Those with power have always manipulated reality and created ideologies defined as progress to justify systems of exploitation. Monarchs and religious authorities did this in the Middle Ages. Today this is done by the high priests of modernity—the technocrats, scholars, scientists, politicians, journalists and economists. They deform reality. They foster the myth of preordained inevitability and pure rationality. But such knowledge—which dominates our universities—is anti-thought. It precludes all alternatives. It is used to end discussion. It is designed to give to the forces of science or the free market or globalization a veneer of rational discourse, to persuade us to place our faith in these forces and trust our fate to them. These forces, the experts assure us, are as unalterable as nature. They will lead us forward. To question them is heresy. ~Chris Hedges

Read Part 1, Part 2 ,  Part 3,  Part 4,  Part 5,   Part 6, Part 7,  Part 8 and Part 9.

This is the final installment in Adriana Gamondes'  ouevre. She looked into the future and here we are. living in a state of plague.  Join us in wishing her well.

By Adriana Gamondes

Neoliberal Noir and the Globalized Junta  

On April 28^th, 2015, New York University law professor Mary Holland testified before the California Senate Judiciary Committee in opposition to SB277, a bill that would remove all personal exemptions to vaccination—religious and philosophical— except medical for California’s school children.

On the issue of consent, Holland drew sharp parallels that angered Chairwoman Hannah-Beth Jackson (D-Santa Barbara).

MARY HOLLAND: Without some measure of realistic choice—and I do not believe that medical exemptions or homeschooling present viable options for the majority who have resolute convictions against vaccination—this bill will be coercive. Parents will be vaccinating their children under duress, invalidating any notion of informed consent. 

In employment, lack of consent is forced labor. In military service, it’s conscription. In contracts, it leads to invalid contracts. In intimate relations, it’s called rape. And in medical treatment, it’s battery.

SEN. JACKSON: Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa! Wait a minute. Wait a second... Rape is a loaded word and as the Chair of the Women’s Caucus, I don’t take the use of the word lightly.

MARY HOLLAND:  I don’t either.

Sen. Jackson chastised further on use of the rape analogy, then asked Holland to provide examples of Supreme Court or other rulings dealing specifically with the issue of informed consent and vaccination. It was some time before Holland could continue with her testimony, at which point she discussed the potential denial of public education that would result from instituting such a law, the fact that the laws already in place in all states ensured high vaccination rates as it is, then asked whether the state would criminalize dissent.

MARY HOLLAND:  Furthermore, a problem with SB277 would be in its enforcement.

The parents here today are unlikely to comply with the vaccine schedule. They will either be forced—it would violate the covenant with their God or their conscience because, rightly or wrongly, they believe that they would be putting their children at risk of severe injury or death by vaccinating them.

How will you possibly enforce this with parents who won’t vaccinate and cannot, for economic or other reasons, home school?

Will you be willing to remove children and force-vaccinate them as wards of the state?

Will you be willing to throw non-vaccinating parents in prison?

And what happens if the state does vaccinate a child who is removed and that child is severely injured or dies?

What will the state do?

SEN. JACKSON: Where in this bill does it talk about throwing parents in prison?

MARY HOLLAND: No, but what will you do? The parents—many of the parents who are…

SEN. JACKSON: I’m sorry but there is nothing in this… I mean, there are enough concerns raised.  To kind of push it to a level…  Now we are talking about putting parents in prison…

Senator Jackson sputtered for several more minutes about Holland’s “inflammatory” suggestions, to which Holland replied, “But I don’t know what you will do.”

We don’t know but we can guess. To quote G.K. Chesterton, “If you let loose a law, it will do as a dog does. It will obey its own nature, not yours. Such sense as you have put into the law (or the dog) will be fulfilled. But you will not be able to fulfill a fragment of anything you have forgotten to put into it.” In other words, if 277 passes, children will be taken and parents will go to jail since there’s absolutely nothing in the bill that guards against this.

Senator Jackson’s objections to Mary Holland’s use of analogy and Orwellian rhetorical inquiry were transparent and Jackson’s reasons for demonstrating outrage didn’t make sense.  Any “disservice” these references rendered was not to consumer advocates but to the bill’s sponsors and Jackson’s biased censorship.

The pomp of the Fascists, taken at its face value, has a hollow gest, the gest of mere pomp, a featureless phenomenon: men strutting instead of walking, a certain stiffness, a lot of colour, self-conscious sticking out of chests, etc. All this could be the gest of some popular festivity, quite harmless, purely factual and therefore to be accepted. Only when the strutting takes place over corpses do we get the social gest of Fascism.  ~Berthold Brecht, Brecht on Theater

Read Part 1, Part 2 ,  Part 3,  Part 4,  Part 5,   Part 6, Part 7 and Part 8.

We're nearing the final installment of Adriana Gamondes' glimpse into the future - that we are living today.

By Adriana Gamondes

Skeptic Gestics and Troubleshooting the Wounded

Parts 1 through 8 delved into the how and why the wars on disease/terror have merged and the resulting moebius strip reality where the public rides an eternal loop between bomb threats and disease scares, maintaining a permanent state of crisis or, as Foucault put it, a state of plague to justify progressively greater incursions on rights and privacy.  

These “wars on” have their various strategists, their generals and intelligence gatherers and their propagandists, snitches, provocateurs and hired thugs who sow divisions and rationalize the collateral of all these ideological, social and actual wars.  In the case of the organized Skeptics PR front, it’s a three-fer. In effect, the Skeptics are the tape on the moebius strip, binding all the themes and entrapping public discourse in the perpetual cycle through a sort of bullying fundamentalist science rhetoric.

The Skeptic front organization not only leads the charge in “defining the enemies” of the vaccine industry as “anti-vaccine” and has harped in particular on religious resistance towards vaccination, the chemical industry and genetically modified crops,  associated members and leaders of the group have also helped hone PR rationalizations for preemptive invasion of biofuel-rich, often Islamic countries by demonizing Islamic culture based on the actions of a minority and characterizing Islam as anti-progress and anti-science.

The problem in establishing the Skeptics' corporate and state connections is that, due to tax loopholes allowing educational foundations to keep funding sources anonymous, for the time being there are only circumstantial hints that the Gates Foundation— aside from  pharmaceutical companies, public health regulators and chemical giants like Monsanto— may be among the Skeptics’ backers. It’s beside the point in a sense since, according to the number of Skeptic affiliates ensconced in the media, academia and who hold positions on public boards despite sometimes outrageous conduct and statements, the group seems to have plenty of institutional support. In a corporocratic world, institutional support and a teflon veneer frequently imply corporate support. 

But one thing is very clear—the biotech defense front is very centralized. One way or another, a high number of prominent public health avatars and industry defenders in the media have ties to the organized Skeptics. All unilaterally spin apologias and swap soundbites for a range of industrial products while stumping for policy which supports their brands, using methods that combine literal and figurative panoptic themes. Whether selling the war on terror, the war on disease or the war on “irrationality,” the group’s figureheads argue that carriers of anti-science/anti-progress beliefs doubly endanger the public through actual and conceptual contagion and that both the ideas and the carriers themselves must be contained. 

No colonial power is going to succeed unless it’s going to play on existing divisions, and sharpen them, increase them, exacerbate them.   ~Mahmood Mamdani, Uganda Rising

Read Part 1, Part 2 ,  Part 3,  Part 4,  Part 5,   Part 6 and Part 7.

By Adriana Gamondes

McRevolutions, Resources and Panoptic Optics

In looking at the pattern of global philanthropy in the buildup towards Western intervention in resource-rich nations around the world, connections can’t be forced. The substantiations are often hidden in closed door meetings and on the ground among populations the media, largely controlled by those pushing particular agendas, mostly ignores. But even so, certain patterns emerge in the shadows.  

For instance, the map illustration from the lead article in this series simply compared GAVI target countries with oil operations and US military expansion using a map provided by Tom Dispatch from an article by Nick Turse, AFRICOM’s Gigantic “Small” Footprint:

Here’s a question for you: Can a military tiptoe onto a continent? It seems the unlikeliest of images, and yet it’s a reasonable enough description of what the U.S. military has been doing ever since the Pentagon created an Africa Command (AFRICOM) in 2007. It’s been slipping, sneaking, creeping into Africa, deploying ever more forces in ever more ways doing ever more things at ever more facilities in ever more countries -- and in a fashion so quiet, so covert, that just about no American has any idea this is going on.  One day, when an already destabilizing Africa explodes into various forms of violence, the U.S. military will be in the middle of it and Americans will suddenly wonder how in the world this could have happened. 

Mali

The fact that medical philanthropy often tiptoes in prior to invasions for resources might demonstrate, at least in part, how in the world this could have happened.  In order to avoid exaggerating associations between events through blatant examples like Ebola outbreaks and the US boots on the ground that followed, and because sometimes, as Turse puts it, “to see the big picture you need to focus on the smallest part of it,” I raked over several seemingly random news items for countries which are mostly obscure to Westerners such as Mali.  Most don’t even know where Mali is much less the country’s history or what the US is currently doing there. But the stories I ran across took a certain shape: the a rash of experimental trials for Ebola, HPV, rotavirus and other vaccines and  the Gates Foundation’s involvement; a US-facilitated coup d’état in 2012  and finally an industry-centric view of civil disorder as an impediment to oil and gas exploration in that country.  

News 24 reports:

Mali's health minister says the West African country has started trials of an Ebola vaccine on scientific researchers.

"It's purely a scientific step. The trials are on volunteer researchers," said Ousmane Kone.

Mali has no Ebola cases but it borders Guinea, where the outbreak began.

The trials in Bamako are being supervised by the vaccine research centre of the medical school of the University of Maryland in the United States and Mali's health ministry, Kone said.

Trials of the vaccine started in September on 10 US volunteers and 60 in Britain.

The vaccine is being developed by the British drug company GlaxoSmithKline and the US National Institute of Health.

This recalls the Serum Institute of India's MenAfriVac meningococcal vaccine developed as part of the PATH Partnership for Global Health in cooperation with the WHO, Unicef, GAVI, the University of Maryland and private industry (GSK, etc.) which was used in the deadly, forced trials organized by the Gates Foundation in Chad, itself a nest of US military activity. Years earlier, in 2002, the University of Maryland School of Medicine website reported the school’s abiding vaccine alliance with Mali and the Gates Foundation:  

Two researchers from the University of Maryland School of Medicine in Baltimore have received prestigious honors from the Mali government in recognition of their efforts to develop and distribute vaccines to children in that country who are vulnerable to numerous infectious diseases common in Africa. The awards were presented at a special ceremony in Mali in June on behalf of the President of Mali, His Excellency Amadou Toumani Touré…In 2000, the Ministry of Health of Mali and the University of Maryland School of Medicine signed a formal agreement to establish the CVD-Mali to provide laboratory space and resources for CVD researchers working in the country and to train Malian scientists and physicians.

The mindset is that the barbarians are backward and inferior and, for their own benefit, we have to uplift them, civilize them and educate them and so on. The psychology behind it is kind of transparent. When you’ve got your boot on someone’s neck and you’re crushing them, you can’t say to yourself “I’m a son of a bitch and I’m doing it for my own benefit.” So we have to figure out some way of saying “I’m doing it for their benefit.” And that’s a very natural position to take when you’re beating someone with a club. ~Noam Chomsky, Uganda Rising

Read Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3,  Part 4,  Part 5 and Part 6.

Today we present part 7 of Adriana's ten part series "State of Plague," written many years ago, foreshadowing today.  Please share these important essays far and wide.  Thank you.

By Adriana Gamondes

Midnight Oil: Hearts and Minds and Fuel and Lives Going Dark Around the World

For a recap, Part 1 of this series discusses the potential role of the use of vaccine drives as cover for military intelligence and drone operations in domestic legislative campaign to make vaccines compulsory in the US.  Part 2 discusses Foucault’s “panoptic,” disease-driven theory of the surveillance state and overlaps with the Gates Foundation’s militarized approach to public health.  Part 3 looks into the merger between the wars on disease/terror and the dangerous exchange of tactics and  ideology that results, from the likening of ideological enemies to “viruses” to the elevation of  commercial science to the status of state religion. Part 4 discusses Kissinger’s panoptic viral theory of foreign policy and ways this model is used against Americans.   Part 5  discusses the viral theory in the framework of the Gates Foundation’s fundamentalist market and science doctrines and engagement in radical social engineering. Part 6 looks into the deeper history and racial implications of the alleged use of abortifacient vaccines against Kenyan women by their own government, UNICEF, WHO and the Gates Foundation and discusses whether this represents a militarized  Heart-of-Darkness  scheme to engage a target population in its own destruction—a type of panoptic inoculation drive against threats to corporate interests.

Since the overall forcus of the series is the possible blowback of foreign exploits in the form of repressive domestic policy—ways in which weaponized tactics, ideology and metaphors spawned by the merger between military interests and public health used as a Trojan horse for foreign exploits come home to roost—it would seem important to take a look at the global stakes. 

Kenya, the target of the most recent credibly alleged mass sterilization campaign using vaccination as cover,  is just one example of countries currently at the center of the global battle for resouces. This could be due to competition with China for newly discovered Kenyan oil and gas stores. As The Guardian’s John Pilger wrote in 2013, a lot of what’s happening relates to China: 

For Obama, there is a more pressing cause – China. Africa is China's success story. Where the Americans bring drones, the Chinese build roads, bridges and dams. What the Chinese want is resources, especially fossil fuels. Nato's bombing of Libya drove out 30,000 Chinese oil industry workers. More than jihadism or Iran, China is Washington's obsession in Africa and beyond. This is a "policy" known as the "pivot to Asia", whose threat of world war may be as great as any in the modern era.

Competition with China may likewise explain a few things that otherwise make no sense at all.  It might explain why Bill Gates fulfilled Kenyan President Uhuro Kenyatta’s 2013 campaign promise to provide laptops  to all Kenyan children—an arguably election-swinging promise Kenyatta would likely never have made had it not been prearranged. It could explain why Gates intervened despite the fact that Kenyatta was not Washington’s preference while, oddly,  the Marxist, militant-backed Raila Odinga was: Kenyatta’s defiant relationships with Russia and China— China in particular—though the latter is no hindrance to Gates. Gates, who appeared to play “good cop” to Washington’s “bad cop” regarding Kenyatta, has heavily invested in China—at one time through Microsoft and now through the Gates Foundation—and has multiple connections to the country through investments in atomic power, vaccine and computer tech and agriculture. Also oil through circuitous routes, such as Gates’ ownership of the Canadian National Railway as the rail company is revitalized by China’s investment in Canadian oil.

... it was written I should be loyal to the nightmare of my choice.

~Joseph Conrad, The Heart of Darkness

Read Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3 and Part 4 and Part 5.

We continue Adriana's prescient 10 part series. Please share. Thank you.

By Adriana Gamondes

Loyal to the Nightmare: The Vatican Squares off with Gates and the World Health Organization Over Mass Sterilization in Kenya via Vaccination—Implications for Race and Corporatism

Religious organizations have frequently accused Gates of diabolical extremes, specifically of advancing a eugenicist population control agenda. The charge is usually based on hyperbolized statements Gates made at the mHealth Summit on the issue, most famously his suggestion that if families in the third world could count on losing fewer children to disease, they might choose to have fewer in the first place: "The key thing, the most important fact that people should know and make sure other people know: As you save children under 5, that is the thing that reduces population growth…That sounds paradoxical. The fact is that within a decade of improving health outcomes, parents decide to have less children."

Gates’ references to the dangers of overpopulation are not novel and are carefully scripted. But again, it may be a litmus of Gates’ and his foundation’s global reputation that many assume the various disasters that trail Gates’ philanthropic and industrial schemes listed in Parts 2 and 5 are necessarily deliberate, thereby lending a sinister subtext to his population control statements and others. The progressive concern about the strain of overpopulation on the survival of the planet and the delicate ecosystem in itself is not particularly evil or authoritarian.  What would make it so is any argument that the end justifies any means at all and evidence that those ends were implemented using unethical means.

Since long before Operation Neptune Spear, the mainstream media— often citing sources associated with UNICEF, the WHO or the Gates Foundation’s vaccine surveillance program—  reported that religious leaders in Islamic countries spread “irrational fear” of vaccination, such as the idea that vaccines can cause infertility. A 2004 report from Reuters:

ABUJA, Nigeria (Reuters) - Nigeria is to test samples of the polio vaccine next month in the hope of resolving a dispute with Muslim authorities which has helped spread the crippling disease to children across Africa.

Three predominantly Muslim states in northern Nigeria stopped immunizations in November because Islamic authorities suspect the vaccines of spreading infertility -- which they believe is part of an American conspiracy to depopulate Africa's most populous nation...

"There are serious suspicions of a conspiracy by the U.S. government to depopulate Nigeria, among other developing countries," he told Reuters.

"Unless a joint examination is undertaken, suspicions will linger and people will not be forthcoming."

If the joint test puts fears to rest, the minister said vaccinations would resume nationwide on February 23.

Nigeria is proving the main obstacle to the WHO's goal of eradicating polio globally by 2005.

  As it happens, the WHO had been attempting to squash rumors of abortifacient vaccines since 1995.    Damage to immunisation programmes from misinformation on contraceptive vaccines >Abstract

Tetanus is responsible for 550,000 neonatal deaths globally each year. Tetanus toxoid vaccines are provided through the World Health Organization and the United Nations Children's Fund for national immunisation programmes to prevent infant deaths from tetanus. The vaccines are manufactured and controlled under strict standards. Rumours have circulated recently in Mexico, Tanzania, Nicaragua and the Philippines that WHO and UNICEF are using women as guinea-pigs to test a contraceptive vaccine given to them under the guise of tetanus toxoid vaccine. These rumours, apparently initiated by so-called pro-life' groups, are completely untrue. The vaccines do not contain contraceptive vaccines or any other substance which interferes with fertility or pregnancy and their labelling accurately describes their actual contents. The false claims made by these groups have had an adverse impact on immunisation programmes in all four countries.

Incidentally, western media have generally omitted reports by healthcare workers directly involved in the vaccination campaign used as cover for Operation Neptune Spear that the drive targeted women of childbearing age (15 to 49) for Hepatitis B vaccination, not solely children:

All day, as part of a hepatitis B vaccination team that the doctor had assembled, the nurses had been canvassing the area, knocking on doors and looking for women ages 15 to 45 to cajole into taking the needle. First a drop of blood would be drawn from the patient and blotted on a rapid-test strip, which would show, within minutes, whether the patient had been infected with hepatitis. If the patient was negative, the nurses were instructed to administer the vaccination.

