poisoning. Talk about "hidden in plain sight"
(pardon any typos)

John Stone

Joel A Harrison@9.43am

Yes but the trouble is you are mostly only doing ad hominem or going off topic, and this makes it difficult for an editor to let pass.

Benedetta

Joel;
My credibility. LOL, has never been respected by you or anybody else, why start now?
Why do I need credibility, anyway? I am merely an eye witness.

You want an open exchange of opinions then read and remain quiet for a change, and let it sink in.
And I will take the time to share with you. Though I grow tired of it all. Just as John Stone and every parent on here does.
I have never even got a ticket for parking, or driving, or speeding or no brush with the law in any way.
I have worked like a dog all my life.
I have never lied, cheated anyone.
I don't own companies.
I never rubbed elbows with WHO that is about as wicked as they come.
I don't get a lot of money from the NIH, or the CDC.
I have no reason to lie, but I as you say have no creditability.

You just brushed off the heart attack my father had at 65 after a flu shot. You said heart attacks happen. Yeah, they do. That was the end result, but you never got to see him day after day, with a red face, at times having a hard time breathing, eat up with what I now recognize as inflammation.

Should I know what inflammation looks like? I think so.

What did my eyes tell me? Well, I was a bit blinded to vaccines because I am a trained microbiologist, trained field biologist, trained in environmental health.

But as blind as I was it slowly came to my attention that the DPT caused my daughter to have Kawasakis 6 or so weeks after her fourth DPT vaccine. Kawasaki's disease involves the heart.

Or my Son, on his very first DPT vaccine spiked a fever, and when I took him back into the doctors a day later; he had developed a heart murmur and a soft X ray showed a swollen left ventricular of his heart, making it boot shaped. His spiked a temperature and passed out on his second DPT vaccine. On his third DPT vaccine (I was bullied into it) he stopped breathing, seizures, brain injury, ruined his fine motor skills, stopped talking, stopped walking. He was walking cause I was late with his third DPT vaccine.

Or how about my husband just getting a tetanus shot they were offering after work which was really a DPT vaccine. He made it home in time to have a seizure in the middle of our hall. He received yet another tetanus shot (DPT) a few years later after stepping on a nail, and they were so generous to let him sit for two hours in the office to see if he had more seizures. He did not that time, but three weeks later was a different story.
Or My daughter receiving Hep B at age 26, and developed dangerously high SED rates, for over two years.
Or Myself receiving a tetanus (DPT) while pregnant and losing that baby on the fifth month.
Or Myself developing a thyroid condition very young. No one in my family had that auto immune disease.
I got to go; Mom called to tell me to help my Dad off the toilet.
I will not respond to you again.

John Stone

i think it would have been inappropriate to post Joel Harrison's unfounded comments about Vera Sharav. I quote, however from Ms Smith's examination of prosecution witness Cengiz Altan Tarhan at day 31 of the GMC hearing regarding the Wakefield patent/s:-

A The issue is, again with any intellectual property that comes out of the Medical School and/or universities these days, there is generally a revenue sharing agreement that underlines the employee/employer relationship, and as Andy was an employee of the Medical School, whatever the Medical School did with its share of any intellectual property it had a duty to share part of that with the inventor. So this document was to deal with that aspect of it. So in the event the Medical School did make some money out of this invention, this document determined how that revenue sharing that was properly attributable to Andy Wakefield would be distributed.

Q Thank you. If we can just read it through, it says;

“I am writing to confirm our discussion of this morning.

It is proposed to assign the two patent applications to Immunospecifics and discussions are in hand to do this.

It is noted that the interest the School will derive from the assignments subsumes within it a share which is attributable to the Inventors. We have agreed that a reasonable apportionment between the School and the inventors be 2/3rds for the School/Department and 1/3rd to inventors.”

When you say “the School/Department”, which department are you referring to there?
A It would have been Dr Wakefield’s department, either histopathology or medicine. The revenue sharing agreement says that any profits or revenues that are made by the Medical School are shared with the inventors, with the School centrally and with the individual departments that have participated in that invention.

Q It goes on:

“I understand that you wish for 1/3rd attributable to inventors to be placed into a designated charity.

If you are happy with the above please confirm by signing and returning to me the copy letter attached.”

We see Dr Wakefield’s signature at the bottom.
__________
Smith was the prosecution attorney and Tarhan a prosecution witness.

It is also evident that what was being discussed, that though an application as a vaccine was considered in the initial patent, it is the therapeutic purpose which was at stake. I would at this juncture more than two decades from the historic episode state I know of several children from the Royal Free who are still suffering with severe GI problems which people like Brian Deer consider to be imaginary.

Angus Files


Contrary to your argument there is nothing stopping an inventor holding the patent. It could also be Howetz is registered in another part of the patent Never said he couldn't Angus only slight problem is that all all 3 patents were assigned to institutions As for the rest of your meanderings Angus suggest you understand patent law just a bit better before commentating, A patent is a patent there is no such thing as "registered in another part of the patent!!

In the meantime you continue to swallow Kennedy's tales hook line & sinker, including still banging on about thiomersal!

Contray Eindecker

I believe its called licensing.

What Is Patent Licensing?
Patent Licensing refers to the act of assigning the ownership of a patent to a third party such that s/he can make, use and sell your invention either exclusively or non-exclusively, for an amount of pre-decided royalties.
https://www.greyb.com/patent-licensing-101/


tell me a story Once upon a time did Joel Weinstock license his hookworms to your pharma blood money brother Hotez?

Bobby knows..

Pharma For Prison

MMR RIP


Craig

@Joel Harrison

"Of course you base this on your god-like certainty that you are right."

You mean like your god-like certainty that *you* are right?

Got it...

Eindecker

So after all this discussion here’s are a few facts:

The 3 patents shown had Hotez listed as a co-inventor but all the rights had been assigned to one of the two universities, so he does not "own" the patents
Biomedisyn was founded in 1994 https://www.linkedin.com/company/biomedisyn/about/ by Volvovitz, it is unclear if it is still functioning. The only mention of Hotez is on a paper listing him as a member of their Scientific Advisory Board.
There is no evidence (Google, Bing) that Hotez has ever owned a “vaccine company”, nor is one mentioned in his biography https://peterhotez.org/about/
This paper lists Hotez, Volvovitz and a Chinese scientist on approaches to developing a hookworm vaccine https://www.nature.com/articles/pr19962920
I cannot understand the visceral antagonism shown by Kennedy to trying to develop vaccines specifically targeted against tropical disease, including and hookworm and schistosomiasis, what on earth is wrong with that, these are particularly debilitating diseases caused intestinal parasites?
I find Kennedy’s spittle flecked diatribe against Hotez particularly distasteful full of innuendo, but he is a man of short temper, especially when questioned over his beliefs on vaccines https://www.channel4.com/press/news/trump-doctor-and-vaccine-scandal-channel-4-dispatches & https://abcnews.go.com/Health/rfk-jrs-york-city-vaccine-forum-highlights-concerns/story?id=66158336

Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH

@ Benedetta

You continue to attack me. In other words, you don't believe in an open exchange of opinions; but you still refuse to back up your claim that Peter Hotez owns a for-profit vaccine company.

So, a claim without any backing. What does that say about your credibility?

John Stone

Joel A Harrison

Not interested in maintaining an echo chamber - more interested in a good discussion - sticking to the point - but it does not help if you cite what you think all the time. Semi-good point about Wakefield but I believe he’d waived his rights, an it wasn’t a vaccine:

https://ahrp.org/laffaire-wakefield-gmc-conflict-of-interest-charges-against-dr-wakefield/

The allegation of a “echo chamber” is a shameless piece of projection by the totalitarian vaccine lobby.

Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH

@ John Stone

You probably think that I submit comments in the hope that they will "change" people's minds at Age of Autism. I am not and never have been under such an illusion. I submit comments to see, one: if you will even post them and for how long, that is, how strongly you will protect your echo chamber, how you avoid any open discussion with different points of view. two: to see the type of responses I get. Sometimes helps me better understand your unscientific, illogical viewpoints. How you often resort to ad hominem arguments and your paranoid conspiracy theories. If you don't post the remainder of my comments, no big deal. I was surprised you posted so many.

As for "screeds," several of my comments were answering questions asked of me, so, if the questions were allowed, why should I not answer them?

Do note that one of the questions is how I could explain the "epidemic of autism." I answered the same on Rapid Responses giving at least 10 reasons. You ignored all but one, environmental, then said we were in agreement. When I pointed out that the only chemicals found to be "causative" of autism if the fetus was exposed were NOT in vaccines, no reply from you. Typical, you and others either ignore, pick one sentence as if it represented the entire argument, or twist what is written.

Though, as opposed to you, I try never to be absolutely certain, I would bet that if someday incredibly irrefutable evidence of the cause of the major form of autism is discovered and its not vaccines, you won't accept it, regardless of how strong the evidence is. I would bet that if an outbreak of a serious vaccine-preventable diseases occurred overwhelmingly in antivaxxers and it caused mass casualties, you wouldn't take responsibility. Think rubella, a mainly mild disease for anyone born; but a devastating disease for a fetus. It has an incubation time of 12 - 14 days, so if a woman becomes pregnant then or is exposed during pregnancy, the risk to the fetus is close to 100%, including stillbirths, miscarriages, congenital rubella syndrome (deafness, blindness, seizure disorders, mental retardation, microcephaly) and even autism, yes, autism. In the mid 1960s an epidemic resulted in close to 40,000 cases in U.S. Since the vaccine, nada. See book: Meredith Wadman's "The Vaccine Race."

If strong research finds anything regarding vaccines that contradicts what I've learned, I would have no problem changing my position. As I wrote in another comment, I would be sad, would have hoped that the new research had been done earlier. However, despite what you choose to believe, I have looked at the "research" you refer to and it is methodologically weak and I have looked at numerous studies that contradict your position.

You continue to support Andrew Wakefield. Attack Paul Offit because, though he didn't own the patent and devoted 25 years to developing a rotavirus vaccine, the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia shared the royalties with him and his co-researchers. Yet, Wakefield's was named on two patents submitted by the Royal Free Hospital for a monovalent measles vaccine. If they had been accepted, Wakefield would have received a share of the royalties. Rather hypocritical. What if the patents had been accepted and Wakefield received substantial royalties? I would be you would still support him.

So, don't post my comments. No big deal. I've already added to my collection of responses. I'm old, so may not live to see it; but, maybe I will live to see research that overwhelmingly shows the cause or causes of autism and NOT vaccines. I would love to see what you and your compatriots say. And, though I think the odds extremely low, if research goes the other way and I am still alive, I will write and article and/or comments the reasons I changed my mind. But only if the studies are good methodology and several by different researchers on different populations. I try NEVER to rely on one or two studies, even well-done ones because unmeasured variable, despite the best efforts, e.g., randomization, can affect an outcome. Something you wouldn't understand.

Benedetta

Thank you so much John Stone!
I don't think any of us here needs to hear all about how wonderful vaccines are to Pompous Joel, ohhh and PhD extraordinaire, and his aging, but by now probably dead parents.

Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH

@ John Stone

You write: "Another four comments by Joel A Harrison are pending but unfortunately way off topic."

Of course, since no one else can read the comments if you don't post them, they just have to take your word. Since the comments were a direct response to your comment, are they really off topic or you just don't want people to see another take on your comment specifically and that in the past you have done likewise?

You don't seem to refuse posting comments by those who you agree with even if they are "off topic," especially if they are attacking someone you disagree with.

As I wrote, many other blogs, such as Science-Based Medicine, Respectful Insolence, Skeptical Raptor, Every Child By Two, allow for a robust debate, only blocking someone who continues with harsh ad hominem attacks, while Age of Autism seldom allows opposing views, basically an echo chamber. As I wrote before, if you are so confident you are right, why do you fear opposing viewpoints? At best, they should allow you to better formulate your position. Calling something a "screed," rather than point by point refuting it certainly doesn't say anything about what your position is more than you don't like being opposed and can't logically defend your position and actions.

Hans Litten

http://westchester.news12.com/story/41412682/dozens-of-parents-protest-vaccine-bills-outside-assemblywoman-paulins-office

Hotez-Offit .....when this blows up , no amount of money will save any of the guilty

Parents gathered outside of Assemblywoman Amy Paulin’s Scarsdale office today to protest bills advocating vaccines and shots for children without parental knowledge or consent.

The protest, also known as “Blackout Day,” is when parents across the state remove their children from classes to send a message to legislators.

Their goal is to prevent the state Senate Health Committee from passing bills that will allow treatment for the flu and sexual transmitted diseases, like HPV, to youth without parental authorization.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says the HPV vaccine is safe and protects children long before they are ever exposed to cancer-causing infections. The organization also reports 4,000 women die of cervical cancer each year, and in 10 years adds up to 40,000 women. However, many parents believe otherwise.

“There is 44 percent increase of them getting cancer -- if they already have the infection and then they get the vaccine -- and there are cases of that," says protester Danielle Lazarakis.

Protesting parents feel as though they’re being forced to vaccinate their children.

“Why is it being thrown down our throat? Why do our children have to be threatened to go to school or not go to school based on a medical intervention?" asks Lazarakis.

One protester told News 12’s Nikita Ramos that she had a bad reaction to the vaccine at the age of 25.

“I had this extreme swelling in my leg, where my leg looked broken. I could barely walk for a week. No one linked it back to the vaccine…I had a reaction for six months to a year after and still have effects like chronic fatigue and heavy metal toxicity.”

When asked about children receiving the human papillomavirus vaccine at an early age, Assemblywoman Paulin told News 12 "once they have sexual activity and they're exposed to HPV, then they have it and the HPV vaccine is only effective for any HPV that they may encounter after that."

Morag

Memorandum of comfort?
Vested interests ? and festering fibbing forensics ?
Is yon a doppleganger situation on the horizon ? if there is such a thing ?
Identical, stamped, labeled, and branded, cap badge credentials, available to view at,
Vaccinate Your Family >Expert Community
Expert Community /Vaccinate your Family 5 June 2019
About Us
Funding and annual reports
2018. Scources of Funding
Anthem
Centre for Disease Control and Preventio [ CDC]
GlaxoSmithKline
HLN Consultancy
Merck
Novavax
Private/Individual Donations
Sanofi Pasteur
Seqirus
Turner Foundation
WilliamDarnall Memorial Foundation


American Navy vs Spanish Lightouse YouTube
Vaccine Vesseles heading straight for the skerries in shallow waters ?

John Stone

Another four comments by Joel A Harrison are pending but unfortunately way off topic.

Mercky Business

Joel

You believe whatever data you want and then you give yourself as an example of a reasonable person.

John Stone

To Joel A Harrison

I have never known anyone generate so much text so fast as you - not even Dorit Reiss but if you criticise others for not documenting their facts you certainly fall well short yourself, just screeds of opinions. Meanwhile as ever you wander ever further from the original topic - now we are on to your review of Dissolving Illusions.

Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH

@ Mercky Business

You write: "Not to mention the enormous amount pharma can make from all the chronic disease vaccines can generate."

Of course you base this on your god-like certainty that you are right. There are tons of researchers, MDs and PhDs, who disagree with you. Maybe some future well done series of research projects will prove you right; but, though unlikely, anything is possible; but if you are wrong, well . . .

As I've written umpteen times, while I have NO vested interest, based on my mere mortal human abilities, I believe vaccine benefits far outweigh the risks, have always encouraged loved ones and friends to get vaccinated; but, as I said, I'm merely mortal, just can't bring myself to have the level of absolute certainty you and others display. Have you ever considered, even if one chance in 100,000 that you may be wrong??? And as tragic as one or a few kids being harmed by vaccines, I have to weigh that against what the data tells me of the number saved from suffering, hospitalization, death, and disabilities. I'd love to live in a perfect world where every medical intervention works 99+% if time and every risk is close to zero.

That is part of the reason I follow Age of Autism and other websites, maybe, just maybe, someone will actually make an argument, backed by extensive published research, science, and logic that somehow I missed or just came out that one or more vaccines have had a negative effect on one or more subgroups. If so, I would have NO problem changing my mind. I would only regret that the aforementioned research had not been carried out earlier; but I base my opinion on the extant research current, not a few isolated articles.

Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH

@ susan welch

You write: "Joel A Harrison. You obviously have not read the excellent, fully referenced, book 'Denial' by Mark Blaxill and (the late) Dan Olmsted. Perhaps you should."