This in itself could explain why suspicions of ill intent have lingered for so many years, though use of vaccination as cover for drone and military intelligence hasn’t helped. What has also rarely been mentioned in the “Islamic Luddite” stories is that it was medical organizations in the Philippines that initially reported that vaccines supplied by the World Health Organization and UNICEF contained human chorionic gonadotropin. The information was then publicized by Catholic pro-life groups, though the BBC documentary The Human Laboratory demonstrated that it was doctors from the Philippine Medical Association who first reported the scandal:

Dr. Reynaldo Echavez: We in the Philippine Medical Association don’t believe in what the government is saying. The tests that were made in both big medical centres were all positive for HCG, Beta HCG, and they claim that this is insignificant. To me this could not be insignificant because it can produce anti-HCG. At the moment there is a presence of HCG in the vaccine. It can produce anti-HCG and this can now neutralise the HCG that a woman will produce during pregnancy and abortion will set in.

Dr. Vilma Gonzaga: Women should have been told that the injection would cause miscarriage and, in the end, infertility. The Department of Health should have asked beforehand, so that only those who didn’t want to have children had the injection.

Read Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3 and Part 4.

By Adriana Gamondes

We are republishing Gamondes' intense 10 part series that ran in 2015, as if she was looking ahead to 2020.

Mixed Metaphors: Gates’ Inverted Totalitarian Corporate Conquistadors

As mentioned in Part 2, Bill Gates’ investment in a fracking tech corporation and Operation Neptune Spear corresponded with the intensive and obviously orchestrated vaccine defense media campaign which began with the publication of Paul Offit’s Deadly Choices: How the Anti-Vaccine Movement Threatens Us All;  followed by Murdoch stringer and paid pharmaceutical operative Brian Deer’s regurgitation of old claims against Andrew Wakefield in the British Medical Journal, and crescendoing with Gates nosing out from behind the curtain to declare a virtual fatwa on purported “anti-vaccine”  advocates who “kill children.” The campaign finished off with the seemingly endless junket for Seth Mnookin’s vaccine-defense screed, Panic Virus. The mandate drumbeat and calls for censorship against critics have only amplified since. 

At the time, the media crusade was like one long, belletristic plea that this could be the last attempt to deploy persuasion before the erosion of consumer rights would begin in earnest, and that certain policies could be—ever so reluctantly and unfortunately— forged to make vaccination fully compulsory in the US. At some point the media signaled that the “gloves were coming off,” which brings us to the current rhetoric on jail, fines, fees, segregation and child removal for vaccine dissent.

The absolutist campaign was nevertheless only one of several similar campaigns since 9/11. As journalist and Dirty Wars author and documentarian Jeremy Scahill wrote in Huffington Post, Scooter Libby, with the help of the NY Times WMD spin-planting columnist Judy Miller, lobbied to make disease outbreaks instrumental to war footing.

The fact that the shot obsession in this century began with the Bush administration and Libby—one of the officials at the heart of the “yellow cake” and WMD fabrication scandal—shouldn’t come as much of a shock since the vaccination campaign continues to be as orchestrated as WMD spin had been (and still is). The fact that the campaign has only ratcheted up under the Obama administration— known for jailing and persecuting whistleblowers  who threatened more current “WMD” ploys— isn’t so shocking at this point either. As mentioned in Part 2, all of the odd convergences bring up questions over both what is at stake that would explain the parallel intensity of the wars on terror/disease as well as questions about the power of particular figures enmeshed in the blitz to coordinate the centralized message.  At least one of the answers is obvious. As the Seattle Times reported in 2010 in a report titled Does Gates Funding Taint Media Objectivity?

Better-known for its battles against global disease, the giant philanthropy has also become a force in journalism.

The foundation's grants to media organizations such as ABC and The Guardian, one of Britain's leading newspapers, raise obvious conflict-of-interest questions: How can reporting be unbiased when a major player holds the purse strings?

But direct funding of media organizations is only one way the world's most powerful foundation influences what the public reads, hears and watches.

To garner attention for the issues it cares about, the foundation has invested millions in training programs for journalists…Magazines and scientific journals get Gates money to publish research and articles. Experts coached in Gates-funded programs write columns that appear in media outlets from The New York Times to The Huffington Post, while digital portals blur the line between journalism and spin…

Some of the foundation's approaches are controversial, such as its embrace of genetically modified crops and emphasis on technological fixes for health problems. Critics fear foundation funding of media will muffle those debates. And with only three trustees setting the overall strategy — Bill and Melinda Gates and fellow billionaire Warren Buffett — there's something "deeply anti-democratic" about such a concentration of influence, [NYU Professor Mark Crispin] Miller said.

"We're not dealing with a lively discussion among players. We're dealing with one gigantic entity ... that seems to be very skilled at promoting its agenda," he said.

This brings up a question over what exactly Gates’ and his foundation’s agenda might be.  

It was very simple, and at the end of that moving appeal to every altruistic sentiment it blazed at you, luminous and terrifying, like a flash of lightning in a serene sky: `Exterminate all the brutes!' 

~ Joseph Conrad, The Heart of Darkness

Read Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3.

By Adriana Gamondes

We are republishing Adriana Gamondes' scathing and prescient series from 2015 while Kim takes a few days off.

Totem Theory—The Virus of Nationalism

If the cult of state science or “scientism” is the ultimate earmark of 20^th century totalitarianism, it’s a cult founded in analogies that grew “fungus-like” from the discovery of infectious pathogens. It’s a form of tribalism that represents itself with a totem of the viral theory of politics and the orgy of disease metaphors arising from the militarization of science, including the disastrous view of human beings, other cultures and ideas as forms of “contagion” that must be “cured.”  

On the literal end of the viral theory, Pacific Standard, a magazine “created for opinion leaders, policymakers, and concerned citizens who are interested in developing solutions to some of the world’s toughest social and environmental problems,” published an article titled The Germ Theory of Democracy, Dictatorship and All Your Most Cherished Beliefs. The article concludes that managing disease is the key to spreading democracy throughout the world: 

According to the “pathogen stress theory of values,” the evolutionary case that  [Randy] Thornhill and his colleagues have put forward, our behavioral immune systems—our group responses to local disease threats—play a decisive role in shaping our various political systems, religions, and shared moral views.

If they are right, Thornhill and his colleagues may be on their way to unlocking some of the most stubborn mysteries of human behavior. Their theory may help explain why authoritarian governments tend to persist in certain latitudes while democracies rise in others; why some cultures are xenophobic and others are relatively open to strangers; why certain peoples value equality and individuality while others prize hierarchical structures and strict adherence to tradition. What’s more, their work may offer a clear insight into how societies change. According to Thornhill’s findings, striking at the root of infectious disease threats is by far the most effective form of social engineering available to any would-be reformer…

Thornhill points out that this rise [in modern democratic states] coincided with an era in which major health interventions, including vaccine programs, the chlorination of drinking water, and efforts to reduce food-borne disease, became commonplace in many parts of the world. Thornhill is not shy about the implications. If promoting democracy and other liberal values is on your agenda, he says, health care and disease abatement should be your main concern.

No one would disagree that managing disease could potentially make societies more stable. But even aside from  the issue that, for better or worse, there are various ways of doing this, the argument that democracy hinges on disease management doesn’t pan out historically.  For instance, Murdoch-held Vox magazine featured an article titled Even ISIS Supports Kids Getting Vaccinated that was dubbed “the weirdest appeal to authority ever.” And in Nazi Germany, the head of the SS  once threatened to shoot any German official who criticized vaccination.  Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceausescu was so enthusiastic about Western medicine that he lifted a blockade solely for vaccines and ordered children in orphanages to be inoculated for Hepatitis B which had been spread by repeat blood transfusions. Unfortunately the needles used for both transfusions and inoculations were shared and the children were vaccinated several times a year for the same disease, spreading both AIDS and arguably autism.   

Read Parts 1 and Part 2 of this ten part series.

As if predicting the very future we live in, Adriana Gamondes wrote a chilling 10 part series in 2015. We are running it while Kim is on a brief vacation. Thank you.

By Adriana Gamondes

Though jail sounds drastic, it could be the only way to send a strong message about the deadly consequences of failing to vaccinate children. ~Alex Berezow,  USA Today

Actually parents don’t own their children. Parents have a responsibility to care for their children; and if they don’t, the state has a right to step in.  ~Paul Offit, USA Today

All of the barriers that are meant to protect our children–the government, the lawyers, the regulatory agencies, and the press, the checks and balances in our democratic system that are supposed to stand between corporate power and our little children–have been removed, and there’s only one barrier left, and that’s the parents, and we need to keep that in the equation. ~Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Postmodern Hysteria—a Political Virus

Part 2 of this series asked whether the merging of public health with military industrial mechanisms— made evident by the use of philanthropic vaccine drives as cover for military operations— also had the reciprocal effect of militarizing domestic public health authority.  

If this is the case, if both divisions are swapping spit to put it bluntly, it highlights certain risks. As Susan Stuart of Valparaiso University writes inWar as Metaphor, the “increasing use of militaristic rhetoric by politicians and pundits goes beyond its metaphorical use as a war against an abstraction. Instead, the use of such language is becoming literal, and that rhetorical shift matters. Today’s militaristic rhetoric is increasingly identifying fellow citizens as enemies in a literal war.”

In  Stuart’s estimation, a “war on” social problems is a way for a country’s war machinery to come home to roost on its own soil.  In a speech in 2013, journalist and activist Chris Hedges explained the military history of the boomerang effect:

What happens with dying empires—Thucydides [Greek commander circa 400 BC, author of History of the Peloponnesian War] wrote about this— is that the techniques of control, which are always about coercion—the only language most people speak in the outer reaches of empire is the language of force—as the impirium is hollowed out, these techniques migrate back into heart of the impirium, which is exactly what is happening. So you have the mercenaries working in Iraq and Afghanistan [Blackwater,  DynCorp, Intercon, American Security Group, Blackhawk, Wackenhut and Israel’s Instinctive Shooting International, etc.] suddenly appearing in New Orleans after Katrina…

According to Foucault’s panoptic theory, the advantages of the merger between war and public health machinery—much like the merger between military and domestic disaster relief—in terms of boosting domestic militarization would be obvious: fear of disease makes the surveillance state possible. As public health policy moves from persuasion to discussions of coercion and force, it’s clear the marriage has gone beyond the CDC’s symbolic military rank and uniforms. Both have a lot to trade in becoming “pregnant” with the other’s purpose. Not only practical methods are transferred, which is dangerous enough, but also rationales, PR,  ethos and philosophical approaches that are endlessly elastic and can be applied almost anywhere. I think that’s the enduring danger when things that are fundamentally irreconcilable, such as the Hippocratic Oath and rules of engagement, become disturbingly reconcilable.  The Frankenstein result is that human beings become the “disease.”  

[T]he people who go and engage in those anti-vaccine efforts— you know, they, they kill children. ~Bill Gates, CNN, February 4^th, 2011

Read Part 1 here.

Note: We are running one of Adriana's finest series this week while Kim is on a brief vacation until August 1.

By Adriana Gamondes

What the Foucault? The Gates Foundation and Panoptic Philanthropy

In February,  2011, less than three months prior to Operation Neptune Spear,  Microsoft founder Bill Gates, the world’s leading vaccine philanthropist, pronounced on CNN that vaccine safety critics “kill children” and are “liars.” A few weeks earlier, Gates had invested in Neos Geosolutions, a mining technology company backed by Goldman Sachs and Saudi investors that has performed airborne surveys in the Middle East and maintains an office in Abu Dhabi.

And as it turns out,  Gates’ investment coincided with several ongoing US military operations and installations in countries—from the Ukraine to Syria, Yemen and Kenya—  openly touted for oil, frackable shale or offshore gas fields.  And every one of these countries had been, at one point or another, a subject of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation’s and (offshoot) GAVI Alliance’s various disease monitoring and vaccination drives as well as  surveillance of what the organization calls “vaccine confidence.”

It’s a valid argument that Gates Foundation’s initiatives, like biofuel exploration are nearly ubiquitous. The same is true for US military operations, as Nick Turse for The Nation reports:

Note: This week, we feature the brilliant Adriana Gamondes, who predicted the state of plague in which we now live back in 2015 in a scathing 10 part series. Her work for us over the years we were fortunate to have her on our team stood out as our very best. Several of us have been trying to reach out to her - to no avail. A mutual friend alerted me that she is alive and well, for which I am grateful & relieved. I'm taking a Summer break until 8/1 - which makes a perfect time to share the 10 part series, and of course, Cathy on Sunday.  Please shire this series far and wide. Thank you. Kim

The plague-stricken town, traversed throughout with hierarchy, surveillance, observation, writing; the town immobilized by the functioning of an extensive power that bears in a distinct way over all individual bodies - this is the utopia of the perfectly governed city. The plague (envisaged as a possibility at least) is the trial in the course of which one may define ideally the exercise of disciplinary power. In order to make rights and laws function according to pure theory, the jurists place themselves in imagination in the state of nature; in order to see perfect disciplines functioning, rulers dreamt of the state of plague.

~Michel Foucault Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison

By Adriana Gamondes - 2015

PART 1: Reporting from the Grave

In struggling to explain a new and imminently dangerous political shift in the US, Tom Engelhardt of Tom Dispatch writes,

Have you ever undertaken some task you felt less than qualified for, but knew that someone needed to do? Consider this piece my version of that, and let me put what I do understand about it in a nutshell: based on developments in our post-9/11 world, we could be watching the birth of a new American political system and way of governing for which, as yet, we have no name.

Tom Dispatch has been an important media source for the following report and  I generally agree with the substance of the article—1% elections, demobilization of Americans, privatization of everything and the security state as fourth branch of government. I agree  on every count except one—that any of this is new or lacks a name.  

Like Engelhardt, only moreso, I also feel out of my depth with the issue of militarized “globalization” as it relates to the pharmaceutical crusade against consumer rights.  Others have named these things separately and I’ve waited patiently for years for leading political analysts and activists to put the pieces together.

But  it finally dawned on me that this is the type of reporting that can only happen from the bottom—from  sources with little to lose but themselves—both because the view from political purgatory has a certain clarity and because activists and analysts who focus on broader political scopes generally have other life and death issues hinging on their ability and agency to get a their perspectives into the wider media. When they go down, so does the range of issues they might be rare voices for.

And let’s face it—the vaccine safety and policy reform campaign is more cautionary tale than inspirational activism narrative at this point. If Howard Zinn were alive today, the movement might be added to his list of tragic causes silenced by power and buried by history. Each attempt to improve things has been met at every pass with more system degeneration—from the erection of the disastrous Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP, “vaccine court”) to the Lilly rider and the Bruesewitz decision, crushing Omnibus rulings, the expansion of the childhood schedule to nearly 70 doses,  the digging in of heels on mercury in flu shots and vaccines supplied to the third world, an exploding “autism drug” market further disincentivizing environmental research, the merging of aggressive front groups with a privatized state security apparatus, and finally the current campaign to legislate compulsory vaccination.

Even with recent successes against removal of personal exemptions in Oregon and Washington, state crusades against  vaccine exemptions continue to spread, federal enforcement still looms, and vaccine safety and autism activists seem farther away from original goals.   To make matters worse, in the case an individual is disabled by vaccination—an indisputed risk of a technology ruled “unavoidably unsafe” by the Supreme Court and the reason for the existence of the VICP— the treatment of the disabled in the US, including disabled veterans, is increasingly  lethal and deplorable. And even those few awarded compensation in vaccine court would most likely be ineligible for medical exemptions under progressively narrowing parameters set by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.  

In terms of being the voice of change, those of us with dead and injured family members are, by all appearances,  dead and buried ourselves except for the fact that every crackdown and step backward  correspond to an increase in the number of Americans who view vaccine safety as a research priority or who suspect the tech is not as safe as claimed. Those shifts were inevitable but hardly victories since the aim had been to better the system before the damage, cost and jaundice spread.

Good morning, today we wrap up our revisit with Adriana Gamondes' 3 part series on school shooters, pharma and in this installment, autism.

Part 3, The Enlightened Rapture, Read Part 1 and Part 2.

Those who promise us paradise on earth never produced anything but a hell. ~Karl Raimund Popper 

By Adriana Gamondes

Autism, the fastest growing developmental disorder in the US, represents more than 7% of a $40 billion dollar psychopharmaceutical market for a demographic of roughly 1 to 2% of individuals under age 25, where roughly 85% of autism diagnoses are found. Marking a condition as a public safety hazard and those with the traits as near devils is the time honored manner of manufacturing public consent for exploitative and coercive treatment and dehumanization. In other words, a wide belief that those with autism are likely to kill could effectively snuff protest against drugging mandates which Torry, Satel, Koplewicz, NAMI, the American Psychiatric Association, the National Institute of Mental Health, a steady procession of presidential administrations and the pharmaceutical industry have pushed for all along.

But the population with autism may be only one of many targets of this particular campaign. Autism research provides an endless supply of unsubstantiated genetic corollaries which have the distinction of being protected by the state in order to obfuscate the role of government public health agencies in contributing to an epidemic. And, of course, these unsubstantiated genetic corollaries have endless applications for political and industrial exploits.

Questioning the “largely genetic” foundations of autism has ruined medical, scientific and media careers, and this may partly be because, as with the elusive schizophrenia “genes,” so many reputations and articles of scientific faith hinge on the theory. For instance, if a group of researchers needs to prove that pigs fly to serve an industrial sponsor or as part of an exercise in "weaponized anthropology” targeting a strategic or ideological foe, all they need do is link “proofs” of the imaginary flight of pigs to autism to create an automatic credibility shield

Part 2 of Adriana Gamondes' opus on school shooters that first ran several years ago. Alas, the topic is evergreen and growing ever greener.

Part 2, Profectus

Read Part 1 and Part 3.

"No wonder kids grow up crazy. A cat's cradle is nothing but a bunch of X's between somebody's hands, and little kids look and look and look at all those X's..."
"And?"
"No damn cat, and no damn cradle." ~Kurt Vonnegut, Cat’s Cradle

By Adriana Gamondes

In the introduction to Nuclear Rites, Stanford anthropologist Hugh Gusterson explains why he approached a formal study of atomic weapons scientists in the same manner he’d approach a tribal culture: “one powerful Western institution that is particularly understudied by anthropologists is science.”

Gusterson concludes that, though typical psychological analyses of weapons production bear some truth—that the power of nuclear weapons systems become an extension of the self, an expression of potency,etc.—the view too easily dismisses scientists’ own rationalizations and ideology as mere distractions from driving psychosexual motives. Instead, according to Gusterson, scientists’ faith in the ultimate morality of their work and the fact that this stems from the problems they’re charged with solving (namely the belief that winning the arms race would prevent nuclear strikes by less evolved nations) might better explain the field’s  euphemization of risks,  romanticization of their technology and exaggerated self-assurance that this technology can be controlled even in the face of repeated human error and equipment malfunction  potentially costing the lives of millions. Gusterson discusses profit mostly as it pertains to scientific status, coveted name-rights and the ritual of “initiation and transcendence” involved in creation and testing.