No, I haven't read it, so I can't comment on it. However, I've read Olmsted's Age of Autism book, his entire series on the Amish, his series on polio, and several other books and also articles by Mark Blaxill. Again, I can't comment on book "Denial" but I can tear apart line by line Olmsted's series on the Amish, his series on polio, and book "Age of Autism," by simple logic, science, and common sense. Currently I am overwhelmed with books to read and suffering from insomnia, get less than six hours sleep per night. Two lab overnighters hooked up to electrodes and I don't have Obstructive Sleep Apnea nor Restless Leg Syndrome. Mild bladder problems; but they account for 3 - 4 awakenings, not the 70 or 80. So, only have so much energy and concentration; but, if I run across the book, I may take a look at it; but given everything else I've read, well . . .

You might want to check out Part 1 of a four-part series I am writing on polio, delayed Part 2 given my current tiredness; but already have outline and over 200 documents.

Wrong About Polio: A Review of Suzanne Humphries, MD and Roman Bystrianyk’s “Dissolving Illusions” Part 1 Available at: https://n1s1t23sxna2acyes3x4cz0h-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Part-1-Joel-A.-Harrison-2018-Oct-28.-Wrong-About-Polio-A-Review-of-Suzanne-Humphries-MD-and-Roman-Bystrianyk-“Dissolving-Illusions”-long-version.pdf

Mercky Business

Joel

Not to mention the enormous amount pharma can make from all the chronic disease vaccines can generate.

Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH

@ RTP

Read my response to David.

As for lab testing, depends what you mean. Way back in the early 1900s they did autopsies on kids who died from polio and found distinct lesions in parts of the spine. They also injected serum from kids suspected of polio in animals. Eventually in 1930s they found antibodies to polio; but only two of the three strains and on and on it goes. By early 1950s most cases included lab analyses.

Autism is based on behavioral observations which are far less reliable and valid than actual objective physical measures. And, as I wrote, hiding in plain sight. A family doctor seeing a kid as you describe would be baffled. As an analogy, in the mid 1930, Syvia Lawrie, a successful businesswoman's, younger brother developed serious problems. No doctor could figure out what they were, so, she put an add in the New York Times, due to WW II intervening, not till after did she find a large number with same disorder, maybe an individual doctor might have seen none, one, or two. It was multiple sclerosis which had actually been defined back in mid 1800s but few doctors were aware of this. Of course, it is something that objective physical lab tests could be carried out on; but it is an example of something hiding in plane sight.

The doctors in early 1950s were not stupid, just didn't have the knowledge because behavioral problems not clearly defined. Was the kid severely retarded, psychiatrically disturbed, or some classification where a pattern that existed in many children had not yet been noticed , documented, and published. One or two articles not usually enough.

So, believe what you want; but there is a reasonable, valid alternative explanation for the so-called autism epidemic and, yes, though my explanation accounts for most of the increase, a smaller percentage may need additional explanation.

susan welch

Joel A Harrison. You obviously have not read the excellent, fully referenced, book 'Denial' by Mark Blaxill and (the late) Dan Olmsted.

Perhaps you should.

Mercky Business

Joel

“Do you really think that Hotez and others have devoted their lives to developing vaccines so that some pharmaceutical company can make a profit.”

Very possibly, and no doubt they were handsomely rewarded. Anyhow, people love to believe that whatever they make a killing on is good for everyone else, even when it causes harm. Vaccines have benefits but they cause harm too. I don’t warm to Hotez but it could be he deludes himself as much as he does you.

“In addition, for childhood vaccines the profit margins are much smaller because governments and large health companies negotiate and it costs more to get vaccine approved than any other pharmaceutical. Pharma makes far more money on drugs for chronic conditions such as statins.”

Compare Mark Blaxill’s comments vaccine profits to the Mass. assembly. The standards vaccine approval are beneath disgusting and they get to mandate entire populations.

“What an absurd thing to say: "Joel Harrison and Eindecker are making fools of themselves." Having followed Age of Autism for many years, while some commenters enter into a valid dialogue, present interesting well thought out points of view, even URLs to articles I've then obtained, others like you just resort to childish ad hominem attacks.”

It was not an ad hominem at all: it was a comment on what you were doing not what or who you were.

Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH

@ RTP

You write: “So Joel and Eindecker are you both trying to say that if people all thought vaccines were useless and causing tremendous injury then it wouldn't alter the income - past, present or future - of Hotez in any way?”

How absurd. While it wouldn’t affect his Dean or Professorial salary, he probably has gotten some royalties from patents he was listed as an inventor; but only for a short time, so irrelevant today. Whether the vaccines he is working on for developing nations will eventually be found to “cause tremendous” injury, highly unlikely given the rigorous requirements for vaccines as opposed to other pharmaceuticals and especially given the high toll of deaths and disabilities experienced in the developing nations, thus any disabilities caused by potential vaccines would pale against the deaths and disabilities the actual diseases are causing.

But, anything is possible, so, maybe a vaccine he is developing, once approved, will in a short time, find adverse events not caught during the testing, so, yep, he might have to forgo some future income.

As for “if people all thought vaccines were useless and causing tremendous injury,” what people. The vaccines he is working on will be approved not only by FDA; but by WHO, and officials, experts from many nations. Do you really think ALL of them would allow a useless vaccine that causes tremendous injury to be approved? Perhaps, you should avoid paranoid conspiracy beliefs. There may always be a few who don’t care; but to assume that experts from around the world callously would subject their populations is insane.

Rtp

David, like all pro-vaxers, Eindecker and co will tell you that the rise in autism is purely a function of "better diagnosis" - never mind the fact that the rise in autism is backed up with other corroborating data such as census disability rates, healthcare spending, welfare spending etc. Nor will they point out to the conditions that have obviously fallen since the rise in autism.

But here's where it gets funny.

They have no problem at all telling you that doctors in 1950 were so astonishingly stupid, that none of them thought anything strange about 10 year old children who weren't deaf but could scarcely communicate and still weren't toilet trained.

To Eindecker, calling doctors of 1950 this stupid is perfectly reasonable.

However, if you point out to Eindecker that if doctors were this stupid then there is no reason to trust their ability to discern the difference between polio and MS, or measles and roseola or hand foot and mouth, or diphtheria and pharyngitis and therefore we have no reason to believe that any vaccine has actually worked can you guess what their brilliant response is?

They will call you a conspiracy theorist!

They'll tell you that it is simply inconceivable that doctors in 1950 might have ever confused polio with MS or measles and hand foot and mouth and the only way that they could have ever done so is if there was a vast worldwide conspiracy.

So autism - definitely renamed.

Polio - definitely not renamed.

And their brilliant rationale for making this bizarre claim about doctors being both incredibly stupid and completely omniscient is "lab testing".

That's right. Lab testing. Which they think helps their cause.

And when you tell them 99.9999+% of all diagnoses in history have been made *without* a lab test and in fact, lab testing actually reinforces our position (and weakens theirs) because we never required lab testing *before* the vaccines came out they just say:

"ummm, yeah but, ummm, SCIENCE!!!!!!!"

Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH

@ David M. Burd

The following is just an outline of a longer paper I plan to write.

HIDING IN PLAIN SIGHT
The late Autism researcher Lorna Wing (2005). wrote: “Nothing exists until it has a name.”

As an example, in 910 treatise, the Persian/Arab physician, Al-Razi, noticed that a disease, up to then considered one, actually was two separate diseases, smallpox and measles (Cliff, 1993, p.52). So, did smallpox or measles suddenly develop in the 10th Century?.

Contributing Factors to Diagnoses of Autism Spectrum Disorders:

Leo Kanner’s 1943 article introduced the diagnosis of Autism and gave estimated statistics (based only on his own office practice); but in 1971, at a conference, he admitted that he rejected minorities and working class whites, believing it only a diagnosis for children of educated whites.

A number of journal articles and other reports, going back to early 1900s, used mental retardation and childhood schizophrenia diagnostic categories; but if I gave the listed symptoms without the source, they would definitely be categorized as Autism Spectrum Disorders.

A few described cases from various sources from the 19th Century and earlier would similarly be today diagnosed as ASD.

Psychiatry was a relatively new profession, only developing the last two decades of the 19th Century, so nearly impossible to know how people with problems would have been diagnosed earlier. Prior to World War II, there were few to no social services in the U.S., the age required for school attendance was lower and children with problems were either just kicked out, some finding menial jobs, some institutionalized.

After World War II, with the rise of America’s middle class and family politics, more attention was paid to children. After the 1957 Soviet launch of Sputnik, more funds and programs and emphasis on public education was developed and the minimal age for leaving school increased. Psychology became a popular degree in American universities and we began churning out psychologists, school counselors, and more psychiatrists and, of course, this led to more work needed for them.

Originally ASD was diagnosed by psychiatrists using various techniques; but gradually standardized diagnostic instruments were developed, allowing for easier and quicker diagnoses by others.

In 1986 the Federal government passed legislation for grants to local schools for special education, dealing with children with problems. In the early 1990s this was extended to include ASD. Studies have found as the number of cases of ASD increases, the number of cases diagnosed as mentally retarded or childhood schizophrenia have decreased, at least, partially a response to availability of funds.

What was originally classical autism cases, became Autism Spectrum Disorders. Asberger’s wasn’t added until 1994 and there are cases of men in their 70s who have been diagnosed with Asberger’s. ASD includes kids with a variety of different signs and symptoms; but with some in common.

As an example, in the 19th Century, high levels of white blood cells were originally thought to be signs of infectious disease; but then discovered to be cancer, so they were included in the category Cancer. Certainly doesn’t mean that cases of cancer were increasing, just another group was added. Blood cancers differ in many respects from solid tumor cancers; also have signs and symptoms in common.

Another example, imagine that medicine begins looking at respiratory diseases, first including just asthma and pneumonia, then later emphysema, chronic obstructive disease, cancer, etc. Imagine the government creates a separate institute with lots of funding and grants, both for research and education, ending up with more and more respiratory therapists, pulmonologists, and researchers and, of course, diagnosed cases.
Increased awareness/screening/surveillance.

Childhood mortality has been decreasing over the past century. Children who would have died at birth or early on, e.g., low birthweight, especially very low birthweight, and genetic disorders, now can live long lives; but often have physical, cognitive, and emotional problems.

A relationship has been found between ASD and children born to older parents, more mutations in eggs and sperm.

We live in the age of a therapeutic society. More and more people are being diagnosed with something. If this continues, no one will exist who doesn’t have some medical/psychiatric label (e.g., Brownless, 2007; Hadler, 2007; Payer, 1988, 1992; welch, 2011).

Since World War II over 85,000 new chemicals have been introduced into our environment with little to no oversight. Before then, despite overwhelming medical science, lead was added to gasoline. A mass of studies has found that HIGH levels of lead in the blood of fetus and children results in lowered intelligence, behavioral problems, etc. And studies have found some post-war chemicals “cause” ASD when fetus exposed. High levels,
not the minuscule levels of various additives in vaccines. So, yes, one can attribute some increase in ASD to the environment, either interaction with genes or by itself; but this doesn’t change that the vast majority of cases can be explained by the above.

And ASD is based on behavioral observations which are not as reliable and valid as physical observations. We don't diagnose ASD by blood tests, other labs, MRIs, etc.

I believe in community and wish a society where all human beings are treated with dignity and resources provided for them to obtain whatever potential they have, so I support evermore funding for children and adults labeled with ASD; but also cerebral palsy, Down’s Syndrome, etc. All lives are precious. And we can “easily” afford this if our governments didn’t continuously lie to us about threats from abroad, while acting on behalf of corporations (access to raw materials and selling of weapons), resulting in CIA, MI6, and
military spending trillions of dollars, risking our loyal military, and killing, crippling and impoverishing people in developing nations who were NEVER a threat to us. Of course, by killing them, we become the enlistment stimulus for terrorist groups, which we then claim the need to defend against, a vicious circle. Trillions of dollars that could have benefited us and used for real foreign aid (Blum. 2003; Butler, 1935; Gaffney, 2019; Schlessinger,
2005).

REFERENCES:

Blum W (2003). Killing Hope: US Military & CIA Interventions since World War II. Available at:
https://www.cia.gov/library/abbottabad-compound/13/130AEF1531746AAD6AC03...

Butler, Major General Smedley (1935). War Is A Racket. Available at: https://www.cia.gov/library/abbottabadcompound
/13/130AEF1531746AAD6AC03EF59F91E1A1_Killing_Hope_Blum_William.pdf
[Butler is the most decorated Marine in history]

Brownlee S (2007). Overtreated: Why Too Much Medicine is Making Us Sicker and Poorer.

Cliff A, Haggett P, Smallman-Raynor M (1993). Measles: An Historical Geography of a Major Human Viral Disease. Blackwell.

Gaffney M (2018 Mar). Corporate Power and Expansive U.S. Military Policy. American Journal of Economics and Sociology; 77(2): 331-417. Available at: https://www.globalresearch.ca/corporate-power-and-expansive-u-smilitary...

Hadler NM (2007). The Last Well Person: How to Stay Well Despite the Health-Care System.

Harrison JA (2018 Nov 9). Wrong About Polio: A Review of Suzanne Humphries, MD and Roman Bystrianyk’s “Dissolving Illusions” Part 1. Science-Based Medicine. Available at: https://n1s1t23sxna2acyes3x4cz0hwpengine.
netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uplo...“Dissolving-Illusions”-long-version.pdf

Payer L (1988). Medicine & Culture: Varieties of Treatment in the United States, England, West Germany, and France.

Payer L (1992). Disease-Mongers: How Doctors, Drug Companies, and Insurers are Making You Feel Sick.

Schlesinger SC, Kinzer S (2005). Bitter Fruit: The Untold story of the American Coup in Guatemala (revised version). Harvard University Press.

Welch HG, Schwartz LM, Woloshin S (2011). Overdiagnosed: Making People Sick in the Pursuit of Health.

Wing L (2005 Apr). Reflections on Opening Pandora’s Box. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders;
35(2): 197-203.

Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH

@ Annie

You write: "So is it the position of the people defending Hotez that being a vaccine inventor poses no conflict of interest regarding the injuries vaccines cause?"

First, no one denies that vaccines can cause rare adverse events. Check out the CDC website, etc. However, based on my opinion, based on extensive reading of the history of vaccine-preventable diseases, their current status in the world (but a plane flight away) and how vaccine work and their history, the benefits of vaccines far outweigh the risks. Obviously it is a tragedy if even one child is harmed by a vaccine; but in the real world, if one can't know in advance, then, based on my reading, for every serious vaccine injured child, literally 1,000s were saved. So, no, I'm not defending Hotez as an inventor and ignoring vaccine injuries. You probably don't understand that Hotez specializes in developing vaccines for developing nations where, due to not having the level of health care we have, experience far worse outcomes from the actual diseases. Though he is NOT working on measles vaccine, in developing nations 100s of thousands of kids die from measles, whereas prior to vaccine in U.S. with half the population, 50,000 were hospitalized, 300 - 500 died every year, and around 500 developed permanent disabilities.

I look, based on my reading of history and research, that benefits from vaccines far outweigh the risks. Also, if a child develops an adverse event from a vaccine, attenuated, severely weakening the microbe, then they more than likely have a pre-existing condition which, if exposed to the natural disease, would be just as bad. And, no, the ingredients in vaccines not the cause, e.g. minute antibiotics (we are exposed to more every day, even in our water supply), albumen (the protein egg whites and plasma, clear white fluid of blood composed of), aluminum, 3rd most ubiquitous substance on earth (get more from mother's milk, in the air, food, soil (mild scratches to skin), an minute traces of preservatives that we get larger amounts from deli foods and candies.

Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH

@ Benedetta

I asked you a simple question, which you ignore. I tried searching the internet and couldn’t find anything on Peter Hotez owning his own company. Maybe I used the wrong search word? The problem is you assume that I know about it and thus am dishonest. Instead you could have worded it something like: Perhaps you are not aware that Peter Hotez has launched his own vaccine company, then give the URL to an article on it. Nope, instead you attack me and even after I politely asked for a URL you refuse to give it. Does Hotez own his own companies? Please give reference(s), URL(s).

You write: "You never stop to consider why we think what we think. You come in with your opinion, but you never take silent moments to read what others have experienced. Now that is pompous. Your opinion, you have a right to be a bigot. That is true. Now I am using the word in the right content for a change.”

Actually I read very carefully what people write. While I disagree with their attributing it to vaccines, I greatly sympathize with anyone with a child with any type of disability or anyone who has lost a loved one or good friend. However, yep, my training tells me that Post Hoc Ergo Prompter Hoc (after something thus because of it) is a logical fallacy. As a poor example, many people have heart attacks every day. If, for some reason, it was decided to give everyone an injection of vitamin C, some people would die of a heart attack after receiving the injection; but would have even if they hadn’t received the injection. Parents, as all people, have selective perception and time distortion. They might think that a child developed autism after vaccines; but missed signs of autism prior to the vaccine.