The word “profit” is derived from the Latin profectus—“to gain, advance or progress.“ There are a variety of interweaving gains to be made in ventures that are perceived to advance humanity in the name of progress—money is only one of them. Gusterson quotes Robert Budwine, head of the USA Delegation and director of Lawrence Livermore Laboratory:

The United States, for all our manifest faults, is without a doubt the best hope for a future world of peace and prosperity… Weapons research simply must continue at a determined and intensive level for our nation to have the opportunity to lead humankind towards some future utopian world order.

Several of Gusterson’s works begin with a quote from E.L. Doctorow: “The bomb first was our weapon. Then it became our diplomacy. Next it became our economy. Now it’s become our culture. We’ve become the people of the bomb.”

“To the victor go the spoils” has a different meaning in that sense. Gusterson also points out in The Insecure American that by becoming terrifying on the path to progress—even if this is rationalized, as it always has been, as the conscious pursuit of the “greater good”—we’ve terrified ourselves. Fear sells, but we’re the chief consumers of it.

Every social policy which requires the cover of morality and pursuit of a shining future to rationalize human and ecological collateral is now framed as a “war” on some frightening specter or other: the war on terror, the war on disease, the war on street drugs, and the war on mental illness (providing the sanctioned replacement for street drugs).  Some are beginning to recognize that whenever the “war on” prefix is attached to any problem, whatever the “war” has been declared on will expand.

The voting public might backlash against some of these proverbial wars (case in point, the legalization of recreational marijuana in two states), but public opinion is increasingly feeble when it comes up against corporate interests. Most American voters wanted withdrawal from Afghanistan and for Wall Street bankers to be held accountable. Many were repelled by the Supreme Court’s decision to gut limits on corporate campaign financing and almost 90% of Americans are concerned about vaccine and prescription drug safety. But as clinical psychologist Bruce Levine wrote in a Huffington Post article entitled The Myth of U.S. Democracy and the Reality of U.S. Corporatocracy, “’We the People’ have zero impact on policy.”

Note: Yes. Again.Adriana Gamondes wrote this searing three part post several years ago. She had a style that could not compare. Unfortunately, we have to recycle it as mass shootings have worsened. If any readers have been in contact with Adriana, please let us know, we have tried to reach her.  Thanks.

“Koma“ is “amok” spelled backwards; amok—as in “to run amok.” “Amoklaufen” is the German expression for “spree-killer.” After a mass shooting at the Johannes Gutenberg Gymnasium in Erfurt, Eastern Germany in 2002, police developed a new emergency code for school shootings—“Frau Koma kommt”—“Frau Koma is coming.”

Part 1,  Demon Seed

And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.  ~Revelations, 20:14-15

By Adriana Gamondes

In September, 2011, Manitoba judge Robert Heinrichs ruled that a sixteen year old accused of murder would remain in youth court where he faces a maximum sentence of four years rather than the possibility of life without parole in adult court. Family members of the fifteen year old victim were outraged by the ruling, though Heinrichs stated that the accused’s “basic normalcy now further confirms he no longer poses a risk of violence to anyone and that his mental deterioration and resulting violence would not have taken place without exposure to Prozac…He has none of the characteristics of a perpetrator of violence.”

Dr. Peter Breggin, the reform psychiatrist and psychopharmaceutical expert who testified on antidepressant-induced psychosis and violence in the Manitoba case, was sued for his medical license in 1987—the very year that Prozac was first mass marketed by Eli Lilly. The charges were filed by the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI), a consumer group which has always lobbied for forced institutionalization and mandated treatment of the mentally ill ( Section 9.2 of NAMI’s Public Policy Platform)—including drugs and electroconvulsive therapy or ECT— and was recently exposed as a long-standing pharmaceutical industry front organization in The New York Times.

Due to his success in banning forced lobotomy in institutions coupled with efforts to raise the alarm on clinical risks of ECT and psychiatric drugs, Dr. Breggin has been a thorn in the side of industry and its various front organizations since the 1970’s. After Breggin went on Oprah and reported that Eli Lilly’s own trial data showed that even individuals lacking histories of violence or serious mental illness who were exposed to the Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor (SSRI) antidepressant Prozac and antipsychotics would frequently develop violent ideation or violent psychosis, NAMI claimed that Breggin’s remarks could cause patients to discontinue their meds. Following an outpouring of support for Breggin from the international medical reform community, the Maryland licensure board dropped the charges and Breggin prevailed. Seventeen years later, the FDA adopted black box warnings for suicide and violence on SSRI antidepressants. The black box warnings are, almost word for word, the precise clinical caveats that Breggin repeatedly submitted to the FDA and in Congressional hearings.

The previously concealed Prozac trial data Breggin uncovered and exposed in 1987 included cases of child subjects on Prozac who suddenly developed intrusive dreams and visions of going to school with guns and shooting classmates.  There were also far more attempted and completed suicides among drug-exposed subjects than in the placebo groups.

Over the years, Breggin and other researchers have worked to identify the mechanism by which certain psychopharmaceutical drugs induce violence and suicidality. Breggin has described phenomenon such as drug-induced akathisia, an uncontrollable sense of restless inner torment caused by an amphetamine-like and even LSD-like effect of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors or SSRI’s, and has written about prescription drug-induced “intoxication anosognosia” or “medication spellbinding:

Medication spellbinding has four basic effects.

Sticks Lead to Stones: We Need to be Very Angry at School Abuse of the Disabled
A West Virginia Public School in the News Over Barbaric Treatment of Nonverbal Students With Autism

By Adriana Gamondes

The written transcript of the KUTV news report below starts off with a trigger warning:

A warning: What you are about to read is disturbing.

But I don’t believe in trigger warnings when the public and official response to the ongoing epidemic of abuse of disabled children has been mostly insufficient if not downright passive or complicit.

 From Salt Lake City’s KUTV: Watch Video here.

A hidden recording device in a special education classroom is raising alarming questions about what went on inside a classroom at an elementary school in Berkeley County, West Virginia.

Instructor #1: "I ought to backhand you right in your teeth. How is that for anxiety?"

According to parents, that's a secret audio recording of an instructor talking to children inside a special education class at Berkeley Heights Elementary School in Martinsburg, West Virginia.

Amber Pack sent her 8-year-old daughter to class with a recording device after the child didn't want to go back to school. (WJLA)

Instructor #1: "This one I could punch her right in her face."

A different instructor in the same class.

Instructor #2: "You got to go pee-pee? Pee-pee? Or do you not have to go pee-pee and you just want to go **** *** in a chair?"

There's more:

Instructor #2: "I'm going to pull your hair until you start crying."

Instructor #3: "Don't throw it. Don't throw. You animal you."

Instructor #2: "Yep. You wench."

Instructor #2: "You're like a pygmy. You're like a pygmy thing."

The next day Pack alerted the school district and the Martinsburg Police Department.

The story goes on to report that the three staff members were put on “administrative leave.” If this case follows the national pattern, these teachers will simply be placed in other school systems, just like clerical abusers in the church had been for years.

The above is only one example of countless cases of abuse and mistreatment of the disabled in schools and institutions across the US.  When taken a step further, this mistreatment has, according to a decades-old study by the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis, led to the deaths of up to three disabled individuals a week, mostly children.

We were appalled to read Senator Richard Pan's Facebook post claiming that the medical community could not allow "white privilege" to bolster vaccine exemptions. We have enough issues in the vaccine safety and/or refusal community without bringing in race. All races are seriously affected by autism and vaccine injury. The CDC Whistleblower William Thompson, himself white, openly discussed the tampering of MMR science to downplay (eradicate) the signal that African American toddlers were at a higher risk for an autism diagnosis based on when they received the vaccine. Avonte Oquendo died in the ice cold East River in New York after bolting from his autism school in Queens and became the face of wandering danger.

We bring back Adriana Gamondes' post from 2014, originally called The Color by Numbers Epidemic: Formerly Low Autism Rates among Ethnic Groups Skyrocketing After Massive, Coercive Campaign to Vaccinate “Underserved” Minorities.

By Adriana Gamondes

…displacement is the rust on the razor that threatens the throat. It is an unnecessary insult.

~Maya Angelou, I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings

A recent study in Pediatrics reports that autism rates now appear to be higher among the children of American born Hispanic and African American mothers and among children of mothers within certain immigrant groups:

The study group comprised children born in Los Angeles County with a primary diagnosis of autism at ages three to five years from 1998 through 2009. The children were linked to 1995–2006 California birth certificates (7,540 children with autism from a total 1,626,354 births). The investigators identified a subgroup of children with autism and a secondary diagnosis of mental retardation; they investigated differences in language and behavior among this subgroup.

The researchers found an increased risks of being diagnosed with autism overall and specifically with coexisting mental retardation in children of foreign-born mothers who were black, Central/South American, Filipino, and Vietnamese, as well as among United States-born Hispanic and African American/black mothers, compared with US-born Caucasians. Compared to children of US-born Caucasians, children of US African American/black and foreign-born black, foreign-born Central/South American, and US-born Hispanic mothers were at higher risk of autism, characterized by both severe emotional outbursts and impaired language skills.

This report is a dramatic turnaround from only a few years ago, when the CDC reported an entirely different pattern among ethnic groups in the US:

Non-Hispanic white children were approximately 30% more likely to be identified with ASD than non-Hispanic black children and were almost 50% more likely to be identified with ASD than Hispanic children.

The earlier CDC study went on to say that it was unknown whether the disparities in ethnic rates existed because of differences in recognition or diagnosing:

The extent to which this variation might be attributable to diagnostic practices, underrecognition of ASD symptoms in some racial/ethnic groups, socioeconomic disparities in access to services, and regional differences in clinical or school-based practices that might influence the findings in this report is unclear.

But as David Kirby reported in the Huffington Post in 2009, not even National Institute of Health director Thomas Insel thought the rise in autism could be explained away by changes in diagnostic practices or “increased recognition,” so it might follow that the formerly low rates of autism among minority children could not be entirely explained by lack of recognition.  Not only were rates of autism among minorities lower, as autism rose among white children in the US, rates among Hispanics in some regions were even dropping:

In 2006, the rate among non-Hispanic white children was 102-per-10,000, but among black children it was 76-per-10,000, a 34 percent difference, and among Hispanic children it was 61-per-10,000, a difference of 67 percent.

Inexplicably, the rate among Hispanics in Alabama actually plummeted during the period in question, by 68 percent, from an already low 19-per-10,000 in 2002 to an almost rare 6-per-10,000 in 2006. Meanwhile, with the exception of Arizona, the CDC said, "prevalence among Hispanic children did not change significantly within any of the other10 sites."

For the record, my own affected twins have sixteen different nationalities, including Hispanic, North African and Amerindian as well as European. Regarding the issue of autism within various ethnic communities, when rates were low there were many public discussions of “cultural differences” that could supposedly account for cases being ignored, as if minority parents don’t notice or care when children don’t reach milestones, or that there’s more “cultural acceptance” in some quarters of children who don’t speak, sleep or who exhibit endless raging meltdowns. It should be interesting to hear what the next apologia will be now that rates among the same groups have exploded, and bitterly fascinating to see whether the pop-psych hypothesis of the “autistic killer” receives more media play as a result of the epidemic being racialized, particularly in light of the fact that the theory was founded on arguably racist research. It will also be curious to watch what happens with “investor confidence” in the multi-billion dollar autism drug market now that fresh blood has been thrown into the pool.

What’s also bitterly fascinating—and not mentioned in media coverage of the recent study on high rates of autism among ethnic groups— is that there had also been a radical shift in ethnic and economic demographics regarding vaccine uptake. At one time, for instance, African Americans were the least compliant and most “under-vaccinated”:

Factors That Distinguish Fully Vaccinated Children from Undervaccinated Children (2001 NIS)

These analyses indicated that, compared with fully vaccinated children, undervaccinated children were significantly more likely to be black than Hispanic or non-Hispanic white; younger; or foreign-born than born in the United States. Undervaccinated children were significantly more likely to have a mother who was young; widowed, divorced, or separated than married; had educational attainment that was high school or less than a college degree; and whose preferred language was English than Spanish. Finally, undervaccinated children were significantly more likely to live in a household with an annual income below the poverty level than in a household with an annual income greater than $75 000…

Unfortunately the study above, which was originally accessed in June, 2011, may have been bowdlerized—the title and text altered.  In any case, the old link to the 2001 study (Pediatrics)  now redirects to a 2004 study which weaves in the updated issue of “unvaccinated” privileged white children whose parents avoid vaccines rather than having reduced access—something not mentioned at all in the 2001 study. The original 2001 title appears only in the citations of other studies at this point.  

By Adriana Gamondes

As reported by the BBC and other news agencies worldwide, Professor Martin Gore, 67, one of the UK’s leading cancer scientists, died within hours of receiving a yellow fever vaccination.  Many within Gore’s professional field paid tribute to their colleague and issued an outpouring of support and condolences.

Dr. Martin Gore

The BBC report distinguished itself from other media reports by including a list of contraindications to the vaccine such as egg allergy. But like every other news source, BBC coverage was quick to authoritatively spin-doctor risks from the vaccine:

Prof Peter Openshaw, past president of the British Society for Immunology, said the overall risk of serious side-effects from the vaccination remains very low, at about one in every 100,000 of vaccine recipients.

However, he added: "It seems that people aged over 60 have a three to four-fold increased risk of experiencing these serious effects compared with younger people. However, this estimate is based on very few reported adverse events.

"This risk has to be balanced against the risk of contracting yellow fever if you are travelling to an infected area - a nasty disease with a high mortality rate."

He said the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) was the UK body charged with looking into adverse side-effects reported from vaccines.

"They will undoubtedly conduct a proper analysis of this case to ensure it was caused by the vaccine rather than an incidental unconnected cause, such as sepsis."

The Lancet has reported a few more deaths from the yellow fever vaccine around the world, though curiously all among children and none in the over-60 category:

Two deaths were recorded by a team from a specialist World Health Organization centre in Brazil.

In the first case, a five-year-old girl suffered fever, headache and vomiting three days after being given the vaccine. She died after a five day illness.

The second patient – a 22-year-old woman – developed a sore throat and fever, accompanied by headache, muscle pain, nausea, and vomiting four days after vaccination.

She then developed symptoms including jaundice and renal failure, and died after six days of illness.

The cases were similar to a third fatality reported by the South Western Area Pathology Service in Sydney, Australia.

The Royal Marsden NHS foundation trust publicly announced that Dr. Gore’s death resulted definitively from the vaccination though the precise nature of the adverse event has not been made clear. Dr. Gore reportedly died of total organ failure which could suggest that the live vaccine-strain yellow fever virus reverted to fully infectious, hemorrhagic form—a rare effect known as vaccine-associated viscerotropic disease.

Was Gore fully assessed of risk/benefit ratio before he took the shot? It’s unlikely since no one understands precisely why an estimated .05% of people who receive the yellow fever vaccine develop viscerotropic disease. What’s more, statistics for disease incidence are impossible to gather since the vast majority of wild yellow fever infections are mild and go unreported.  Furthermore, as award-winning BBC journalist Malcolm Brabant discovered in 2011, risks are played down in the extreme.

In 2013, Malcolm Brabant went public with his experience following a yellow fever vaccination which he received two years prior. The vaccine and certificate proving Brabant had received it were required for him travel to Cote D’Ivoire on assignment. Brabant reports that after receiving the dose, he was plunged into a suicidal psychosis consistent with symptoms of vaccine-associated neurotropic disease which is roughly 26 times more common than the more deadly viscerotropic disease.

According to Brabant, Sanofi-Pasteur, the maker of the Stamaril yellow fever vaccine, took years to respond to Brabant’s attempts to get answers.  In contradiction to all of Brabant’s physicians who insisted the vaccine caused his harrowing descent into madness,  Sanofi finally issued a carefully worded statement claiming Brabant went mad on his own, concluding essentially the “correlation does not equal causation.”

 
Note: We ran this two part post by Adriana in April of 2011.  For those of you unfamiliar with the Kitty Genovese story, she is a young woman who was stabbed, left for dead, her screams unanswered, her attacker returned, she was raped and finally stabbed to death in Queens, New York in 1964. Bystanders who heard her screams did nothing.  Did. Nothing. Sound familiar? Her death coined the phrase, "the bystander effect," whereby good people.... do nothing. To read more about her legacy click here.  We bring the posts back in October 0f 2017 because of the current climate of sociopolitics. At Age of Autism and elsewhere, we live the Bystander Effect every single day. Our cries for our children fall on indifferent ears. Part 2 will run tomorrow.

When Adriana wrote this post I had yet to step onto a karate mat as a white belt. Now, 8 years later, I have two black belts in two martial arts, Shito Ryu Karate and Matayoshi Kobudo (a 19 weapons Okinawan fighting art.)  I teach self defense to women and men and we tell students to yell "Fire!" because "Help" may fall on indifferent ears. That is part of Ms. Genovese's legacy. Protecting others. Just as we do here at Age of Autism.

Thank you to Adriana for her brilliant essay.

By Adriana Gamondes

Read Part 1 HERE.

We are not to simply bandage the wounds of victims beneath the wheels of injustice, we are to drive a spoke into the wheel itself. ~Dietrich Bonhoeffer 

What I mostly learned from advocacy for domestic violence survivors which applied to my children’s injuries was a partial answer to the haunting question: why us? I thought my husband and I had been good people and we’d even tried to help others. I didn’t drink or take drugs during pregnancy; I followed doctors’ orders, ate mostly organic, used only nontoxic household products, even “thought good thoughts”. Our children are everything to us. They weren’t born prematurely. They developed normally for a year. Then, moreover, why was virtually no one outside our family or outside the “movement” willing to effectively help our kids once they did become ill? They’re innocent; why them? Why anyone? 

Explanations of industrial greed, regulatory capture, government corruption, gene/environment interplay and toxic mechanisms aside, the general answer is A) because sometimes bad things happen to good people and, though there is often a reason for this, it’s mostly not a good reason and never a justification; and B) often few will help in the right way, in the way that is being asked for because many inactive or negative bystanders don’t believe that “A” is true. Not really, not in their heart of hearts. Instead they believe, mostly unconsciously, that bad things happen to bad people.

And that brings up the question: why Kitty Genovese? Why did her family and her girlfriend have to suffer loss?  In moving interviews, Kitty’s brother Vincent described decades of flashbacks and her partner, Mary Ann Zielonko, said, “I still have a lot of anger towards people because they could have saved her life…That’s the lesson to be learned from this: to really love each other— we have to— on this planet.”( HERE ). Kitty Genovese was, by all accounts, a vibrant and loving person.

The prevailing negative attitudes about rape victims and victims of domestic violence were similar at the time of Kitty Genovese’s murder, though if openly used as rationales for inaction, ignoring a stranger rape in progress would have been deemed more shameful, whereas refusing to “butt in on” a “lover’s quarrel” could be seen as a somewhat less shameful—even acceptable-- position. Never mind that parsing up varying degrees of “innocence” between categories of victims is a giveaway that dangerous discrimination is afoot, the fact that Genovese’s attacker was unknown to her might have mattered just enough to bystanders to have driven—if just barely— one more call to police. As I already mentioned, I tend to think that bystanders were being frank when they described the judgment call they made in place of calls to the police--- that many assumed the screams were from a domestic violence assault, a crime which is hundreds of times more common than stranger rape. Aside from the fact that police, again, are statistically most likely to be killed while interrupting a domestic violence incident and it’s a crime which is particularly unsafe for bystanders to intervene in, there are specific social assumptions about “inherent” traits that battered women supposedly possess which make them viewed as more or less dispensable if not “bad”.  