I point out my education, not because it guarantees that I am right about anything; but because the vast majority of antivaxxers lack the basics to evaluate studies. And, the BASICS can be had without an extensive education. For instance, there is an excellent book on the immune system, well-illustrated, well-written, inexpensive, and only about 150 pages. Lauren Sompayrac’s “How the Immune System Works 5th Edition”.

As for your education, you must have missed something because when I state an opinion, it is based on probability, not seeing the world in black and white. Maybe my wording could be better; but if you read my many comments on various blogs, I do my best to present my points of view as opinions based on extensive study and education; but not that I have the god-like certainty that you do. And the one thing my education imparted in me is to NOT ALLOW PERSONAL EXPERIENCE TO IMPACT MY JUDGEMENT. Being only human I probably don’t always follow this; but do my best. Personal judgement can be very very wrong since everyone selectively perceives and selectively remembers. That is why science, though not always right, is much better and science, even when wrong, is eventually self-correcting; but personal judgement is often not. See an excellent book by social psychologists, Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson “Mistakes were made (but not by me)”. Explains the psychology behind how difficult it is to change an opinion as opposed to science, Yep, science can be slow; but it does change. Many people NEVER do.

You write: “You have to know this since you seem to know every thing else?” Really, I “KNOW EVERY THING ELSE?” Just another example of how you see things in black and white. Because I have opinions on some subjects then I must “know every thing else.”

And, as for taking care of my mother, I am totally aware that many others do the same. Unfortunately, as opposed to some other nations, e.g., Sweden, many who would like to can’t in U.S. because of job requirements, etc. In Sweden they can take time off with an income to take care of a loved one. I empathize when anyone who took care of a loved one. And I didn’t discuss this assuming I am better than anyone else, just to show how much I too loved a parent, a parent who I advised to get vaccinated. So, whether you agree with me or not, I advised them to get vaccinated out of love. You just love to twist things, don’t you?

You write: “Why are you so passionate about vaccines so much that it makes you come here to rub our noses in it? If you are not a pharma troll then you are something just as bad, if not worse. You are a useful idiot that the universities have really indoctrinated. Which is it? IF it is the later, Why, what is it about your brain that you have to go around correcting the splinter in every one else's eyes, and not bother about the log in your own eye?”

Interesting. I follow blogs such as Science-Based Medicine, Respectful Insolence, Skeptical Raptor, and Every Child By Two where antivaccinationists post umpteen comments. Some adding to the dialogue and some like you, just attacking. And I’ve learned something from some of them. Though I disagree with their conclusions, I understand their positions and greatly sympathize with their experiences with a loved one. And I like an open dialogue. Having followed Age of Autism as well, I’ve noted very few comments who oppose your position. In other words, an echo chamber. If you are so certain, god-like certainty, that you are right then attacking me and others just contradicts. If you don’t claim god-like certainty; but maintain a strong position, then you could use what I and others write to better hone your position, to develop better arguments backed with references. Explaining my position is certainly not “rubbing your noses in” anything; but allowing you to be aware of other positions, positions not shilling for anyone. Of course, if someone disagrees with you, then they must be dishonest, a shill, or a fool because you walk on water. Quoting Matthew about the fleck in ones eye is absurd. I am always second guessing myself and looking at as many different angles as time allows. For instance, I have read F.A. Hayek, father of libertarian economics, Milton Friedman, major proponent of market economics, and Karl Marx. And learned something from each of them. The world is complex and each looked at some aspects missed by the other.

Again, if Peter Hotez owns his own company, I would love to know about it, so, please give me reference(s) and URL(s).

There is a classic psychological defense mechanism, Projection, where someone denies a character flaw in themselves and projects it on to others. You calling me pompous, that I am a useful idiot the the universities have really indoctrinated is a prime example. I studies at numerous universities in three countries with different cultures, different political systems, different economic systems, and different health care systems. Despite this, epidemiological methodology, social and behavioral science methodology, philosophy of science (I took three courses, deals with causal theory), etc. did NOT differ. So, according to you, anyone who actually basis anything on their educations is an indoctrinated useful idiot. So, are you saying, despite claiming higher education, that you reject what you were taught?

At least from end of World War II. members of Congress, both Houses, would argue positions; but socialize outside, families getting together for barbecues, at restaurants, etc. But that ended in the 1990s. Among other things when Newt Gingrich became Speaker of the House he ordered Republicans to not socialize with Democrats. The beginning of polarization where groups take different positions; but see the other side as unidimensional, demonizing them. Maybe you remember that two of the best friends for many years in the Senate was liberal Ted Kennedy and very Conservative Orin Hatch? But they developed their friendship before the era of polarization.

I am still grieving the loss of my oldest and one of my dearest friends since early childhood, friends almost 65 years. He was a staunch Libertarian, loved Ayn Rand, and, though I don’t like the label, some would call me a “liberal.” Yet, we respected each other and understood that we had differences of opinion. I found out at his funeral that he told some of his other friends that he trusted me more than almost anyone else and I felt the same. We didn’t demonize each other. And we had lots of interests in common, went to San Diego Zoo, Museums, and Wild Animal Park at least once a year. Went often to restaurants. He introduced me to my favorite restaurant, a Middle Eastern buffer. I’m a vegan/vegetarian, he wasn’t; but there were dishes for each of us. And we actually exchanged books and articles, sometimes on economics and politics; but often just books on science, history, and biography. The point is that we disagreed, heard out each others arguments, and still respected and cared about each other. I don’t think at this stage of my life I will get over his loss. The last and best of my childhood friends. Maybe being a vegan/vegetarian not such a good idea as I’ve outlived almost everyone?

Obviously you prefer an echo chamber where everyone agrees with you, where you can feel part of those who are absolutely right. I prefer dialogue, people who can defend their positions with logic, science, etc. In the past I have gradually changed some positions; but not because someone called me “pompous” or worse. Such reflects much more on you than me.

Once more, how about references and URLs to Peter Hotez owning his own company?

david m burd

@Joel Harrison and Eindeker,

Please tell us WHAT causes autism as it has skyrocketed from 1 in 10,000 to now 200+ in 10,000 these last 40 years, and ever rising with more "coverage" of pregnant women getting toxic flu vaccines, and toxic DTaP vaccines (all having mutagenic/toxic chemicals including foreign protein, foreign DNA, mercury and/or aluminum, toxic industrial cleaning products, patent-protected chemicals, and untold toxic substances? Just look at the Vaccine Excipients List as quoted by the CDC!!!

Please tell me, and AoA, what YOU think causes this ever-growing Austism Spectrum disaster? A singular point I should like to make: During the horrific coal-burning of the new Industrial Period and continuing here in the U.S. in metropolitan regions such as Pittsburgh Pennsylvania, there took place a terrible toll of respiratory damage deaths, BUT, the autism spectrum was non-existent.

So, Please tell me and AoA what YOU think causes the autism spectrum, and its skyrocketing increase these last 40 years. Look forward to it. Thanks.

Eindecker

Contrary to your argument there is nothing stopping an inventor holding the patent. It could also be Howetz is registered in another part of the patent Never said he couldn't Angus only slight problem is that all all 3 patents were assigned to institutions As for the rest of your meanderings Angus suggest you understand patent law just a bit better before commentating, A patent is a patent there is no such thing as "registered in another part of the paten!!

In the meantime you continue to swallow Kennedy's tales hook line & sinker, including still banging on about thiomersal!

annie

So is it the position of the people defending Hotez that being a vaccine inventor poses no conflict of interest regarding the injuries vaccines cause?

Asking for a friend.

Eindecker

Benedetta
You make these "throw away" statements such as Notice that Hotez launched his own vaccine company, so companies owns patents? and then you suddenly get very sniffy when you are challenged to provide proof, I've tried to find evidence, which you do not seem to have, and so far nothing come to light showing Hotez started his own vaccine business?
And here you are again Hotez, he owns his own companies, and even if he did not, there are special deals for special people as Angus Files pointed out or more correctly as Angus seems to make stuff up!
I do not doubt the complex medical history that your family have suffered from but now you are linking flu vaccines with heart attack and Parkinsons!
My "skin in the game" well 3 family members badly affected by what are now vaccine preventable diseases.

Angus Files

Eindecker
Contrary to your argument there is nothing stopping an inventor holding the patent. It could also be Howetz is registered in another part of the patent being used and not specifically the new patent. I mean do people in that circle just go around sending each other 50 million dollars I would drop you AOA`S bank account but they don’t knowingly ever accept pharma blood money. If you have the time to look at all the different parts of a patent for arguments sake take the mechanisms. Hundreds of mechanisms might be used in a patent. Hundreds of different inventors hundreds of diffrent patents can be involved in this one new patent. But only the three that are assigning for the new patent need to be listed as its a new patent. Its entirely at the Patents Boards interpretation whether it is a new patent or not. At the same time if used a mechanism from one patent in another gives a money spin to the inventor of the mechanism of the patent if used in a new patent. And again that person might have used someone elses patent before that. Pyramid selling on a massive scale. Again it can change country to country a vaccine for use in GB might be different from the US so might require a new patent because of one simple change say fly dna to mouse dna-not using pork to using aborted foetal tissue etc just what every new born baby needs injected into its blood brain...and so it goes on kaching! for Howetz and Bobby knows.


Pharma For Prison

MMR RIIP.

Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH

@ Mercky Business

You write: "Joel Harrison and Eindecker are making fools of themselves - there can be no realistic question of the line of patronage however the patents are owned, and their squeals of outrage are infantile. Likewise, Hotez is just whining or he is an even more ridiculous stooge than I thought he was. Let’s face it, whatever the technicalities it’s a gold mine."

First, the fact that Peter Hotez did the research on the vaccines, etc. wasn't denied by me; but the fact that he did NOT own the patent, that the Universities he worked at was a direct refutation of what Kennedy claimed. As for "it's a god mine." Vaccines account for 2% of overall pharmaceutical profits, though a larger percentage for a couple of companies. So what? Do you really think that Hotez and others have devoted their lives to developing vaccines so that some pharmaceutical company can make a profit. In addition, for childhood vaccines the profit margins are much smaller because governments and large health companies negotiate and it costs more to get vaccine approved than any other pharmaceutical. Pharma makes far more money on drugs for chronic conditions such as statins.

What an absurd thing to say: "Joel Harrison and Eindecker are making fools of themselves."

Having followed Age of Autism for many years, while some commenters enter into a valid dialogue, present interesting well thought out points of view, even URLs to articles I've then obtained, others like you just resort to childish ad hominem attacks.

Benedetta

Joel Harrison;
You come here and tell us what you are doing with your family on vaccines. No problem people - go ahead and stop all this nonsense.

You never stop to consider why we think what we think. You come in with your opinion, but you never take silent moments to read what others have experienced. Now that is pompous. Your opinion, you have a right to be a bigot. That is true. Now I am using the word in the right content for a change.

You tell us of your extensive education. Well guess what; education is very common in the United States. There are many on here, including me that have multiple degrees in the sciences. I got those degrees from accredited state universities. What our education all have in common, are the same textbooks; written by a few writers, from a few publishing companies; asking huge prices.
You are pompous there in your attitude, too.

You talk about where you worked. Well honey; you ain't the only one that have worked for good companies in high positions. Pompous there again. I know how it works. I have been told often enough about patents. But you or I have never been as high up as Hotez, he owns his own companies, and even if he did not, there are special deals for special people as Angus Files pointed out. You have to know this since you seem to know every thing else?

Now I understand your attitude about vaccines; I too was all pro vaccinate 40 years ago. I too had the attitude.

By the way I too take care of my 95 and 90 year old parents, you are not the only one that does that either. My father had a heart attack following his flu vaccines; which he discontinued and then started to take again; only to come down with Parkinson shortly after. He started scooting his feet about week after a two year in a roll flu shot. He has had Parkinson now for 20 years. It is deeply, time consuming, takes all my strength, it is exhaustingly, and it involves me.


My experience is different from yours. But you have dismissed that. So, that again makes you pompous.

Why are you so passionate about vaccines so much that it makes you come here to rub our noses in it? If you are not a pharma troll then you are something just as bad, if not worse. You are a useful idiot that the universities have really indoctrinated. Which is it? IF it is the later, Why, what is it about your brain that you have to go around correcting the splinter in every one else's eyes, and not bother about the log in your own eye?

Again, You coming to convince us of the facts that you believe while you have never stopped to hear our stories? Never; or you would drop your head in shame.

If you want to know about my own experiences, if you ask nice; I might take the time to tell you.

Rtp

So Joel and Eindecker are you both trying to say that if people all thought vaccines were useless and causing tremendous injury then it wouldn't alter the income - past, present or future - of Hotez in any way?

Hera

Hi Eindecker, Joel,

Now I do understand; thanks. It seems the A of A write up at the top used the word"patent holder" instead of "inventor" .Hopefully , it can be changed in the interests of accuracy.
However, as I understand it, neither of you have said that any of the financial facts are incorrect?
Joel, you state ( paraphrasing here) that the money for research has to come from somewhere..Yes, it does. And without that money, I am assuming careers fail, research is not done, no published studies, etc. In fact would it be fair, in your opinion, to say a career as a researcher, requires money for research, or it is finished?
What happens if someone publishes a study that has severe negative results for a pharmaceutical product? A pharmaceutical company has a job and a bottom line, which is to promote and increase the sales of its products. How many people do you know who have produced severely negative studies about a medication, and the company that produces it has continued to fund that person?
Studies including one by Cochrane review, have showed the influence of funding bias on published results about pharmaceuticals..
So, yes, imo it matters who is responsible for providing the money that keeps someones career etc afloat..
Joel, I don't know this gentleman personally at all, the following is not about him, : what follows is purely a discussion about a hypothetical scientist. Most scientists go into science wanting to discover things, wanting to make a difference. They have project they feel may be life changing, and they want to complete them. They also realize that what with huge college costs etc, they may have a lot of debt. Somehow, they need to make a living, and also to get money to perform the studies to learn and to develop new things. But the way to get money is to publish studies that support certain industry products. Say for example, the sugar industry wants to pay lots of money in grants to someone. I would probably guess the person on the receiving end of that grant would be smart enough to design a study that makes excessive sugar intake look good. I bet you could think of plenty of ways to make a study that could make sugar intake look good, regardless of whether it is or not.. I certainly could, and it isn't my area of expertise.. So our hypothetical scientist is bright enough to design a study the sugar folks like.And then gets more funding for his 'real' interests. And then maybe he becomes a bit of a spokesman for the sugar industry. And his research grants triple, and our hypothetical scientist can pay his bills and do his real work, and all is good. As long, as course as you are not finding people making laws based on his sugar science. Or making medical decisions based on how healthy excessive sugar intake is. Most people live in the grey areas of choices. It would be very hard for our hypothetical scientist to stand up for what is right if it will cost his job, his future as a scientist, and his reputation...

Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH

@ Bernadetta

Please give reference(s), URL(s) to Peter Hotez launching his own company.

As for you writing: "You sound mighty pompous"

So, if anyone who takes the time to develop an argument that you disagree with is "pompous." Oh well.

@ mwalimumtoro

You write: "Wow! The pharma trolls are really on this one. Wonder why?"

So, though I made it quite clear that I have NEVER worked for any pharmaceutical company nor own stocks, NEVER worked for CDC or FDA, in fact, only retirement is Social Security, in your mind I have NO right to my own opinion, that is, I must be trolling for pharma. How pathetic!

Mercky Business

Joel Harrison and Eindecker are making fools of themselves - there can be no realistic question of the line of patronage however the patents are owned, and their squeals of outrage are infantile. Likewise, Hotez is just whining or he is an even more ridiculous stooge than I thought he was. Let’s face it, whatever the technicalities it’s a gold mine

mwalimumtoro

Wow! The pharma trolls are really on this one. Wonder why?