I believe the first part of the attack occurred because Kitty Genovese was a woman in the wrong place at the wrong time and evil exists. I believe the second, deadly part of the assault occurred because killer Winton Mosely—when he returned and saw that no help for his prey was at hand—  had been trained since birth to understand the dynamics of the situation and knew precisely how much screaming and pleas bystanders would “stand by for” before being moved to action. Kitty Genovese literally died of “second injuries”—those induced by a typically inadequate or punitive social response to certain types of crimes.

 It may not be happenstance that, just three years ago, Mosely explained to a parole board that his murderous compulsions resulted from growing up with domestic violence ( HERE). Sometimes an excuse and a reason are the same thing (i.e., “thimerosal is cheap”). From seeing his mother repeatedly battered and stalked by his father from infancy until the day Mosely went to jail for murder, Mosely would have known that, no matter how victims screamed, help was rarely or never forthcoming: he understood the nature of bystanders. Mosely did not get leniency by this admission and should not have. Another individual with the same background could have made the reverse choice. But the information might still provide insight into the dynamics of the event; that it was, in the final analysis, a “relationship crime”, defined by a psychological interaction between killer and bystanders which was far more complex than the interaction between killer and victim. Predicting what the victim would do was easy in comparison: when stabbed, she would fall and she would die.

 
Kitty Genovese could not have known that self-defense instructors in the future would invoke her name when they urged women to scream “fire”, never “help” in response to attack. Why “fire” and not “help” to overcome bystander apathy? Why must vaccine injury claimants file for “Seizures and Encephalitis” or “mitochondrial disease” instead of “autism”?

It’s not actually the science or the independent scientists that are the problem in viewing autism as a possible result of vaccine injuries. 74% of studies on thimerosal and autism support a link. The Lancet paper has been replicated in five countries and Brian Deer was paid by industry. “Transfer factor” was not a rival vaccine but akin to goat’s milk— and the patent for it never belonged to Andrew Wakefield. Dr. Wakefield never kept a dime of “lawyer money” but donated it to the Royal Free. There’s documented proof Lancet researchers could not have altered patient records. The O’Leary lab has been cleared and Poul Thorsen has not been (HERE).

 In the case of domestic violence, negative attitudes towards victims backed up by clinical victim blaming also persist in the face of all evidence to the contrary and in the face of clear biases of clinical “blame purveyors”. Things are not getting better in that arena: an entry in the latest Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-V) has outdone even the past diagnostic “blame-laying” under the heading of “relational disorders”. Relational disorders are those which are said, quite controversially, to arise from the dynamics of a relationship while both parties may not necessarily suffer from disordered personalities. This is supposedly an improvement over former marginal entries into the DSM, such as “psychological deficiency disorder”, as if the panel had said, “Now we’re not saying victims have anything wrong with them. We’re just saying that they have as much or as little wrong with them as perpetrators.” The new proposals are “Marital Abuse Disorder” or, alternately, “Marital Conflict Disorder With Violence”—the idea being that it was the relationship’s dynamics which “caused” the violence, effectively splitting/removing blame equally between two parties, “takes two to tango” style. It’s minimizing at best (to equivocate chronic, injurious battering to the one time an average couple, say, got drunk and shoved each other)— and a lethal call for noninterventionism at worst. The diagnosis could easily be used to justify the removal of children from the custody of evident victims. Though supposedly “no fault”, if this thinking is extrapolated to other crimes, the “borrowing from Peter (laying partial responsibility on victims or “borrowing some of their innocence”) to pay Paul (to remove an equivalent degree of responsibility from perpetrators and bequeath them with a degree of innocence) would appear grossly unjust. Did Kitty Genovese emit negative astrowaves as she walked to her apartment that Mosely couldn’t help being swept up in? Did captured slaves just have dysfunctional relationships with traders and plantation owners?

Note: We ran this two part post by Adriana in April of 2011.  For those of you unfamiliar with the Kitty Genovese story, she is a young woman who was stabbed, left for dead, her screams unanswered, her attacker returned, she was raped and finally stabbed to death in Queens, New York in 1964. Bystanders who heard her screams did nothing.  Did. Nothing. Sound familiar? Her death coined the phrase, "the bystander effect," whereby good people.... do nothing. To read more about her legacy click here.  We bring the post back today because of the current climate of sociopolitics. At Age of Autism and elsewhere, we live the Bystander Effect every single day. Our cries for our children fall on indifferent ears. Part 2 will run tomorrow. Thank you to Adriana for her brilliant essay.

April 4, 2011
By Adriana Gamondes

The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil but because of the people who don’t do anything about it. ~Albert Einstein

“’I’ll be judge, I’ll be jury,’ said cunning old Fury: ‘I’ll try the whole cause and condemn you to death.’ ~Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland

Exactly a year ago in March I heard on National Public Radio that the Center for Disease Control had given a million dollar grant to the University of New Hampshire to start a program called “Bringing in the Bystanders”. The program was intended to combat sexual assault on campus by eliciting the intervention of witnesses to potentially high risk situations.  If the CDC threw a campaign like that for autism and a host of other childhood disorders which have hit epidemic proportions in the past two decades, the agency would have to bring itself in. 

That “good people do nothing” is a documented component of many categories of traumatic experience, whether the trauma is wartime atrocity, political captivity, torture, etc. According to many trauma experts, the very depth of psychic injury in trauma often hinges on the existence of inactive or negative bystanders. In his 1986 memoir, Survival in Auschwitz, Holocaust survivor Primo Levi described a common, recurring nightmare he experienced along with fellow death camp survivors. In the dream, the survivor had somehow escaped the camp and had gotten home to his or her family. They would find themselves surrounded by loved ones and would begin to tell of their ordeal, only to endure crushing grief as the others turned away as if deaf or indifferent to the horror. Survivors of other atrocities describe very similar dreams.
 
I’ve had my own version of this dream going on six years now. It started before I was even consciously aware that something was going seriously wrong with my children’s health or had even conceived of the possibility that vaccines weren’t safe for all children. Of course I didn’t base my understanding of what happened to my twins on a dream; the dream was just added data. And now I can’t seem to wake up from it and I’m not speaking figuratively. In the recurring dream, I’m at a party in a strange mansion surrounded by a spooky, aloof crowd. I want to leave, but suddenly realize my children aren’t with me and panic.
Finally, I find my son in a strange bedroom, tucked into an enormous, carved bed as if someone had made it around him with hospital corners. The room is from another century and there’s no phone. I go to lift him up and there’s something warm and wet on the back of his head: it’s blood. He’s still breathing but has what looks like an icepick wound to the back of his skull. People are gathering around the door of the bedroom and I shriek at them for help and to find whoever did this. They stare at their shoes and at their fingernails and do nothing. I know I can’t leave my son with these zombies, so I cradle him and rush to the door to seek medical attention and find my daughter, who I know is in danger. I shout at the bystanders to move aside. I plead, I spit abuse at them, scream like an animal, but they continue to stand there, forming a wall.   

And when I wake up, nothing’s really changed. The dream is essentially real life romance. Every time I turn on the radio in the car, scan the news on the web or television, I hear not just the strains of indifference about what’s happened to my children and more than a million others, but a systematic campaign to render the listener deaf and disinterested. It’s precisely what Noam Chomsky refers to as “manufacturing consent”—i.e., bystander training. Not only has it not eased off as the evidence mounts that there may indeed be something in the environment—and something in the exponentially increased number of childhood vaccines—that is causing 1 in 91 children in the US (and rising) to regress into lifelong disability, the policy of censure has been officially decreed and we’ve now moved into an era of monumental disinformation.

The aims behind the barrage of disinformation are becoming more explicit. “Vaccine Epidemic” (HERE ), edited by Louise Habakus and Mary Holland, lays the warnings out plainly: potential legislation for vaccine mandates, removal of exemptions, more shots added to the schedule. More legal harassment of independent scientists and practitioners. More legal harassment and isolation for families who stray from conventional treatments. More children spuriously snatched by autism-illiterate child welfare agencies who will remain autism-illiterate because of the lack of funding for internal education and an increase in internal bigotry arising from denial of an epidemic and its cause. More profits, more control, more autism.

The hypocrisy of the media and medical authorities is sometimes staggering. The New York Times may, for instance, occasionally play hero and unleash idealistic reporters on the issue of institutional abuse (HERE ), or report on the dangers of drugging granny and typical children to gain a “credence balance” for fair reporting which it then blows on its policy of omitting or distorting evidence based correlations between vaccines, pollution and the exploding rate of disability. The paper’s omissions of conflicts of vaccine promoters, attacks on consumer safety advocacy and prevention and recovery methods virtually feed the modern snake pits and the $3.5 billion and growing “autism drug profits”, so the pharmaceutical industry and healthcare unions can hardly complain about the “little slap” of occasional criticism because it comes with a great big kiss of a growth market.   

As levels of fear and desperation rise, we may hear louder denials from certain corners of the autism community that vaccines or toxic environment played any role in their children’s or their own disability. It will be tantamount to futile groveling for amnesty from a virtual purge because, ultimately, it’s not just inconvenient theory of cause for the epidemic which is the enemy but the epidemic itself, a wave of which is coming of age into a system that has never seen so many adults on the spectrum and can’t support the weight. The sheer numbers are inconvenient evidence of the man-made nature of the disorder, not to mention the fact that it’s becoming horrendously expensive to manage. Whether effected families or individuals believe autism is environmental or vaccine-mediated or not, they will see services, programs, support and compassion cut to the bone, then cut again and again. That is, unless the public or key members of government can be made to truly heed the warnings that the nightmare is already here.  

(A Spanish translation is at the end of this post.)

By Adriana Gamondes

Age of Autism is honored to announce the release of a new book by Barcelona artist Luis Quiles titled The Antisocial Networks which Quiles describes as a personal dissection of modern society.

The book also includes several stunning expressions of vaccine politics which the artist has generously allowed to be published here for the first time.  Though most regular readers will recognize the figures immortalized in the images above, included are CDC Whistleblower William Thompson, California Senator and vaccine mandate crusader Richard Pan, and vaccine industrialist Paul Offit.

Quiles’ book is available for preorder on Amazon only in Spain, Italy and France, but since Amazon USA carries other of Quiles’ works, The Antisocial Networks may eventually be available for direct order in the US.  Quiles’ past and current works can be viewed via Instagram, Facebook, Twitter  and DeviantART.  

Predictably, the art of Luis Quiles is often flagged as “NSFW” (not safe for work) and “adult content” because it unflinchingly covers a range of ironies, tragedies, atrocities and exploitation from child sex trafficking to war collateral to the pandemic of cyber alienation. Be warned: his work is an assault on conscience. Just don’t ask him what it means. In the Spaceman crowdfunding website through which Quiles published the book to avoid censorship, Quiles will only outline his general intent:

I see my work as a way to grab people by the chest and shake them to make them think about what they see.

Quiles describes being bombarded with criticism that his work is gratuitously perverse by people who are either unaware of the long and honored tradition of artists using black humor, garish symbolism and raw suffering to trigger political awakening… or by those who are fully aware of the power of political art to do just that and would rather it didn’t.


If political art wasn’t powerful, Bill Gates wouldn’t have attempted to hijack the tradition  to push vaccines in 2015. Furthermore  political art and satire wouldn’t be included as major strategies in the bible of civil disobedience, The Politics of Nonviolent Action by Gene Sharp which has been used by resistance movements around the world.

(An English translation is at the end of this post.)

Los  gésticos del poder: el artista barcelonés Luis Quiles destruye los apetitos por el consumismo obediente

Por Adriana Gamondes

Age of Autism tiene el honor de anunciar el lanzamiento de un nuevo libro del artista barcelonés Luis Quiles titulado The Antisocial Networks que Quiles lo describe como “una disección personal de la sociedad moderna.”

El libro también incluye varias expresiones impresionantes sobre la políticas de vacunación que el artista generosamente ha permitido publicar aquí por primera vez. La mayoría de los lectores habituales reconocerán las figuras inmortalizadas en las imágenes más arriba, que son del denunciante del fraude del CDC,  William Thompson; el senador de California y defensor de la vacunación  completa obligatoria sin excepciones, Richard Pan ;  y el fabricante de vacunas Paul Offit.

El libro de Quiles está disponible para solicitarlo en Amazon solo en España ,Italia y Francia, pero como Amazon USA tiene otras obras de Quiles, The Antisocial Networks  pueden estar disponibles para pedidos directos en los Estados Unidos. Las obras pasadas y actuales de Quiles pueden verse a través de Instagram, Facebook, Twitter  y DeviantART.

Como era de esperar, el arte de Luis Quiles a menudo se tilda de "NSPT" (no seguro para el trabajo) y "contenido para adultos" porque cubre inquebrantablemente una serie de ironías, tragedias, atrocidades y explotación del tráfico sexual infantil, las guerras sucias hasta la pandemia de la alienación cibernética.

Tenga cuidado: su trabajo es un asalto a la conciencia. Simplemente no pregunteal autor qué significa. En el sitio web Spaceman a través del cual Quiles publicó su libro para evitar la censura, Quiles solo describe su intención general:

Veo mi trabajo como una forma de agarrar a las personas del cuello y sacudirlas para que piensen en lo que ven.

Quiles describe ser bombardeado con críticas de que su obra es desubicada y perversa por personas que, o desconocen la larga y honrosa tradición de artistas que usan el humor negro, el simbolismo chocante y el sufrimiento crudo para desencadenar el despertar político ... o por aquellos que son plenamente conscientes del poder del arte político para hacer justamente esto y prefieren que esto no suceda.

Si el arte político no fuera poderoso, los artistas que lo crean no recibirían amenazas de muerte, Bill Gates no habría intentado secuestrar la tradición con el  propósito de impulsar las vacunas en el 2015,  y no se incluiría como una estrategia importante en una de las Biblias de la desobediencia civil, The Politics of Nonviolent Action por Gene Sharp.

Still from Nineteen Eighty-Four

By Adriana Gamondes

Is it no longer enough to make loud public pledges of loyalty to the industry medical model these days? Do we now have to give weeping declarations?

Robert Redfield

From The Washington Post:

Robert Redfield Jr., the new director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, gave a deeply personal agencywide address Thursday in which he repeatedly underscored the importance of science and data and said the CDC's most critical public health mission is to protect Americans “from that which we don't expect.”

The 66-year-old Redfield, a longtime AIDS researcher appointed to the job a week ago, was overcome by emotion twice during his brief remarks and a question-and-answer session. The University of Maryland medical professor had sought the top job at the CDC and the National Institutes of Health for more than a decade.

About 30 seconds into his address, he choked up and then regained his composure. He spoke of the honor of leading the best “science-based, data-driven agency in the world. I've dreamed of doing this for a long time.”

Redfield went on to discuss the subject of vaccination:

He also spoke of the importance of vaccines and recounted how as an Army doctor in the early 1980s, he helped persuade military leadership to vaccinate “every individual in the armed forces” against hepatitis B after a young soldier for whom Redfield had cared infected his wife and newborn child. “That's probably the most important thing I did in my life,” he said.

Robert Redfield may have been surprised by his appointment as the head of the CDC given his history: Redfield was investigated by the Pentagon in 1994 for overstating the effectiveness of the gp-160  AIDS vaccine—a vaccine which was tested in unethical human trials using child wards of the state in New York in 2004. 

Was he crying from relief? The scandal originally broke while Redfield was leading an HIV vaccine study for the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research. Redfield also drew public criticism for instituting mandated HIV screenings for military personnel and for segregating HIV-infected soldiers.  But considering the CDC’s questionable ethical culture, rather than being a liability, Redfield’s near brush with charges of scientific fraud and willingness to employ draconian measures might have given him an edge.

Robert Redfield may be a man after the CDC’s own heart. It’s all a question of where the data is being “driven.”  Redfield’s inconvenient data was “sloppily” misplaced and “inadvertently” misconstrued according to his defenders. CDC whistleblower William Thompson attests that the CDC’s data on a 340% increase in autism among black male infants receiving the MMR vaccine prior to 36 months found its way into a “large trash can.”

Redfield’s appointment at this critical juncture is particularly disconcerting considering what’s at stake in US vaccine policy—such as the 146 peer reviewed studies demonstrating a link between vaccines and autism and the current autism rate of 1:36; the status of the CDC whistleblower case, the politicized vaccine mandate campaign and loss of genuine informed consent at a time when there are several hundred vaccines in the approval pipeline.  

I’m Talking to Me?  WebMD Reports “Vaccine Skeptics” Are Swaying Parents of Children With Autism To Forego Vaccines. But Vaccine Skeptics And Parents of Children With Autism Are ONE AND THE SAME.

By Adriana Gamondes

A Case of Mass Soliloquizing

Do you talk to yourself? Do you tell yourself about the time your once-healthy children regressed into autism following routine infant vaccinations and try to urge yourself to cease vaccinating? 

Do you say “No, that can’t be!” and look aghast but then nod back wearily to yourself with an air of knowing gravitas and insist that it can indeed be while citing the 146 peer reviewed studies demonstrating a link? Do you counter with standard talking points from WaPost and million-dollar vaccine industrialist Paul Offit that vaccines are safe and effective, no proof of association, etc? Do you then force yourself to sit through the documentary Vaxxed and pull out full color historical charts belying the herd immunity theory?

Do you then roll your eyes at yourself but find yourself wrestling yourself to the ground and beating yourself up to convince yourself that yourself is right?

Note: Yes. Again.

Part 1,  Demon Seed Read Part 2 and Part 3.

And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.  ~Revelations, 20:14-15

By Adriana Gamondes

In September, 2011, Manitoba judge Robert Heinrichs ruled that a sixteen year old accused of murder would remain in youth court where he faces a maximum sentence of four years rather than the possibility of life without parole in adult court. Family members of the fifteen year old victim were outraged by the ruling, though Heinrichs stated that the accused’s “basic normalcy now further confirms he no longer poses a risk of violence to anyone and that his mental deterioration and resulting violence would not have taken place without exposure to Prozac…He has none of the characteristics of a perpetrator of violence.”

Dr. Peter Breggin, the reform psychiatrist and psychopharmaceutical expert who testified on antidepressant-induced psychosis and violence in the Manitoba case, was sued for his medical license in 1987—the very year that Prozac was first mass marketed by Eli Lilly. The charges were filed by the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI), a consumer group which has always lobbied for forced institutionalization and mandated treatment of the mentally ill ( Section 9.2 of NAMI’s Public Policy Platform)—including drugs and electroconvulsive therapy or ECT— and was recently exposed as a long-standing pharmaceutical industry front organization in The New York Times.

Due to his success in banning forced lobotomy in institutions coupled with efforts to raise the alarm on clinical risks of ECT and psychiatric drugs, Dr. Breggin has been a thorn in the side of industry and its various front organizations since the 1970’s. After Breggin went on Oprah and reported that Eli Lilly’s own trial data showed that even individuals lacking histories of violence or serious mental illness who were exposed to the Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor (SSRI) antidepressant Prozac and antipsychotics would frequently develop violent ideation or violent psychosis, NAMI claimed that Breggin’s remarks could cause patients to discontinue their meds. Following an outpouring of support for Breggin from the international medical reform community, the Maryland licensure board dropped the charges and Breggin prevailed. Seventeen years later, the FDA adopted black box warnings for suicide and violence on SSRI antidepressants. The black box warnings are, almost word for word, the precise clinical caveats that Breggin repeatedly submitted to the FDA and in Congressional hearings.

The previously concealed Prozac trial data Breggin uncovered and exposed in 1987 included cases of child subjects on Prozac who suddenly developed intrusive dreams and visions of going to school with guns and shooting classmates.  There were also far more attempted and completed suicides among drug-exposed subjects than in the placebo groups.

Over the years, Breggin and other researchers have worked to identify the mechanism by which certain psychopharmaceutical drugs induce violence and suicidality. Breggin has described phenomenon such as drug-induced akathisia, an uncontrollable sense of restless inner torment caused by an amphetamine-like and even LSD-like effect of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors or SSRI’s, and has written about prescription drug-induced “intoxication anosognosia” or “medication spellbinding:

Medication spellbinding has four basic effects.

                                                
                                                                                                       Teresa Elliot, “Deliverence”

By Adriana Gamondes

Read part 3 here

Read part 2 here

Read part 1 here

The Burning Question

The study  reporting the massively elevated rate of early death among individuals with autism came out over a year ago.  Even less reassuring is that the study was done in a country—Sweden—that has far better healthcare and disability systems than the US as well as a voluntary vaccine program and lower rate of autism.

But as cruel as the news was, it was grimly validating of all the measures many families have taken to keep affected children alive, often in the face of bitter criticism that these concerns are unfounded and the measures unnecessary. All the same, it’s something no one wants to be right about.

In the report, individuals with autism, especially “high functioning,” were found to commit suicide at much higher rates than typical peers, and children with autism are 28 times more prone to suicidal ideation.  Accidents were also a leading cause of early death. But the reigning cause of early mortality in autism is seizures, which cut lifespan by thirty years on average.

Researchers note that individuals with autism are also up to 40 times more prone to seizure disorders than the general population, which must be one of the factors that has spiked the statistical rate of epilepsy to the current 1 in 26 in the U.S., not the older figure of 1 in 100 that was reported  by study authors.  Authors further note that many individuals with autism develop seizures in their teens and twenties in a late-onset form that tends to be far deadlier than epilepsy in typical individuals for reasons that researchers don’t (or won’t) understand. 

But that’s something else parents know, isn’t it? Though it’s impossible to foresee every cause, autism parents tend to develop a radar for many of the triggers of neurological events—the toxic and allergic exposures, the depleted nutritional status, the infections and stressors— that inch children closer to the abyss of full-blown seizure disorders. This is because immediate families live with the immediate fallout. 

After the study came out, my husband and I had an epiphany. We realized what many autism parents are doing  when we issue “too much information” on health concerns, special diets, treatments, institutional abuse, wandering deaths and seizure risks is that we’re asking an important question of those in our family circles. We’re asking who among our clans would not only watch out for injured children but also who might do what it takes to keep those children out of institutions and alive for more than a few years in the case we were taken out of the picture through disability or death.  Parents may also be asking who among their families will be raising the next generations to actually give a damn about their disabled relatives once those in the older generation die or become too infirm to manage.  

Teresa Elliot, “Deliverence”

By Adriana Gamondes

Read part 2 here

Read part 1 here

A Dirty Game

Some autism families have been very lucky to find tremendous emotional support and even occasional respite within their family networks. Others swear this is the case while their affected children are very young but then find the support falling away once those children reach their teens and are no longer quite so small and cute.  Some find themselves completely alone immediately following diagnosis. 

However the defection plays out, for years I’ve been hearing the same story from countless autism parents—the crisis when they find themselves mysteriously alienated from the extended family fold, usually after coming under severe criticism for some aspect of their parenting.  

The complaints and charges fueling the attacks might all be different, but the effect is the same: the stricken children at the center of the fracas are left even more isolated than they were already.  I’m beginning to think that’s the whole point.

One parent I know suddenly disappeared from Facebook, explaining later in private that she couldn’t take how her  extended family were using social media as a buffer to avoid having any contact with her disabled child. They would post birthday greetings on her Facebook wall in place of gifts, cards and, most importantly, visits. This parent’s son was too “severe” for family to deal with.

Another friend found herself cut out of a family elder’s will because, as he argued before the entire family (minus her and her affected son), she had fabricated her son’s autism to leech off the state. Never mind that her son’s diagnosis was well documented. Never mind if she barely took advantage of available public programs because, with all the defunding, the quality of certain services had become appalling and often came with scary and unwanted strings of state control. In her case, none of the remaining beneficiaries offered to share their cut or attempted to argue with the cruel elder, leaving this friend in a state of shock and, ironically, all the more in danger of being dependent on the state.

In her case, what gave bystanders the luxury of opining that her son never had autism were all the grueling effort and sacrifices she’d made along the way to get him to that level, to the point of nearly impoverishing herself. In that story, her son was too recovered for family to deal with.

There are so many other stories of parents being informed that their disabled children weren’t welcome at family celebrations or events that all the other children in the extended family and half the neighborhood attended.  I’ve spoken to too many parents who were told, often by those near and dear, that they should institutionalize their affected children who “belong with their own kind” so that they “don’t hold back the others.”

Some unreflective types might bluntly admit that they can’t stand being around disabled child or adult family members, but most seem to opt for the more socially defensible tact of spinning blame from parenting practices. In these dramas, parents find themselves blamed for being overly protective or not doing enough to rein their children in; they’re criticized for their choice of school or lack of school in the case of homeschoolers. They’re criticized for letting their children eat junk food in an attempt to head off meltdowns and self injury or for feeding them an overly crunchy diet. They’re criticized for neglecting their children’s health conditions regardless of how helpless they are in getting proper care, or of spending too much time talking about and attending to health. They’re criticized for giving too much attention to earning a living to dig out from under the tombstone of “disability debt,” or of neglecting their work and finances to be with their disabled children.

But I think the tactics are just a cheap and easy way of feigning concern for a disabled child while simultaneously abandoning them. It’s a dirty game. The bystanders get their cake—or so they think: a life free of the “burden” of disability. And they eat it too—or so they think: they can try to convince themselves and those around them that they’re not simply shallow and apathetic.

Teresa Elliot, “Deliverence”

Grist For the Mill For the Turning of Backs: When Family Defects from the Defective

Part 2

Read part 1 here.

By Adriana Gamondes

Bearers of the Unbearable Bear

If bystanders or the professionals who originally diagnosed our once catastrophically disabled children would now have trouble believing how they’ve progressed, that’s not our problem. It’s a problem of institutional theory of cause. If you believe that autism is genetic, lifelong and static or a matter of Freudian phallic substitution, then our kids are miracles and my husband and I are living gods.

That’s right. We’re deities. We cause autism with our minds. We can also make it disappear through divine intervention.  Bow down before us, ye mortals.

But if you believe autism is a form of chemical brain injury— an acquired, man-made, industrial-age affliction which can occasionally improves due to non-psychotropic, integrated medical interventions— then we’re just damned lucky.

Lucky relative to the many individuals whose injuries are far too severe to recover or whose families can’t afford it. Lucky relative to the horrendously high death toll among the afflicted. Lucky relative to being at war.

My husband and I manage the combat pretty well most of the time. You don’t curl up and give way to despair while a battle is still raging. Instead we “despair of” certain circumstances or conduct in a sort of “What hath God wrought in man?” kind of way. There’s no time for sadness. We have children to save and blessings to count. One blessing is our kids’ significant recoveries. It’s good news. But our good news comes with bad news about how our once non-verbal, once seriously ill, once severely disabled children were injured to begin with. We’re the bearers of more bad news regarding the risks our children still face. To our despair, we’re getting shot for it regular intervals.

What adds to the despair is that sometimes misguided attacks come from those within our own clan, from those who believe they mean well, who might dote over typical kids, cry over lost puppies in the pound or the plight of landmine victims half a world away. Some may even occasionally be generous with material resources, but never with time. Not the time it takes to read the books and studies that explain, nor the time it takes to get to know the children at the center of so much unwanted drama.

But we don’t hate the people who’ve caused these dramas or who’ve ridden roughshod over our children’s tragedies in the past.  What we hate is the drama and the tragedy. I also hate going into details because I hate the details. I hate having to put anything related in clever terms to make it digestible or readable.

 If I had to give one reason why my husband and I haven’t been able to bring ourselves to see or speak to the individuals who most recently maligned us or their enablers, it’s because the mere act of having to defend ourselves also requires dredging up memories of the worst periods of the children’s lives that seem to come with a soundtrack of screaming souls in purgatory.   It’s as grim as watching the sun rise on three hours sleep for four years and made worse by having to go through it under the gaze of people who refuse to understand. 

And now the same onlookers are having a problem because the kids play a hand of poker to decide who has to wash the dishes, and because they’re expressive and empathic and charming in ways that defy previous diagnoses.

But our children aren’t out of the woods yet.  That’s probably another core reason we can’t face the snipers at the moment. If certain individuals judged and blamed in the face of past struggles, if they’ve already said or done terrible things in periods of grief and difficulty,  what could we expect from them if, God forbid, any of the disasters that are statistically so common in autism befell our children in the future? 

For the moment, the twins’ symptoms have become hazy and are wrapped in a lot of typical child behavior, but still surface enough to make them hard to be around for those who look to children to amuse them and provide them with reflections of family pride and golden projections of hope and unfettered potential. In some senses, the children’s risks are just beginning as they hit the teen stage. There are no guarantees of unfettered anything.  

Teresa Elliot, “Deliverance”

Part 1

By Adriana Gamondes

F*ckyoulujah

The last words Age of Autism editor and founder Dan Olmsted communicated to me shortly before he died were on January 11^th, 2017. We were discussing a few editing issues with the following series. What he said was “Don’t rush the fine wine.”

Dan was kind. At the time I resisted making a joke about the series being a “fine whine” because Dan had a sense of humor, but not when it came to grim and bleak topics. The series is about abandonment of the disabled, so if it’s fine wine, it’s a bitter vintage but a subject Dan fundamentally understood, which is something I understood about Dan. His interest wasn’t in well-covered stories but in neglected, silenced, untellable stories. It’s why, as a journalist, he took on an issue he was not personally obliged to because too often those more obliged will not. 

I’m convinced this contrast is one of the reasons for the high divorce rate among autism parents. In comparison to the strong bonds forged in the midst of shared conflict or the respect that’s inspired for those who walk the walk, less ride-or-die partners will seem that much more disappointing as well as less ride-or-die friends or family.

For better or worse, autism is a filter of the finest mesh. Even if a marriage survives the strain, other relationships may not. That’s been my family’s experience. My husband and I just had our 20^th anniversary but there were a few empty chairs at the celebration.

There was a reason for it.  Around Easter, 2016, we learned that our parenting had come under attack from a few members of the extended family circle.  Yes, the controversy was about autism. The attack was off the wall and spectacularly unfair, the drama spread, sides squared off, the opposition’s enablers leapt in and our defenders landed in the line of fire. People who’d known each other most or all of their lives stopped speaking. When the smoke cleared, we were looking at real wreckage.  

The clichéd war terminology is deliberate. The holidays. Obligatory family interactions. Autism. Bullshit— that thing that pushes many affected families over the brink and ends up in studies that conclude autism parents have stress levels equivalent to combat soldiers. 

The stress of disability isn’t confined to immediate family either. It radiates.  In The Drown and the Saved, Holocaust survivor, political historian and scientist Primo Levi compared extreme stress to the North Pole, proximity to which can cause moral compasses to stutter. He added that this is particularly true in individuals who lack any solid political or philosophical armature.

By Adriana Gamondes

While a system of holding people in hostage is as old as the oldest war, a fresher note is introduced when a tyrannic state is at war with its own subjects and may hold any citizen in hostage with no law to restrain it. An even more recent improvement is the subtle use of what I shall term “the lever of love” (applied so successfully by the Soviets) of tying a rebel to his wretched country by his own twisted heart strings.  ~Vladimir Nabokov,  Bend Sinister

Over the past several years, it’s been more and more common to hear stories in the news or through the social grapevine about parents losing their children to the state due to disagreements with doctors or hospital staff. Some of these cases involve children’s medical conditions which are arguably vaccine-related—like the 2014 case involving the late Maryanne Godboldo  and the state’s attempt to forcibly sedate her daughter, who Godboldo claimed was vaccine-injured; or the more current case of Joe and Maria Selva’s attempts to treat their daughter’s seizures with (legal) medical cannabis instead of risky standard anti-epileptic drugs.

But over the past year, these stories of state child removal have shifted from possibly vaccine-related to vaccine-contingent, such as the case of vaccine-resistant Florida mother Autumn Ceyten losing four children to the state. Ceyten’s is not an isolated account and  follows an increasing number of news stories in which vaccination status played some key role in state charges of parental neglect. Taken together, this creates the appearance of a disturbing but not unexpected trend. 

On April 28^th, 2015, New York University law professor Mary Holland expected it as she testified before the California Senate Judiciary Committee in opposition to SB277, a bill—since passed— that would remove all personal exemptions to vaccination, leaving only impossible-to-acquire medical exemptions for California’s school children.

On the issue of consent, Holland drew a sharp parallel between forced vaccination and rape that angered Chairwoman Hannah-Beth Jackson (D-Santa Barbara).  When Chairwoman Jackson was done sputtering, Holland asked whether the state would criminalize dissent.

MARY HOLLAND:  Furthermore, a problem with SB277 would be in its enforcement…Will you be willing to remove children and force-vaccinate them as wards of the state?

Will you be willing to throw non-vaccinating parents in prison?

And what happens if the state does vaccinate a child who is removed and that child is severely injured or dies?

What will the state do?

SEN. JACKSON: Where in this bill does it talk about throwing parents in prison?

MARY HOLLAND: No, but what will you do? The parents—many of the parents who are…

SEN. JACKSON: I’m sorry but there is nothing in this… I mean, there are enough concerns raised.  To kind of push it to a level…  Now we are talking about putting parents in prison…

Senator Jackson expressed outrage for several more minutes about Holland’s “inflammatory” suggestions, to which Holland replied, “But I don’t know what you will do.”

Now, in 2017, we’re getting a clearer idea of what they will do. Shortly after Mary Holland testified,  various state social services divisions began adding a stipulation that parental failure to get children immunized with all required vaccinations can be categorized as a form of child abuse/neglect and can be grounds for criminal investigation.

From page 14 of the Mandated Reporter Training Educators Training Manual put forth by California Department of Social Services:

Lesson 1 - What to Report:

Other forms of neglect include

• Medical neglect, such as not providing appropriate medical care, dental care, or immunizations
• Emotional neglect, such as not interacting with an infant or child
• Educational neglect, such as not enrolling a child in school or providing proper home-schooling

The addition of the word “immunizations” in the routine language of a standard document seems to be new. Having seen various states’ mandated reporter guides in the past, I know several specifically indicated that vaccination was not in the purview of child protective services and that an investigation could not be launched on those grounds. 

The addition of immunization to mandated reporter guidelines isn’t isolated to California  and could turn out to be an edict sent down from on high—the US Department of Health and Human Services, the parent agency of Child Protective Services as well as the CDC.  Whatever is the case, reports are coming in from teachers in other states that their mandated reporter training modules have changed in the past few years. The following photo of a media presentation given to staff during a mandated reporter training session was taken in an Oklahoma public school:

The teachers in Oklahoma reported that vaccine exemptions were never mentioned during this or any other presentation on the issue. When several individuals attempted to call various regional departments of children and families to inquire about the new language, they were reportedly angrily brushed off, much like Chairwoman Jackson’s stonewalling of Mary Holland.

In any event, it’s clear certain machinery has gone into gear and vaccine industry avatars like UC Hastings assistant law professor Dorit Reiss could not be happier.

During a panel discussion for the National Meningitis Association in May,  Reiss— wearing what appears to be a mermaid costume and bedroom slippers—explains how employing police to "force vaccination...certainly isn't easy on anyone. So it's not something done easily. It can be done. But just not done easily“

Evoking unsettling visions of police with military grade tactical gear battering down doors, tasing dads, shooting dogs, putting moms in headlocks and snatching up screaming kids  seems quite easy for Reiss.  I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that, throughout the videotaped meeting, her demeanor is disjointedly cheerful considering the grimness of the topic: her eyes glow, she smiles reflexively and swings her fidgety feet like a contented toddler at story time.  But it's apparent by Reiss's mincing grammar why she feels so buoyant: only police are assigned agency and the burden of responsibility regarding the thing she describes being "done." Those directing the doing of it and fabricating legal and moral pretexts for the doing of it remain unburdened, unnamed.   

Cartoon: Roberto Weil https://www.facebook.com/weil.caricatura

Buzzfeed, Native Advertising and Death of the Free Press:  Media vaccine defenses aren’t merely a case of pliancy to please ad sponsors. They are ads.

Advertising is the rattling of a stick in a swill bucket.  ~George Orwell

Adriana Gamondes

A fellow contributing editor recently brought attention to yet another hit piece against Dr. Andrew Wakefield and Miranda Bailey’s film The Pathological Optimist in Buzzfeed titled The World’s Most Notorious Anti-Vaxxer Wants a Second Act.

The article was penned—or, you might say, grammatically assembled—by a science reporter named Azeen Ghorayshi who once studied fruit fly neurogenetics at UC Berkeley.

Readers are free to review the article themselves but a quick summary is that it’s like listening to pigeons cooing in an echo chamber without a single humanizing word about the severely disabled individuals at the center of the controversy or the harrowing rise in autism. 

Coo coo coo Brian Deer quote. Coo coo coo Paul Offit quote.  

Because that’s what journalists from the mainstream media and pseudo-alternative media like Buzzfeed represent: carrier pigeons, or stenographers or all of the other derisive names (hack, shill) used for reporters who simply repeat the party line.

And where’s the party? It’s in the pants of multiple industries—especially the pharmaceutical industry— their shareholders and corrupted regulators where the fidgety hands of complicit journalists are lodged in the delusion they’re reviving the fourth estate, the death throes of which are accelerating because of something called “Native Advertising” or “Sponsored Content.”