Patrick

Stanley Norman Cohen raised alarms in the mishandling of his discoveries and of course concerned about patents. From wiki: "Patents

Cohen and Boyer were not initially interested in filing patents on their work. In 1974 they agreed to file a joint patent application, administered through Stanford, and benefiting both universities. Three patents were eventually granted for the Boyer-Cohen process, one on the actual process (1980), one on prokaryotic hosts (1984) and one on eukaryotic hosts (1988). Licenses were granted non-exclusively for "a moderate fee".[6]:166 Four hundred seventy-eight companies took out patents, making it one of the university's top five revenue earners. Thousands of products have been developed on the basis of the Boyer-Cohen patents.[6]:162,166 The Boyer-Cohen patents however were controversial due to its scope as they laid claim to the fundamental technology of gene splicing, and led to many challenges to the validity of the patents in the 1980s. The patents were unusual in that they dominated almost all other patents in the field of molecular biotechnology, and in no other industry have there been patents that had such an all-embracing impact. It also made other universities around the world become aware of the commercial value of the scientific work by their academic staff.[29] "
"Berg letter" in 1974: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/185/4148/303

Eindecker

Angus don't make stuff up...the scientists who generated the IP covered in the patent are the names on that patent, OK so far? they have to sign documents etc for the patent application to be submitted. The assignee is that body or institution that can then benefit commercially from the IP covered by the patent:
The assignee is the entity that has the property right to the patent. Patents are property. The inventor and the assignee may be one in the same but an employee will more than likely assign a patent to a company.
The assignment of a patent is independent from the inventorship. A patent may be assigned to a series of different entities but the inventorship, once properly stated, does not change. The patent office allows for correction of inventorship if the error occurred without deceptive intent.

The 3 patent assingees listed in the piece are: George Washington University, George Washington University and The Rockefeller University. Hotez, and his co-inventors have no rights to exploit the IP covered by the patents. If Hotez, or any of his co-inventors had been assignees they would have to have been listed as such along with the institutions.

Regarding Biomedisyn the small company Kennedy is so exercised there is nothing on the web saying it was ever developing vaccines:


Frank Volvovvitz founded Biomedisyn and has served as its President since inception. Biomedisyn is developing small molecule, multifunctional drugs to improve the lives of people with neurodegenerative diseases. The Company’s product pipeline has been supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the United States Army.

There is growing recognition that effective treatment of neurodegenerative diseases may require drugs or drug combinations that simultaneously target multiple mechanisms. Available drugs mainly target a single mechanism and do not effectively slow disease progression. Biomedisyn’s drug candidates target multiple events in a disease pathway attenuating mechanisms common to many neurological disorders that underlie disease progression and clinical deterioration.

There is only one reference to Peter Hotez's connection with Biomedisyn on a 1995 paper where it is stated that he is on their Scientific Advisory Board, no mention of being a major shareholder or owner.

As Joel Harrison has stated : GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT. YEP, PETER HOTEZ WAS ONE OF THE INVENTORS; BUT DOES NOT OWN ANY OF THE PATENTS.


david m burd

@ Joel A. Harrison, - you say:

"If some researcher had devoted years to a valid treatment for autism, his institution got the patent, and he received some of the royalties, would you condemn him/her?"

What you fail to understand here on AoA and its many allies, is that we are trying to STOP the CAUSE of autism as many scores of valid science papers indict the toxic chemicals of vaccines (Al, Hg, Glutamate, etc., and the unknown toxic contaminants) that literally CAUSE permanent cellular damage everywhere in the body, particularly the brain and gut as regards autism.

Today's medical regime totally ignores the CAUSE of the gigantic autism spectrum disaster, as they lock arms, click their heels, while sticking their collective heads in the sand, and proclaim "however, we know it is not vaccines that cause autism." Apparently, you also have that absurd attitude.

OF COURSE the pharma world would love to come up with "successful treatments/patents for "curing autism" and make untold $billions for the patented treatments to "treat" what they have originally caused - and double their patented-protection profits. IF you would educate yourself you will find it is impossible to "cure" autism as the toxic-damage and death to our neurocellular mitochondria is permanent, though yes, there are some successful dietary/chelation approaches that can and do alleviate for some lucky ones.

By the way, the whole purpose of patent protection in our Constitution was based on "useful and beneficial to society" -- and any honest review of vaccines fails that test, to an open mind.

Morag

Industry sponsored? back handers galore? High- Flying ? One wing -puddle jumpers! ,a clucking flock with or without dangling stethescopes ,doing an embarassing big selfie, in public, with an angry can of worms?

Angus Files

Eindecker
You can also have your name on the science and patent paper making you the main beneficary and the R&D say a Uni will get a lesser cut than the researcher even although the researcher is a paid employee at the Uni or wherever..Its money for life with win win win attached to it- at the ill health of the population.I am sure Mr Kennedy knew that also when he wrote it as do you why the smoke and mirrors?

Pharma For Prison
MMR RIP

Benedetta

Joel A. Harrison You sound mighty pompous.

Notice that Hotez launched his own vaccine company, so companies owns patents? Yes indeed.

Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH

@ Patrick

Why would I have included Dr. Tadeusz Jan Wiktor, inventor of a rabies vaccine? Herd immunity doesn’t apply because rabies is not spread from person to person. Before development of the vaccine, historically there were a few cases of people in the final stages of rabies biting someone; but that is history and extremely rare. The vaccine is given to dogs because they could bite humans and to a few people who work with animals, e.g., veterinarians.

As for the article you referred to, we no longer give smallpox vaccine. If a microbe has a limited reservoir, in the case of smallpox only humans, once eliminated it won’t come back, unless intentionally released in a terrorist action. Polio also only has humans as its reservoir, measles as well. However, other infectious diseases have other natural reservoirs, so, though spread from person to person, vaccinations need to be continued. Otherwise, infected humans from other sources would break out in epidemics.

As for rinderpest, the article you linked to states: “More importantly, the models illustrated how suboptimal vaccination could contribute to virus persistence. This helped to create a consensus for a strategy of focused vaccination as a necessary route to achieve sufficient herd immunity to interrupt virus persistence as the necessary route to eradication.”

One doesn’t have to vaccinate everyone when humans are the only reservoir. Smallpox involved ring vaccination. They located cases, vaccinated anyone who remotely came in contact with them. Since smallpox wasn’t everywhere at the same time, this stopped it cold.Polio does pose a problem in that polio viruses can persist in water supplies for some time; but it can be eliminated.

From Wikipedia:

Rinderpest (also cattle plague or steppe murrain) was an infectious viral disease of cattle, domestic buffalo, and many other species of even-toed ungulates, including buffaloes, large antelope and deer, giraffes, wildebeests, and warthogs.[2] The disease was characterized by fever, oral erosions, diarrhea, lymphoid necrosis, and high mortality. Death rates during outbreaks were usually extremely high, approaching 100% in immunologically naïve populations.[3] Rinderpest was mainly transmitted by direct contact and by drinking contaminated water, although it could also be transmitted by air.[4] After a global eradication campaign since the mid-1900s, the last confirmed case of rinderpest was diagnosed in 2001.[5]

Carefully reading the article explains how once they eliminated by vaccination herds with rinderpest and those closest by, they could end vaccinations.

I really don’t understand why you brought Dr. Wiktor into the discussion and obviously you didn’t carefully read the article to linked to.

If you want to read probably the single best discussion of herd immunity:

Paul Fine (1993). Herd Immunity: History, Theory, Practice. Epidemiologic Reviews; Vol. 15, No 2. pages 265 - 301. You can find it at:

http://op12no2.me/stuff/herdhis.pdf

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1150/f26ca43be04880eaf4ad046a1f9408cb2e11.pdf?_ga=2.90164443.1384466874.1575757339-37668786.1575757339

It would probably be a waste of my time to even attempt to respond to some of the other comments, so, an old man in my mid-70s, I think I'll do something else today.

One last thought. I loved my parents and maternal grandparents dearly, even moved home to take care of my mother for well over a year when she was diagnosed with cancer. From my earliest years I made sure they got their annual flu shots, pneumoccocal shots, etc. I did the same for life-time friends and made sure, encouraged them, to vaccinate their kids. I don't own stocks in pharma, etc. I did this because I wanted the best for friends and loved ones. You might disagree with me; but I did what I did because of my opinion based on extensive education, experience, etc because I deeply cared about these people. And from what I've read, what people who have worked with Peter Hotez have said, I truly believe he does what he does because he cares.

If some researcher had devoted years to a valid treatment for autism, his institution got the patent, and he received some of the royalties, would you condemn him/her? Keep in mind that he/she may have from an early age seen cases of autism and chose his/her career not to make money but to help. Would it be better if they just gave the patent to a pharmaceutical company?