Native advertising is when ads or other forms of commercial promotion or defense are disguised as news content, supposedly to overcome consumers’ growing “banner blindness” and ability to ignore obvious ads. Since its advent, native advertising has been like a progressive disease toppling one press giant after another and advancing from promos so blatant that they could hardly be accused of stealth to promotions so subtly entwined in “regular content” that it would be impossible for viewers or readers to distinguish without actually seeing the contract. 

Imagine opening the New York Times one day and reading coverage of, say, the catastrophic effects of a category 5 hurricane on an island nation that’s been fighting back against the oil industry’s attempts to control offshore drilling and having no idea that descriptions of looting, misappropriation of charitable donations, and the general fecklessness and compensation fraud among islanders has been brought to you courtesy of Shell Oil because dead men floating face down in flood waters don’t picket.

Engineering public approval for the victimization or abandonment of certain populations or even certain sectors of our own society is not new and is the theme of Manufacturing Consent by political media analysts Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman. In an interview for Byline, Chomsky states, “This [native advertising… in Buzzfeed and Vice] is exaggerating and intensifying a problem that is serious and shouldn’t even exist in the first place. The reliance of a journal on advertisers shapes and controls and substantially determines what is presented to the public.”

NOTE: Autism is a global epidemic. Adriana Gamondes has teamed up with Alberto Castro, in Argentina, to begin providing perspective from beyond our shores.  Just as John Stone brings us the UK news, Adriana and Alberto will be adding more international flair to AofA. Please join us in welcoming Alberto. The English translation follows the Spanish.

By Alberto Castro

 Hace 40 años, en EEUU había 1 caso de autismo cada 10.000 niños y ahora de acuerdo al Centro de Control de Enfermedades (CDC ), hay 1 caso cada 68 niños. Los síntomas del autismo son únicos, no hay antecedentes de estos antes de1930. Esta epidemia se ha incrementado significativamente desde que el Congreso de ese país aprobó una ley en 1989 que impedía a cualquier persona demandar a las empresas fabricantes de vacunas, sin importar lo perjudicial que pueda ser la vacuna, lo enfermo que uno pueda quedar, o lo imprudente o negligente que puedan haber sido en la producción. A partir de esa maniobra del lobby farmaceutico, nuevas vacunas se incorporaron en el programa de vacunación, muchas de estas sin haber sido debidamente probadas y algunas contenían mercurio. Ell mercurio es mil veces más neurotóxico que el plomo. Actualmente gran parte se ha sacado de las vacunas para niños pero aún hay restos en alguna de ellas en gran cantidad en la vacuna contra la gripe, que le dan a los niños y a mujeres embarazadas. Las cantidades de mercurio en esas vacunas son cientos de veces y en algunos casos miles de veces más de lo que el cerebro de un niño puede recibir.

En el 2014, un denunciante del CDC, el Dr William Thompson, científico senior de la división de vacunas del CDC, declaró que le entregó 100.000 páginas de documentos comprometedores, al Congreso y dejó grabado en su declaración que él y todos los científicos de la división de vacunas del CDC habían alterado datos de un estudio para ocultar la conexión entre el autismo y las vacunas y en particular mercurio en las vacunas. Estudio del cual él fue uno de los autores en el 2004 en los que había 4 autores, incluyendo a Frank di Stefano Jefe de la sucursal principal del CDC.

A pesar de toda esta evidencia recientemente se han publicado libros argumentando que el autismo estuvo siempre presente y es una variación genética que exige aceptación y en casos celebración, negando así esta epidemia. Este argumento obstruye la necesidad urgente de enfrentar y detener la epidemia y pone en peligro a la humanidad toda. El Libro “Denial” de Mark Blaxill y Dan Olmsted descartan estas teorías acerca del autismo con una minuciosa investigación documentada de su historia. Ponen de manifiesto el dolor, sacrificio y privaciones que pasa una familia con uno de sus miembros afectados y nos despierta a reaccionar ante esta desconcertante realidad, tergiversada por poderosos intereses.

Translation:

Denial of Autism as an epidemic

40 years ago, the rate of autism in the United States was 1 in 10,000 children. But currently, according to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the rate has climbed to 1 in 50.

By Adriana Gamondes

There’s a particular plot twist in epic films that never fails to yank at my heartstrings even if the scene in question is over the top, hammed up or riddled with historical inaccuracies: that moment when all seems lost, yet against all odds, disparate forces gather together in a unified front to battle evil.

Since Scotland recently declared a ban on GMOs and since Skeptic astroturfer and dual Monsanto/vaccine defender David Gorski has repeatedly flogged a Braveheart analogy for—as he puts it— the “unholy coalition” of the vaccine safety movement, one scene from that the film comes to mind. It’s the moment when Irish conscripts stop in the middle of the battlefield to shake hands with the Scots to the dismay of dastardly Edward I.

To Gorski—aka Murdoch blogger “Orac” (Murdoch owns National Geographic which runs ScienceBlogs which hosts Gorski)— the comparison between vaccine safety activists and rebel Scots isn’t meant to be flattering because, as some recall, William Wallace gets drawn and quartered and the Scots independence movement failed, an idea that clearly fills Gorski’s mercenary little heart with glee.

But the scene still gets me every time… even though that historical moment of transnational male bonding never actually happened.

It would be nice if it did. It would be great if human beings were never weak, short-sighted and had enough clarity and courage to see common ground between embattled causes. All the same, sometimes the impossible comes to pass and seemingly different political movements discover aims in common and shift into loose allegiance. I think this is happening in regard to the vaccine safety and anti-GMO movements. The March Against Monsanto website recently reposted a GreenMedInfo article by Dr. Kelly Brogan titled Naturopathic Doctor Connects the Dots Between GMOs and Vaccines:

As discussed earlier on this website, a debate has brewing throughout the holistic health and clean food movements about whether to include the “green our vaccines” and GMO free movements together, or to keep them separate so as not to turn certain segments of people off to the cause.

By Adriana Gamondes

Another Andrew Solomon fail. For his recent New York Times op-ed on autism and mass murder, it appears as if he scoured AofA's and other coverage of autism/mass murder spin and then surgically excised any mention of prescription drugs. It's no surprise. Solomon famously takes psychiatric drugs himself, and is the son of Howard Solomon, CEO of Forest Labs for the past 35 years.  He's a shill, though with a genuine blind spot and the NY Times is using him to defend drug sales.

"The Myth of the Autistic Shooter"

Despite what is probably Solomon's sincere intent to deflect the mass murder/autism association, his theories do nothing to protect people with autism or any other mental disorder to set off an alternative witch hunt for the "psychopathic gene.” It simply opens the door for a gold rush of diagnostic theories that psychopathology “often coexists” with autism and we’re back at square one—with a bulls eye across the backs of entire diagnostic categories. As Solomon himself admits, there’s no biomarker for psychopathology. It’s diagnosed through subjective observation, so therefore can be pinned on anyone handy. And who could be more handy than the population of individuals with autism whose inconveniently rising ranks stand as evidence against the safety of another profitable pharmaceutical product line? 

And worse, considering CDC whistleblower disclosures that African American boys exposed to certain vaccines suffer a 340% increased risk of autism that likely explains the current massive increase in diagnosis within minority populations,   and considering the Minority Report-style hunt for criminal genes has historically centered on race, Solomon's resurrection of the crime gene hypothesis is an ill wind that blows no good. It was the theme of Peter Breggin’s chilling history of racist psychiatric abuse, The War Against Children of Color.  Reference to the modern crime gene program was the final warning in Cologne geneticist Benno Müller-Hill’s seminal study of the Nazi T-4  killing program, Murderous Science: The Elimination by Scientific Selection of Jews, Gypsies, and the Mentally Disabled in Germany, 1033-1945. And according to political philsopher Hannah Arendt, the idea of a biomarker for criminality – the “objective (scientifically proven) enemy”—is the core of every totalitarian cult of the 20th century.

More than a century of hunting for this crime gene has turned up nothing because it doesn't exist, though the concept that it does has unleashed horrors and repression.

By Adriana Gamondes

On August 18^th, 2015, Chris Harper Mercer, the gunman responsible for the murders of 9 people at Umpqua Community College in Oregon on October 1st, wrote on his Facebook page:

I have a pill bottle with like five types of pills mixed in. I don't know which ones are the sleep aids so I just took four of each.

The following is a screenshot of this Facebook post taken within minutes of Mercer’s name being released to the media by a PhD in psychology and activist (who prefers to remain anonymous) just moments before the page was taken offline. It was then disseminated by Nancy Rubenstein Delgiudice, a contributor to journalist Robert Whitaker’s blog, Mad in America, and director of public education and volunteer coordinator for the Law Project for Psychiatric Rights (PsychRights.org).

The chain of possession of the screenshot is probably important to mention since Oregon authorities as well as the FBI are actively researching Mercer’s background for clues about what may have led to his crime. The screenshot was not hacked and no one from Age of Autism actually knew him. Mercer’s page apparently had minimal privacy settings before it was taken down and was accessible to the public.

Providing information about what medications Mercer may have taken is not intended as a plea for sympathy for perpetrators of mass violence. Though children, those detained in psychiatric facilities and the severely disabled may not have a choice or can’t legally consent to treatment, most adults can choose treatment methods—and with choice comes responsibility, particularly in the web age.

Mercer and his mother Laurel Harper Mercer spent a great deal of time online according to reports. Much has been written about Laurel Mercer’s admissions that both she and her son had Asperger’s and their views on guns (she and her son were apparently avid collectors and gun rights proponents), but very little has been written about her views on mainstream medicine. Laurel Mercer, an RN, reportedly spent hours a day answering questions on Yahoo Answers under the tag Tweetybird. Her views on a range of issues— from antidepressant use to the connection between vaccines and autism—are still online (here ,  here and here).

The New York Times reports that Laurel Mercer sometimes had difficulties getting her son to take his meds.

Alexis Jefferson, who worked with Ms. Harper at a Southern California subacute care center around 2010, said the gunman’s mother sometimes confided the difficulties she had in raising her son, including that she had placed Mr. Harper-Mercer in a psychiatric hospital when he did not take his medication.

Managing Editor's Note:  Thank you to Adriana for this series of five infographics that we hope you will share.  They show the "evolution" of the public service to profit model prevalent in American government, and are a result of the recent departure of Dr. Tom Insel, from the National Institutes of Mental Health where he was chairman of  IACC - the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee. Mind you, autism rates increased from 1 in 150 when Insel joined NIMH to a staggering 1 in 68, 1 in 42 boys.  Is this Insel's idea of a "high point" and a "bright future?"

Why am I leaving? I had always planned to depart after 10 years. I stayed longer because of the fun of first launching a new Institute, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS), and then the BRAIN Initiative, as well as my passion for what we have been doing at NIMH. I am not leaving because of a problem or crisis. Indeed, I chose this moment because I wanted to leave at a high point: for the first time in many years we have a complete and completely outstanding leadership team at NIMH, we have excellent engagement from the advocacy community, we have unprecedented support from Congress, and we have an inspiring strategic plan. I want to step away at the best of times with all signs pointing to a bright future.

By Adriana Gamondes

Thank you to our talented contributing editor Adriana Gamondes for her Barnum meets Bradbury visual of California's SB277 graphic.  Medical rights are becoming as scarce as a bearded lady.

Feel free to share with attribution.

Those with power have always manipulated reality and created ideologies defined as progress to justify systems of exploitation. Monarchs and religious authorities did this in the Middle Ages. Today this is done by the high priests of modernity—the technocrats, scholars, scientists, politicians, journalists and economists. They deform reality. They foster the myth of preordained inevitability and pure rationality. But such knowledge—which dominates our universities—is anti-thought. It precludes all alternatives. It is used to end discussion. It is designed to give to the forces of science or the free market or globalization a veneer of rational discourse, to persuade us to place our faith in these forces and trust our fate to them. These forces, the experts assure us, are as unalterable as nature. They will lead us forward. To question them is heresy. ~Chris Hedges

Read Part 1, Part 2 ,  Part 3,  Part 4,  Part 5,   Part 6, Part 7,  Part 8 and Part 9.

By Adriana Gamondes

Neoliberal Noir and the Globalized Junta  

On April 28^th, 2015, New York University law professor Mary Holland testified before the California Senate Judiciary Committee in opposition to SB277, a bill that would remove all personal exemptions to vaccination—religious and philosophical— except medical for California’s school children.

On the issue of consent, Holland drew sharp parallels that angered Chairwoman Hannah-Beth Jackson (D-Santa Barbara).

MARY HOLLAND: Without some measure of realistic choice—and I do not believe that medical exemptions or homeschooling present viable options for the majority who have resolute convictions against vaccination—this bill will be coercive. Parents will be vaccinating their children under duress, invalidating any notion of informed consent. 

In employment, lack of consent is forced labor. In military service, it’s conscription. In contracts, it leads to invalid contracts. In intimate relations, it’s called rape. And in medical treatment, it’s battery.

SEN. JACKSON: Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa! Wait a minute. Wait a second... Rape is a loaded word and as the Chair of the Women’s Caucus, I don’t take the use of the word lightly.

MARY HOLLAND:  I don’t either.

Sen. Jackson chastised further on use of the rape analogy, then asked Holland to provide examples of Supreme Court or other rulings dealing specifically with the issue of informed consent and vaccination. It was some time before Holland could continue with her testimony, at which point she discussed the potential denial of public education that would result from instituting such a law, the fact that the laws already in place in all states ensured high vaccination rates as it is, then asked whether the state would criminalize dissent.

MARY HOLLAND:  Furthermore, a problem with SB277 would be in its enforcement.

The parents here today are unlikely to comply with the vaccine schedule. They will either be forced—it would violate the covenant with their God or their conscience because, rightly or wrongly, they believe that they would be putting their children at risk of severe injury or death by vaccinating them.

How will you possibly enforce this with parents who won’t vaccinate and cannot, for economic or other reasons, home school?

Will you be willing to remove children and force-vaccinate them as wards of the state?

Will you be willing to throw non-vaccinating parents in prison?

And what happens if the state does vaccinate a child who is removed and that child is severely injured or dies?

What will the state do?

SEN. JACKSON: Where in this bill does it talk about throwing parents in prison?

MARY HOLLAND: No, but what will you do? The parents—many of the parents who are…

SEN. JACKSON: I’m sorry but there is nothing in this… I mean, there are enough concerns raised.  To kind of push it to a level…  Now we are talking about putting parents in prison…

Senator Jackson sputtered for several more minutes about Holland’s “inflammatory” suggestions, to which Holland replied, “But I don’t know what you will do.”

We don’t know but we can guess. To quote G.K. Chesterton, “If you let loose a law, it will do as a dog does. It will obey its own nature, not yours. Such sense as you have put into the law (or the dog) will be fulfilled. But you will not be able to fulfill a fragment of anything you have forgotten to put into it.” In other words, if 277 passes, children will be taken and parents will go to jail since there’s absolutely nothing in the bill that guards against this.

Senator Jackson’s objections to Mary Holland’s use of analogy and Orwellian rhetorical inquiry were transparent and Jackson’s reasons for demonstrating outrage didn’t make sense.  Any “disservice” these references rendered was not to consumer advocates but to the bill’s sponsors and Jackson’s biased censorship.

The pomp of the Fascists, taken at its face value, has a hollow gest, the gest of mere pomp, a featureless phenomenon: men strutting instead of walking, a certain stiffness, a lot of colour, self-conscious sticking out of chests, etc. All this could be the gest of some popular festivity, quite harmless, purely factual and therefore to be accepted. Only when the strutting takes place over corpses do we get the social gest of Fascism.  ~Berthold Brecht, Brecht on Theater

Read Part 1, Part 2 ,  Part 3,  Part 4,  Part 5,   Part 6, Part 7 and Part 8.

By Adriana Gamondes

Skeptic Gestics and Troubleshooting the Wounded

Parts 1 through 8 delved into the how and why the wars on disease/terror have merged and the resulting moebius strip reality where the public rides an eternal loop between bomb threats and disease scares, maintaining a permanent state of crisis or, as Foucault put it, a state of plague to justify progressively greater incursions on rights and privacy.  

These “wars on” have their various strategists, their generals and intelligence gatherers and their propagandists, snitches, provocateurs and hired thugs who sow divisions and rationalize the collateral of all these ideological, social and actual wars.  In the case of the organized Skeptics PR front, it’s a three-fer. In effect, the Skeptics are the tape on the moebius strip, binding all the themes and entrapping public discourse in the perpetual cycle through a sort of bullying fundamentalist science rhetoric.

The Skeptic front organization not only leads the charge in “defining the enemies” of the vaccine industry as “anti-vaccine” and has harped in particular on religious resistance towards vaccination, the chemical industry and genetically modified crops,  associated members and leaders of the group have also helped hone PR rationalizations for preemptive invasion of biofuel-rich, often Islamic countries by demonizing Islamic culture based on the actions of a minority and characterizing Islam as anti-progress and anti-science.

The problem in establishing the Skeptics' corporate and state connections is that, due to tax loopholes allowing educational foundations to keep funding sources anonymous, for the time being there are only circumstantial hints that the Gates Foundation— aside from  pharmaceutical companies, public health regulators and chemical giants like Monsanto— may be among the Skeptics’ backers. It’s beside the point in a sense since, according to the number of Skeptic affiliates ensconced in the media, academia and who hold positions on public boards despite sometimes outrageous conduct and statements, the group seems to have plenty of institutional support. In a corporocratic world, institutional support and a teflon veneer frequently imply corporate support. 

But one thing is very clear—the biotech defense front is very centralized. One way or another, a high number of prominent public health avatars and industry defenders in the media have ties to the organized Skeptics. All unilaterally spin apologias and swap soundbites for a range of industrial products while stumping for policy which supports their brands, using methods that combine literal and figurative panoptic themes. Whether selling the war on terror, the war on disease or the war on “irrationality,” the group’s figureheads argue that carriers of anti-science/anti-progress beliefs doubly endanger the public through actual and conceptual contagion and that both the ideas and the carriers themselves must be contained. 

No colonial power is going to succeed unless it’s going to play on existing divisions, and sharpen them, increase them, exacerbate them.   ~Mahmood Mamdani, Uganda Rising

Read Part 1, Part 2 ,  Part 3,  Part 4,  Part 5,   Part 6 and Part 7.

By Adriana Gamondes

McRevolutions, Resources and Panoptic Optics

In looking at the pattern of global philanthropy in the buildup towards Western intervention in resource-rich nations around the world, connections can’t be forced. The substantiations are often hidden in closed door meetings and on the ground among populations the media, largely controlled by those pushing particular agendas, mostly ignores. But even so, certain patterns emerge in the shadows.  