Eindecker

Hera
It's on the front page of all of the patents, the assignee is the hospital or university where the research was undertaken "The assignee is the entity that has the property right to the patent. Patents are property. The inventor and the assignee may be one in the same but an employee will more than likely assign a patent to a company. The assignment of a patent is independent from the inventorship." In other words the assignee is the beneficiary of any commercial exploitation of the patent. If you are employed as an R&D scientist then your employer will normally be the automatic assignee under the terms of your employment contract for commercialisation of any inventions made while you were in that employment. You are, after all, being paid to make these discoveries
If Mr Kennedy does not understand this subtlety then that might explain the difference.

Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH

@ Hera

You wrote regarding my post: “I am not seeing any relevance to this discussion?”

My response was right on target, based on the article stating:

“Robert Kennedy Jr. exposes Dr. Peter Hotez shall we say hookworm, lyin' and stinker. He holds not one but three US Patents based on hookworms, reminiscent of Paul Offit, dissected by our own Mark Blaxill in "Voting Himself Rich" with his own vaccine patent. Offit these days seems to have been sidelined in favor of Hotez and Dorit Reiss.”

As I made absolutely clear, Dr. Peter Hotez does not hold any of the three patents. I should also have made clear that neither did Paul Offit. Offit and colleagues devoted 25 years to developing a vaccine for rotavirus. The patent went to The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. While there exist neither law nor regulations, it is customary for an institution to share a portion of the royalties they receive with the inventors; but they don’t have to.

I should also point out that the UK has similar arrangements and Andrew Wakefield’s name was listed as inventor on two patent applications for a monovalent measles vaccine. The patent would have gone to the Royal Free Hospital had it been approved and Wakefield would have received a share of the royalties.

As for pharma links, while I have NEVER worked for any pharmaceutical company, the med school where I was on the faculty did receive some grants. But they also received government grants, grants from non-profit associations, etc. And they also received grants from pharma for developing other medical interventions. While I personally would prefer that our government invest more money in medical research, until they do, one has to get the money from somewhere, unless you wish to reduce significantly medical research? Or is it OK by you that pharma grants for anything but vaccines is OK?

Developing vaccines for developing nations has not been a priority for our pharmaceutical industry. However, Dr. Hotez and others have shamed them into some grants, grants which, of course, are tax deductible and good publicity for pharma. Keep in mind that the grants from pharma, Bill Gates, etc. go to equipment, research assistants, etc. He gets his salary as Dean and Full Professor based on the institutional scale for such positions, nothing more nothing less. Full professors at his college researching other medical interventions get the same. So, Dr. Hotez did NOT receive these monies, his research institution did. There is a major difference. And he has actually gone to developing nations to provide free medical care and campaigned to get donations of various medicines to go to developing nations. I personally greatly admire him for his dedication to helping developing nations. However, he has also discovered that some of the afflictions affecting developing nations, e.g., Hookworm, can also be found among poor American populations on the Gulf Coast, so his research will benefit them as well.

Age of Autism has stated on numerous occasions receiving support from Alternative and Complimentary Medical Practitioners, who obviously are in the business to make a profit. So, does this affect what Age of Autism writes? Does this affect positions taken by Age of Autism?

greyone

Elegant, concise journalism.
(I'd forgotten what it looks like)
https://theiowastandard.com/kennedy-jr-says-were-living-a-science-fiction-nightmare-children-being-turned-into-permanent-pharmaceutical-industry-consumers/

Hera

Hi Joel Harrison,
Thank you for the information re the difference between inventors and patent holders. However, I am not seeing any relevance to this discussion ? Imo, if he has been quoted correctly, then the doctor has stated that he has "no pharma links". Are you stating that inventors of vaccines are to be described as having "no pharma links" ?Are you saying that he has not received the moneys that J F Kennedy describes? If he has not received these very large sums of moneys, then certainly he should speak up.
Is he doing so?

Patrick

This is an interesting read. Of course V developer, Dr. Tadeusz Jan Wiktor, is not mentioned. It makes you question the herd immunity theory, mass va$$ efforts leading to other diseases and the cessation of V efforts at some point. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3720037/

Drymeadow

So if Peter Hotez lies about his conflict of interest, what does that say about The Baylor College of Medicine and Texas Children's where he works ? After all, he is a Dean and an endowed professor, a leader within that community, so its relevant.

Do the doctors there inject newborn babies with Aluminum and/or Mercury ?

Do the doctors there inject children with foreign DNA that causes cancer ?

Can the doctors there look their friends and relatives in the eye after their niece or nephew succumbs to Autism ?

Despite the positive things they do, it looks like Baylor and Texas Children's are harboring a criminal.

Patrick

Who could forget the developer of Gardisil, Diane Harper. It's safe to say these Vacc developers do not wish for people like Hotez, Offit and Plotkin to get a hold of these products. Like Hilary Koprowski, they seem like good people: http://nowmynews.blogspot.com/2013/04/pioneer-behind-vaccine-for-polio-dies.html

Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH

The Constitution of the United States provides in Article 1, Section 8, that:
the "Congress shall have power . . . to promote the progress of science and
useful arts by securing, for limited times, to authors and inventors, the
exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.”

US law, unlike foreign law, requires a patent application to be in the name of
the inventor. A company cannot be the inventive entity.

The definition for inventorship can be simply explained: The threshold
question in determining inventorship is who conceived of the invention.
Unless a person contributes to the conception of the invention, he is not an
inventor. The inventor maintains intellectual domination over the invention.
An inventor has to contribute something to the conception of the invention,
not merely be the supervisor of the inventor or someone that acted under
the direction and supervision of the inventor.

THE ASSIGNEE IS THE ENTITY THAT HAS THE PROPERTY RIGHT TO THE PATENT. NOTICE THAT ON ALL THREE OF THE PATENTS, PETER HOTEZ IS LISTED AS INVENTOR; BUT THE INSTITUTION WHERE HE WORKED AS THE ASSIGNEE.. Patents
are property. The inventor and the assignee may be one in the same but an
employee will more than likely assign a patent to a company.

The assignment of a patent is independent from the inventorship. A patent
may be assigned to a series of different entities but the inventorship, once
properly stated, does not change. The patent office allows for correction of
inventorship if the error occurred without deceptive intent.

GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT. YEP, PETER HOTEZ WAS ONE OF THE INVENTORS; BUT DOES NOT OWN ANY OF THE PATENTS.

Patrick

As you look into who actually develops Va$$s you start to wonder how many of these guys are simply taking credit for other's ideas. It seems that many of the actual developers do not wish to be associated with V's. Of course there was Maurice Hilleman who wasn't happy with how V contamination was being handled. From Stanley Plotkin's wiki: "During his time at Wistar, Plotkin worked on several vaccines; chief among them are vaccines for rubella, rabies, rotavirus, and cytomegalovirus (CMV). He developed a vaccine for rubella, based upon the RA 27/3 strain of the virus (also developed by Plotkin using WI-38 human fetal stem cells), which was released to the public in 1969.[9] This vaccine led to the eradication of the disease in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in 2005.[10] Plotkin, working with Tadeusz Wiktor and Hilary Koprowski, produced a human vaccine for rabies during the 1960s and 1970s. This vaccine can be used as a preventative measure for people who have an increased risk of contracting rabies, as well as a treatment for those who have been exposed recently to the disease, preventing infection in nearly 100 percent of cases.[10] Another vaccine that Plotkin co-developed, working with H. Fred Clark and Paul Offit, is for rotavirus. In 2006, the team's vaccine became part of the U.S. recommended vaccine schedule for babies.[10] In the 1970s, Plotkin lead the development of an experimental vaccine against CMV. This vaccine, developed using attenuated CMV, has yet to make it into commercial production.[10]"

David L

This video from truthstream media about the censorship of anti vaccine information online goes into a lot of discussion on Peter Hotez who is one of the most deeply entrenched vaccine figures that exists today about 8 mins in. He got his PhD from the rockefeller university of the rockefeller family who has been a huge promoter of vaccines including being a founder of id2020. He is collaborating with milliporesigma which is merck on vaccines. He is a consultant for the bill and melinda gates foundation who it was reported in may 13 2007 in the Hartford Courant out of Connecticut gave Hotez 52 million to fund his labs. "Its like one of those dreams you get after drinking too much red wine. You wake up and say And then my lab was fully funded and in walks Alyssa Milano in an evening dress https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3EHrjfLXaw

Angus Files

Jonas Salk as your hero and no doubt reading from the bible daily written by Salk Survival Of The Wisest(which pharma is trying to remove from our viewing. Eugenics at its best hero worshipping the devil right there mental illness.

Pharma For Prison

MMR RIP.

The comments to this entry are closed.