For instance, the map illustration from the lead article in this series simply compared GAVI target countries with oil operations and US military expansion using a map provided by Tom Dispatch from an article by Nick Turse, AFRICOM’s Gigantic “Small” Footprint:

Here’s a question for you: Can a military tiptoe onto a continent? It seems the unlikeliest of images, and yet it’s a reasonable enough description of what the U.S. military has been doing ever since the Pentagon created an Africa Command (AFRICOM) in 2007. It’s been slipping, sneaking, creeping into Africa, deploying ever more forces in ever more ways doing ever more things at ever more facilities in ever more countries -- and in a fashion so quiet, so covert, that just about no American has any idea this is going on.  One day, when an already destabilizing Africa explodes into various forms of violence, the U.S. military will be in the middle of it and Americans will suddenly wonder how in the world this could have happened. 

Mali

The fact that medical philanthropy often tiptoes in prior to invasions for resources might demonstrate, at least in part, how in the world this could have happened.  In order to avoid exaggerating associations between events through blatant examples like Ebola outbreaks and the US boots on the ground that followed, and because sometimes, as Turse puts it, “to see the big picture you need to focus on the smallest part of it,” I raked over several seemingly random news items for countries which are mostly obscure to Westerners such as Mali.  Most don’t even know where Mali is much less the country’s history or what the US is currently doing there. But the stories I ran across took a certain shape: the a rash of experimental trials for Ebola, HPV, rotavirus and other vaccines and  the Gates Foundation’s involvement; a US-facilitated coup d’état in 2012  and finally an industry-centric view of civil disorder as an impediment to oil and gas exploration in that country.  

News 24 reports:

Mali's health minister says the West African country has started trials of an Ebola vaccine on scientific researchers.

"It's purely a scientific step. The trials are on volunteer researchers," said Ousmane Kone.

Mali has no Ebola cases but it borders Guinea, where the outbreak began.

The trials in Bamako are being supervised by the vaccine research centre of the medical school of the University of Maryland in the United States and Mali's health ministry, Kone said.

Trials of the vaccine started in September on 10 US volunteers and 60 in Britain.

The vaccine is being developed by the British drug company GlaxoSmithKline and the US National Institute of Health.

This recalls the Serum Institute of India's MenAfriVac meningococcal vaccine developed as part of the PATH Partnership for Global Health in cooperation with the WHO, Unicef, GAVI, the University of Maryland and private industry (GSK, etc.) which was used in the deadly, forced trials organized by the Gates Foundation in Chad, itself a nest of US military activity. Years earlier, in 2002, the University of Maryland School of Medicine website reported the school’s abiding vaccine alliance with Mali and the Gates Foundation:  

Two researchers from the University of Maryland School of Medicine in Baltimore have received prestigious honors from the Mali government in recognition of their efforts to develop and distribute vaccines to children in that country who are vulnerable to numerous infectious diseases common in Africa. The awards were presented at a special ceremony in Mali in June on behalf of the President of Mali, His Excellency Amadou Toumani Touré…In 2000, the Ministry of Health of Mali and the University of Maryland School of Medicine signed a formal agreement to establish the CVD-Mali to provide laboratory space and resources for CVD researchers working in the country and to train Malian scientists and physicians.

The mindset is that the barbarians are backward and inferior and, for their own benefit, we have to uplift them, civilize them and educate them and so on. The psychology behind it is kind of transparent. When you’ve got your boot on someone’s neck and you’re crushing them, you can’t say to yourself “I’m a son of a bitch and I’m doing it for my own benefit.” So we have to figure out some way of saying “I’m doing it for their benefit.” And that’s a very natural position to take when you’re beating someone with a club. ~Noam Chomsky, Uganda Rising

Read Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3,  Part 4,  Part 5 and Part 6.

By Adriana Gamondes

Midnight Oil: Hearts and Minds and Fuel and Lives Going Dark Around the World

For a recap, Part 1 of this series discusses the potential role of the use of vaccine drives as cover for military intelligence and drone operations in domestic legislative campaign to make vaccines compulsory in the US.  Part 2 discusses Foucault’s “panoptic,” disease-driven theory of the surveillance state and overlaps with the Gates Foundation’s militarized approach to public health.  Part 3 looks into the merger between the wars on disease/terror and the dangerous exchange of tactics and  ideology that results, from the likening of ideological enemies to “viruses” to the elevation of  commercial science to the status of state religion. Part 4 discusses Kissinger’s panoptic viral theory of foreign policy and ways this model is used against Americans.   Part 5  discusses the viral theory in the framework of the Gates Foundation’s fundamentalist market and science doctrines and engagement in radical social engineering. Part 6 looks into the deeper history and racial implications of the alleged use of abortifacient vaccines against Kenyan women by their own government, UNICEF, WHO and the Gates Foundation and discusses whether this represents a militarized  Heart-of-Darkness  scheme to engage a target population in its own destruction—a type of panoptic inoculation drive against threats to corporate interests.

Since the overall forcus of the series is the possible blowback of foreign exploits in the form of repressive domestic policy—ways in which weaponized tactics, ideology and metaphors spawned by the merger between military interests and public health used as a Trojan horse for foreign exploits come home to roost—it would seem important to take a look at the global stakes. 

Kenya, the target of the most recent credibly alleged mass sterilization campaign using vaccination as cover,  is just one example of countries currently at the center of the global battle for resouces. This could be due to competition with China for newly discovered Kenyan oil and gas stores. As The Guardian’s John Pilger wrote in 2013, a lot of what’s happening relates to China: 

For Obama, there is a more pressing cause – China. Africa is China's success story. Where the Americans bring drones, the Chinese build roads, bridges and dams. What the Chinese want is resources, especially fossil fuels. Nato's bombing of Libya drove out 30,000 Chinese oil industry workers. More than jihadism or Iran, China is Washington's obsession in Africa and beyond. This is a "policy" known as the "pivot to Asia", whose threat of world war may be as great as any in the modern era.

Competition with China may likewise explain a few things that otherwise make no sense at all.  It might explain why Bill Gates fulfilled Kenyan President Uhuro Kenyatta’s 2013 campaign promise to provide laptops  to all Kenyan children—an arguably election-swinging promise Kenyatta would likely never have made had it not been prearranged. It could explain why Gates intervened despite the fact that Kenyatta was not Washington’s preference while, oddly,  the Marxist, militant-backed Raila Odinga was: Kenyatta’s defiant relationships with Russia and China— China in particular—though the latter is no hindrance to Gates. Gates, who appeared to play “good cop” to Washington’s “bad cop” regarding Kenyatta, has heavily invested in China—at one time through Microsoft and now through the Gates Foundation—and has multiple connections to the country through investments in atomic power, vaccine and computer tech and agriculture. Also oil through circuitous routes, such as Gates’ ownership of the Canadian National Railway as the rail company is revitalized by China’s investment in Canadian oil.

... it was written I should be loyal to the nightmare of my choice.

~Joseph Conrad, The Heart of Darkness

Read Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3 and Part 4 and Part 5.

By Adriana Gamondes

Loyal to the Nightmare: The Vatican Squares off with Gates and the World Health Organization Over Mass Sterilization in Kenya via Vaccination—Implications for Race and Corporatism

Religious organizations have frequently accused Gates of diabolical extremes, specifically of advancing a eugenicist population control agenda. The charge is usually based on hyperbolized statements Gates made at the mHealth Summit on the issue, most famously his suggestion that if families in the third world could count on losing fewer children to disease, they might choose to have fewer in the first place: "The key thing, the most important fact that people should know and make sure other people know: As you save children under 5, that is the thing that reduces population growth…That sounds paradoxical. The fact is that within a decade of improving health outcomes, parents decide to have less children."

Gates’ references to the dangers of overpopulation are not novel and are carefully scripted. But again, it may be a litmus of Gates’ and his foundation’s global reputation that many assume the various disasters that trail Gates’ philanthropic and industrial schemes listed in Parts 2 and 5 are necessarily deliberate, thereby lending a sinister subtext to his population control statements and others. The progressive concern about the strain of overpopulation on the survival of the planet and the delicate ecosystem in itself is not particularly evil or authoritarian.  What would make it so is any argument that the end justifies any means at all and evidence that those ends were implemented using unethical means.

Since long before Operation Neptune Spear, the mainstream media— often citing sources associated with UNICEF, the WHO or the Gates Foundation’s vaccine surveillance program—  reported that religious leaders in Islamic countries spread “irrational fear” of vaccination, such as the idea that vaccines can cause infertility. A 2004 report from Reuters:

ABUJA, Nigeria (Reuters) - Nigeria is to test samples of the polio vaccine next month in the hope of resolving a dispute with Muslim authorities which has helped spread the crippling disease to children across Africa.

Three predominantly Muslim states in northern Nigeria stopped immunizations in November because Islamic authorities suspect the vaccines of spreading infertility -- which they believe is part of an American conspiracy to depopulate Africa's most populous nation...

"There are serious suspicions of a conspiracy by the U.S. government to depopulate Nigeria, among other developing countries," he told Reuters.

"Unless a joint examination is undertaken, suspicions will linger and people will not be forthcoming."

If the joint test puts fears to rest, the minister said vaccinations would resume nationwide on February 23.

Nigeria is proving the main obstacle to the WHO's goal of eradicating polio globally by 2005.

  As it happens, the WHO had been attempting to squash rumors of abortifacient vaccines since 1995.    Damage to immunisation programmes from misinformation on contraceptive vaccines >Abstract

Tetanus is responsible for 550,000 neonatal deaths globally each year. Tetanus toxoid vaccines are provided through the World Health Organization and the United Nations Children's Fund for national immunisation programmes to prevent infant deaths from tetanus. The vaccines are manufactured and controlled under strict standards. Rumours have circulated recently in Mexico, Tanzania, Nicaragua and the Philippines that WHO and UNICEF are using women as guinea-pigs to test a contraceptive vaccine given to them under the guise of tetanus toxoid vaccine. These rumours, apparently initiated by so-called pro-life' groups, are completely untrue. The vaccines do not contain contraceptive vaccines or any other substance which interferes with fertility or pregnancy and their labelling accurately describes their actual contents. The false claims made by these groups have had an adverse impact on immunisation programmes in all four countries.

Incidentally, western media have generally omitted reports by healthcare workers directly involved in the vaccination campaign used as cover for Operation Neptune Spear that the drive targeted women of childbearing age (15 to 49) for Hepatitis B vaccination, not solely children:

All day, as part of a hepatitis B vaccination team that the doctor had assembled, the nurses had been canvassing the area, knocking on doors and looking for women ages 15 to 45 to cajole into taking the needle. First a drop of blood would be drawn from the patient and blotted on a rapid-test strip, which would show, within minutes, whether the patient had been infected with hepatitis. If the patient was negative, the nurses were instructed to administer the vaccination.

This in itself could explain why suspicions of ill intent have lingered for so many years, though use of vaccination as cover for drone and military intelligence hasn’t helped. What has also rarely been mentioned in the “Islamic Luddite” stories is that it was medical organizations in the Philippines that initially reported that vaccines supplied by the World Health Organization and UNICEF contained human chorionic gonadotropin. The information was then publicized by Catholic pro-life groups, though the BBC documentary The Human Laboratory demonstrated that it was doctors from the Philippine Medical Association who first reported the scandal:

Dr. Reynaldo Echavez: We in the Philippine Medical Association don’t believe in what the government is saying. The tests that were made in both big medical centres were all positive for HCG, Beta HCG, and they claim that this is insignificant. To me this could not be insignificant because it can produce anti-HCG. At the moment there is a presence of HCG in the vaccine. It can produce anti-HCG and this can now neutralise the HCG that a woman will produce during pregnancy and abortion will set in.

Dr. Vilma Gonzaga: Women should have been told that the injection would cause miscarriage and, in the end, infertility. The Department of Health should have asked beforehand, so that only those who didn’t want to have children had the injection.

Read Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3 and Part 4.

By Adriana Gamondes

Mixed Metaphors: Gates’ Inverted Totalitarian Corporate Conquistadors

As mentioned in Part 2, Bill Gates’ investment in a fracking tech corporation and Operation Neptune Spear corresponded with the intensive and obviously orchestrated vaccine defense media campaign which began with the publication of Paul Offit’s Deadly Choices: How the Anti-Vaccine Movement Threatens Us All;  followed by Murdoch stringer and paid pharmaceutical operative Brian Deer’s regurgitation of old claims against Andrew Wakefield in the British Medical Journal, and crescendoing with Gates nosing out from behind the curtain to declare a virtual fatwa on purported “anti-vaccine”  advocates who “kill children.” The campaign finished off with the seemingly endless junket for Seth Mnookin’s vaccine-defense screed, Panic Virus. The mandate drumbeat and calls for censorship against critics have only amplified since. 

At the time, the media crusade was like one long, belletristic plea that this could be the last attempt to deploy persuasion before the erosion of consumer rights would begin in earnest, and that certain policies could be—ever so reluctantly and unfortunately— forged to make vaccination fully compulsory in the US. At some point the media signaled that the “gloves were coming off,” which brings us to the current rhetoric on jail, fines, fees, segregation and child removal for vaccine dissent.

The absolutist campaign was nevertheless only one of several similar campaigns since 9/11. As journalist and Dirty Wars author and documentarian Jeremy Scahill wrote in Huffington Post, Scooter Libby, with the help of the NY Times WMD spin-planting columnist Judy Miller, lobbied to make disease outbreaks instrumental to war footing.

The fact that the shot obsession in this century began with the Bush administration and Libby—one of the officials at the heart of the “yellow cake” and WMD fabrication scandal—shouldn’t come as much of a shock since the vaccination campaign continues to be as orchestrated as WMD spin had been (and still is). The fact that the campaign has only ratcheted up under the Obama administration— known for jailing and persecuting whistleblowers  who threatened more current “WMD” ploys— isn’t so shocking at this point either. As mentioned in Part 2, all of the odd convergences bring up questions over both what is at stake that would explain the parallel intensity of the wars on terror/disease as well as questions about the power of particular figures enmeshed in the blitz to coordinate the centralized message.  At least one of the answers is obvious. As the Seattle Times reported in 2010 in a report titled Does Gates Funding Taint Media Objectivity?

Better-known for its battles against global disease, the giant philanthropy has also become a force in journalism.

The foundation's grants to media organizations such as ABC and The Guardian, one of Britain's leading newspapers, raise obvious conflict-of-interest questions: How can reporting be unbiased when a major player holds the purse strings?

But direct funding of media organizations is only one way the world's most powerful foundation influences what the public reads, hears and watches.

To garner attention for the issues it cares about, the foundation has invested millions in training programs for journalists…Magazines and scientific journals get Gates money to publish research and articles. Experts coached in Gates-funded programs write columns that appear in media outlets from The New York Times to The Huffington Post, while digital portals blur the line between journalism and spin…

Some of the foundation's approaches are controversial, such as its embrace of genetically modified crops and emphasis on technological fixes for health problems. Critics fear foundation funding of media will muffle those debates. And with only three trustees setting the overall strategy — Bill and Melinda Gates and fellow billionaire Warren Buffett — there's something "deeply anti-democratic" about such a concentration of influence, [NYU Professor Mark Crispin] Miller said.

"We're not dealing with a lively discussion among players. We're dealing with one gigantic entity ... that seems to be very skilled at promoting its agenda," he said.

This brings up a question over what exactly Gates’ and his foundation’s agenda might be.  

It was very simple, and at the end of that moving appeal to every altruistic sentiment it blazed at you, luminous and terrifying, like a flash of lightning in a serene sky: `Exterminate all the brutes!' 

~ Joseph Conrad, The Heart of Darkness

Read Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3.

By Adriana Gamondes

Totem Theory—The Virus of Nationalism

If the cult of state science or “scientism” is the ultimate earmark of 20^th century totalitarianism, it’s a cult founded in analogies that grew “fungus-like” from the discovery of infectious pathogens. It’s a form of tribalism that represents itself with a totem of the viral theory of politics and the orgy of disease metaphors arising from the militarization of science, including the disastrous view of human beings, other cultures and ideas as forms of “contagion” that must be “cured.”  

On the literal end of the viral theory, Pacific Standard, a magazine “created for opinion leaders, policymakers, and concerned citizens who are interested in developing solutions to some of the world’s toughest social and environmental problems,” published an article titled The Germ Theory of Democracy, Dictatorship and All Your Most Cherished Beliefs. The article concludes that managing disease is the key to spreading democracy throughout the world: 

According to the “pathogen stress theory of values,” the evolutionary case that  [Randy] Thornhill and his colleagues have put forward, our behavioral immune systems—our group responses to local disease threats—play a decisive role in shaping our various political systems, religions, and shared moral views.

If they are right, Thornhill and his colleagues may be on their way to unlocking some of the most stubborn mysteries of human behavior. Their theory may help explain why authoritarian governments tend to persist in certain latitudes while democracies rise in others; why some cultures are xenophobic and others are relatively open to strangers; why certain peoples value equality and individuality while others prize hierarchical structures and strict adherence to tradition. What’s more, their work may offer a clear insight into how societies change. According to Thornhill’s findings, striking at the root of infectious disease threats is by far the most effective form of social engineering available to any would-be reformer…

Thornhill points out that this rise [in modern democratic states] coincided with an era in which major health interventions, including vaccine programs, the chlorination of drinking water, and efforts to reduce food-borne disease, became commonplace in many parts of the world. Thornhill is not shy about the implications. If promoting democracy and other liberal values is on your agenda, he says, health care and disease abatement should be your main concern.

No one would disagree that managing disease could potentially make societies more stable. But even aside from  the issue that, for better or worse, there are various ways of doing this, the argument that democracy hinges on disease management doesn’t pan out historically.  For instance, Murdoch-held Vox magazine featured an article titled Even ISIS Supports Kids Getting Vaccinated that was dubbed “the weirdest appeal to authority ever.” And in Nazi Germany, the head of the SS  once threatened to shoot any German official who criticized vaccination.  Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceausescu was so enthusiastic about Western medicine that he lifted a blockade solely for vaccines and ordered children in orphanages to be inoculated for Hepatitis B which had been spread by repeat blood transfusions. Unfortunately the needles used for both transfusions and inoculations were shared and the children were vaccinated several times a year for the same disease, spreading both AIDS and arguably autism.   

Read Parts 1 and Part 2 of this ten part series.

By Adriana Gamondes

Though jail sounds drastic, it could be the only way to send a strong message about the deadly consequences of failing to vaccinate children. ~Alex Berezow,  USA Today

Actually parents don’t own their children. Parents have a responsibility to care for their children; and if they don’t, the state has a right to step in.  ~Paul Offit, USA Today

All of the barriers that are meant to protect our children–the government, the lawyers, the regulatory agencies, and the press, the checks and balances in our democratic system that are supposed to stand between corporate power and our little children–have been removed, and there’s only one barrier left, and that’s the parents, and we need to keep that in the equation. ~Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Postmodern Hysteria—a Political Virus

Part 2 of this series asked whether the merging of public health with military industrial mechanisms— made evident by the use of philanthropic vaccine drives as cover for military operations— also had the reciprocal effect of militarizing domestic public health authority.  

If this is the case, if both divisions are swapping spit to put it bluntly, it highlights certain risks. As Susan Stuart of Valparaiso University writes inWar as Metaphor, the “increasing use of militaristic rhetoric by politicians and pundits goes beyond its metaphorical use as a war against an abstraction. Instead, the use of such language is becoming literal, and that rhetorical shift matters. Today’s militaristic rhetoric is increasingly identifying fellow citizens as enemies in a literal war.”

In  Stuart’s estimation, a “war on” social problems is a way for a country’s war machinery to come home to roost on its own soil.  In a speech in 2013, journalist and activist Chris Hedges explained the military history of the boomerang effect:

What happens with dying empires—Thucydides [Greek commander circa 400 BC, author of History of the Peloponnesian War] wrote about this— is that the techniques of control, which are always about coercion—the only language most people speak in the outer reaches of empire is the language of force—as the impirium is hollowed out, these techniques migrate back into heart of the impirium, which is exactly what is happening. So you have the mercenaries working in Iraq and Afghanistan [Blackwater,  DynCorp, Intercon, American Security Group, Blackhawk, Wackenhut and Israel’s Instinctive Shooting International, etc.] suddenly appearing in New Orleans after Katrina…

According to Foucault’s panoptic theory, the advantages of the merger between war and public health machinery—much like the merger between military and domestic disaster relief—in terms of boosting domestic militarization would be obvious: fear of disease makes the surveillance state possible. As public health policy moves from persuasion to discussions of coercion and force, it’s clear the marriage has gone beyond the CDC’s symbolic military rank and uniforms. Both have a lot to trade in becoming “pregnant” with the other’s purpose. Not only practical methods are transferred, which is dangerous enough, but also rationales, PR,  ethos and philosophical approaches that are endlessly elastic and can be applied almost anywhere. I think that’s the enduring danger when things that are fundamentally irreconcilable, such as the Hippocratic Oath and rules of engagement, become disturbingly reconcilable.  The Frankenstein result is that human beings become the “disease.”  

[T]he people who go and engage in those anti-vaccine efforts— you know, they, they kill children. ~Bill Gates, CNN, February 4^th, 2011

Read Part 1 here.

By Adriana Gamondes

What the Foucault? The Gates Foundation and Panoptic Philanthropy

In February,  2011, less than three months prior to Operation Neptune Spear,  Microsoft founder Bill Gates, the world’s leading vaccine philanthropist, pronounced on CNN that vaccine safety critics “kill children” and are “liars.” A few weeks earlier, Gates had invested in Neos Geosolutions, a mining technology company backed by Goldman Sachs and Saudi investors that has performed airborne surveys in the Middle East and maintains an office in Abu Dhabi.

And as it turns out,  Gates’ investment coincided with several ongoing US military operations and installations in countries—from the Ukraine to Syria, Yemen and Kenya—  openly touted for oil, frackable shale or offshore gas fields.  And every one of these countries had been, at one point or another, a subject of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation’s and (offshoot) GAVI Alliance’s various disease monitoring and vaccination drives as well as  surveillance of what the organization calls “vaccine confidence.”

It’s a valid argument that Gates Foundation’s initiatives, like biofuel exploration are nearly ubiquitous. The same is true for US military operations, as Nick Turse for The Nation reports:

During the fiscal year that ended on September 30, 2014, US Special Operations forces (SOF) deployed to 133 countries—roughly 70 percent of the nations on the planet—according to Lieutenant Colonel Robert Bockholt, a public affairs officer with US Special Operations Command (SOCOM). This capped a three-year span in which the country’s most elite forces were active in more than 150 different countries around the world, conducting missions ranging from kill/capture night raids to training exercises.

But aside from the ubiquity of certain programs,  there are other convergences that make the chain of events leading up to Neptune Spear interesting.  Imagining for a moment that Gates, whose foundation has been called a tax evasion shell by philanthropist and accounting expert Sheldon Drobny, has never used medical philanthropy to advance other investments,  we should still be asking what Gates and members of his foundation—the prime implementers of third world vaccination drives similar to the one used as cover for the Bin Laden mission, and one of the primary media forces behind domestic mandates— may have known leading up to the operation. Was Gates briefed? Were other media and industrial players?  

We may never know the answer to this, as Turse goes on to illustrate:

Despite its massive scale and scope, this secret global war across much of the planet is unknown to most Americans. Unlike the December debacle in Yemen, the vast majority of special ops missions remain completely in the shadows, hidden from external oversight or press scrutiny. In fact, aside from modest amounts of information disclosed through highly-selective coverage by military media, official White House leaks, SEALs with something to sell and a few cherry-picked journalists reporting on cherry-picked opportunities, much of what America’s special operators do is never subjected to meaningful examination, which only increases the chances of unforeseen blowback and catastrophic consequences.

The use of illegal domestic propaganda to facilitate military operations has happened more than once in recent history, most notably Judy Miller’s planting of WMD spin in the New York Times on behalf of the US State Department.  And going by a shocking recent court ruling, it’s just become harder to prove. In a story for The Intercept, Glenn Greenwald reports,  

A truly stunning debasement of the U.S. justice system just occurred through the joint efforts of the Obama Justice Department and a meek and frightened Obama-appointed federal judge, Edgardo Ramos, all in order to protect an extremist neocon front group from scrutiny and accountability…

This group of neocon extremists was literally just immunized by a federal court from the rule of law. That was based on the claim — advocated by the Obama DOJ and accepted by Judge Ramos — that subjecting them to litigation for their actions would risk disclosure of vital “state secrets.” The court’s ruling was based on assertions made through completely secret proceedings between the court and the U.S. government, with everyone else — including the lawyers for the parties — kept in the dark…

But in this case, there is no apparent U.S. government conduct at issue in the lawsuit. At least based on what they claim about themselves, UANI is just “a not-for-profit, non-partisan, advocacy group” that seeks to “educate” the public about the dangers of Iran’s nuclear program. Why would such a group like this even possess “state secrets”? It would be illegal to give them such material. Or could it be that the CIA or some other U.S. government agency has created and controls the group, which would be a form of government-disseminated propaganda, which happens to be illegal?

The plague-stricken town, traversed throughout with hierarchy, surveillance, observation, writing; the town immobilized by the functioning of an extensive power that bears in a distinct way over all individual bodies - this is the utopia of the perfectly governed city. The plague (envisaged as a possibility at least) is the trial in the course of which one may define ideally the exercise of disciplinary power. In order to make rights and laws function according to pure theory, the jurists place themselves in imagination in the state of nature; in order to see perfect disciplines functioning, rulers dreamt of the state of plague.

~Michel Foucault Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison

Read Part 2 ,  Part 3,  Part 4,  Part 5,   Part 6, Part 7,  Part 8 , Part 9 and Part 10

By Adriana Gamondes

Reporting from the Grave

In struggling to explain a new and imminently dangerous political shift in the US, Tom Engelhardt of Tom Dispatch writes,

Have you ever undertaken some task you felt less than qualified for, but knew that someone needed to do? Consider this piece my version of that, and let me put what I do understand about it in a nutshell: based on developments in our post-9/11 world, we could be watching the birth of a new American political system and way of governing for which, as yet, we have no name.

Tom Dispatch has been an important media source for the following report and  I generally agree with the substance of the article—1% elections, demobilization of Americans, privatization of everything and the security state as fourth branch of government. I agree  on every count except one—that any of this is new or lacks a name.  

Like Engelhardt, only moreso, I also feel out of my depth with the issue of militarized “globalization” as it relates to the pharmaceutical crusade against consumer rights.  Others have named these things separately and I’ve waited patiently for years for leading political analysts and activists to put the pieces together.

But  it finally dawned on me that this is the type of reporting that can only happen from the bottom—from  sources with little to lose but themselves—both because the view from political purgatory has a certain clarity and because activists and analysts who focus on broader political scopes generally have other life and death issues hinging on their ability and agency to get a their perspectives into the wider media. When they go down, so does the range of issues they might be rare voices for.

And let’s face it—the vaccine safety and policy reform campaign is more cautionary tale than inspirational activism narrative at this point. If Howard Zinn were alive today, the movement might be added to his list of tragic causes silenced by power and buried by history. Each attempt to improve things has been met at every pass with more system degeneration—from the erection of the disastrous Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP, “vaccine court”) to the Lilly rider and the Bruesewitz decision, crushing Omnibus rulings, the expansion of the childhood schedule to nearly 70 doses,  the digging in of heels on mercury in flu shots and vaccines supplied to the third world, an exploding “autism drug” market further disincentivizing environmental research, the merging of aggressive front groups with a privatized state security apparatus, and finally the current campaign to legislate compulsory vaccination.

Even with recent successes against removal of personal exemptions in Oregon and Washington, state crusades against  vaccine exemptions continue to spread, federal enforcement still looms, and vaccine safety and autism activists seem farther away from original goals.   To make matters worse, in the case an individual is disabled by vaccination—an indisputed risk of a technology ruled “unavoidably unsafe” by the Supreme Court and the reason for the existence of the VICP— the treatment of the disabled in the US, including disabled veterans, is increasingly  lethal and deplorable. And even those few awarded compensation in vaccine court would most likely be ineligible for medical exemptions under progressively narrowing parameters set by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.  

In terms of being the voice of change, those of us with dead and injured family members are, by all appearances,  dead and buried ourselves except for the fact that every crackdown and step backward  correspond to an increase in the number of Americans who view vaccine safety as a research priority or who suspect the tech is not as safe as claimed. Those shifts were inevitable but hardly victories since the aim had been to better the system before the damage, cost and jaundice spread.

When one lacks character, one must apply a method. 

~Albert Camus, The Fall

(Read Part 1 here.)

By Adriana Gamondes

Looking for Mr. Goodvax

The first time I noticed how territorial industrial pundits are about the use of analogy was from watching the ascent of Panic Virus author Seth Mnookin, who conceivably set off the current mandate campaign. He was also one of the earlier PR figures to deploy a few of the most common false comparisons for vaccine choice advocacy—particularly those geared to progressives, such gay rights opposition, racism, and climate change denial.

Actually Mnookin’s entire book is an analogy. In two hundred words or less, Panic Virus is the story of how “self-indulgent”, “hysterical”, “bitter”, “angry”, “resentful”, “guilt”-ridden, “helpless”, “isolated” and “self-righteous” vaccine safety advocates— corrupted by the democratization of the internet, clouded by the trauma of their children’s disabilities, suffering from low cognitive complexity and seduced by a series of scientific rogues— court the endangerment of their own children and public health.  It’s also a story of how, in order to quell public reservations about mass vaccination at its advent, government and health authorities in the U.S. had to lie about the risks of vaccines at various junctures— although authorities are not lying now when they say benefits outweigh risks and vaccines don’t cause autism. But even if industry and health authorities were lying, human beings are panicky creatures who, being overly dependent on intuition, had best be guided by authority and cooperating media in service to the greater good. Or else… biblical plagues, chaos, the breakdown of the free market, etc. Ergo, compulsory mass vaccination, legal sanctions against those questioning vaccines and inhibition of press freedoms would be justified. The End.

The above is basically the plot of Looking for Mr. Goodbar. But an alternative interpretation of the theme bleeds through the overlay of Panic Virus:

The once conservative fields of vaccine science and health regulation—drawn to the commercial meat market, guilty of departures from medical orthodoxy and nursing themselves back from public jilting—consort with increasingly dangerous public relations initiatives and security industry operations in order to regain status and empowerment at the cost of public trust, children’s health and civil rights.

Mnookin specializes in selling scientific absolutism in progressive drag. If the author doesn’t advocate legislating compulsory immunization clearly enough in his book, then statements he’s made in his blog and to legislators are more explicit:

With the vaccine debate, we're seeing that more and more as more children are getting sick and they're dying. I think we're not far from the point at which we start having real discussions about consequences for people who don't vaccinate and end up bringing in disease. I don't have a background in the law, of course, but I do think the conversation is going to pivot in that direction.

During Mnookin’s seemingly endless book junket in 2011, I noticed his PR tendency to repeat key words and phrases and engage in “repetition of emotional language” such as “anti-vaccine” and “narrative”— the latter to reduce public testimony of vaccine adverse events to folksy mythology. But one repeat term really stood out—the passive form of “disappeared.” At the time, I wondered whether Mnookin was having a reaction to the vaccine safety movement’s use of the expression.

Although only a few may originate a policy, we are all able to judge it.

~Pericles of Athens

By Adriana Gamondes

Culture Jamming

We seem to be entering a media era that should be called the “Analogy Wars.”  If the looming threat of legislation to remove vaccine exemptions and  jail dissenting parents weren’t bad enough,  we’re also being bombarded with cheap analogies for parents who opt out of some or all shots for their children—like being compared to “Holocaust deniers” or drunk drivers.  In the legislative buildup to compulsory vaccination, the media’s anti-choice proponents put civil rights and a basic comparative accuracy at risk.

As many have remarked, it’s strange to see conservatives arguing the liberty position on this issue while some of worst attacks on consumer freedom are coming from seemingly progressive publications and politicians. Not always—Forbes is an openly neoconservative/neoliberal rag.  But the pseudoliberal mavens of force in the media are more likely to induce mental whiplash by snatching and subverting progressive brand logos—views on civil rights, environment in the form of climate change, gay marriage and all things equality-ecology-peace-freedom—then slapping the symbols haphazardly over their suppressive campaign.

The practice has been referred to as reverse culture jamming.  Borrowing a description of it from UC Santa Cruz anthropology professor Susan Harding’s Get Religion, industry mouthpieces are attempting to pass off corporate and institutional ideology by “appropriating, poaching, channeling, ventriloquism” and “revoicing” the message into a progressive journalistic “pitch” in order to shepherd an errant faction of mainstream progressives back towards the approved and conditioned thoughts and beliefs—or “memes”—from which they’d wandered.

By Adriana Gamondes

From NBC 11Alive.com

By Adriana Gamondes

Recently some friends whose son died of autism-related seizures— a tragedy for which the family was compensated through vaccine court after the standard  contentious proceeding and desecration of their son’s memory in the industry press— shared a link to an upcoming conference at NYU:  the Fifth Annual Innovations in Healthcare Symposium: Advances in Global Heath—A Symposium honoring Jonas Salk and Albert Sabin on World Polio Day and Dr. Salk’s Centenary.

Presenters will be, among others, Seth Mnookin, Drs. Paul Offit, Julie Gerberding, Peter Hotez and Arthur Caplan, PhD, and a special video presentation by Bill Gates. Also in attendance will be Francoise Gilot, widow of Jonas Salk and author of Life with Picasso which partly inspired the film Surviving Picasso, Robert Gallow of And the Band Played On fame (or infamy),  and a filmmaker who produced a documentary on a polio-stricken Balanchine dancer.  The first thing that came to mind was—just in time for Halloween!

But after browsing the program, I thought it was interesting that a vaccine conference would focus largely on polio in the middle of an Ebola epidemic, not to mention finding the subtitle a little ironic (“Advances in Global Health”… really? While the toll in Africa explodes?). On the other hand, the overall theme of the conference is clearly about how to bring the errant consumer flock back into the vaccination fold—something which could be considered relevant as the CDC pays cash to Baltimore’s poor and indigent in exchange for taking various trial Ebola vaccines. It’s not as if conference presenters will be lining up to take the untested shots, so the burning question may be how to make other people do it. No experimental vaccine kiosk listed in the program in any case.  NYU’s Arthur Caplan is set to lead off with a presentation titled Session on Ethics: What Ought to be Done to Overcome the Anti-Vaccine Trend?

A huge component of the recurrence of measles, mumps, pertussis and other vaccine preventable diseases is vaccine refusal and vaccine hesitation.  What can be done to combat this problem?  What educational, legal and policy efforts are most likely to persuade individuals and parents to accept vaccinations as very safe and effective?

There’s no mention of Ebola in the blurb, although Caplan’s and other presentations are sure to make references to it. Also no mention of the fact that the CDC itself and bastions of radicalism like the Mayo Clinic's Vaccine Research Group declared the outbreaks of measles, mumps and pertussis to be occurring largely among fully vaccinated populations due to vaccine failure.  But it’s not unreasonable to ponder over the question of public trust in vaccination as a deadly scourge heads our way—if only anyone was talking about the actually deadly scourge or about earning trust through the usual routes—through transparency, accountability, respect for civil rights, etc.  

By Adriana Gamondes

…displacement is the rust on the razor that threatens the throat. It is an unnecessary insult.

~Maya Angelou, I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings

A recent study in Pediatrics reports that autism rates now appear to be higher among the children of American born Hispanic and African American mothers and among children of mothers within certain immigrant groups:

The study group comprised children born in Los Angeles County with a primary diagnosis of autism at ages three to five years from 1998 through 2009. The children were linked to 1995–2006 California birth certificates (7,540 children with autism from a total 1,626,354 births). The investigators identified a subgroup of children with autism and a secondary diagnosis of mental retardation; they investigated differences in language and behavior among this subgroup.

The researchers found an increased risks of being diagnosed with autism overall and specifically with coexisting mental retardation in children of foreign-born mothers who were black, Central/South American, Filipino, and Vietnamese, as well as among United States-born Hispanic and African American/black mothers, compared with US-born Caucasians. Compared to children of US-born Caucasians, children of US African American/black and foreign-born black, foreign-born Central/South American, and US-born Hispanic mothers were at higher risk of autism, characterized by both severe emotional outbursts and impaired language skills.

This report is a dramatic turnaround from only a few years ago, when the CDC reported an entirely different pattern among ethnic groups in the US:

Non-Hispanic white children were approximately 30% more likely to be identified with ASD than non-Hispanic black children and were almost 50% more likely to be identified with ASD than Hispanic children.

The earlier CDC study went on to say that it was unknown whether the disparities in ethnic rates existed because of differences in recognition or diagnosing:

The extent to which this variation might be attributable to diagnostic practices, underrecognition of ASD symptoms in some racial/ethnic groups, socioeconomic disparities in access to services, and regional differences in clinical or school-based practices that might influence the findings in this report is unclear.

But as David Kirby reported in the Huffington Post in 2009, not even National Institute of Health director Thomas Insel thought the rise in autism could be explained away by changes in diagnostic practices or “increased recognition,” so it might follow that the formerly low rates of autism among minority children could not be entirely explained by lack of recognition.  Not only were rates of autism among minorities lower, as autism rose among white children in the US, rates among Hispanics in some regions were even dropping:

In 2006, the rate among non-Hispanic white children was 102-per-10,000, but among black children it was 76-per-10,000, a 34 percent difference, and among Hispanic children it was 61-per-10,000, a difference of 67 percent.

Inexplicably, the rate among Hispanics in Alabama actually plummeted during the period in question, by 68 percent, from an already low 19-per-10,000 in 2002 to an almost rare 6-per-10,000 in 2006. Meanwhile, with the exception of Arizona, the CDC said, "prevalence among Hispanic children did not change significantly within any of the other10 sites."

For the record, my own affected twins have sixteen different nationalities, including Hispanic, North African and Amerindian as well as European. Regarding the issue of autism within various ethnic communities, when rates were low there were many public discussions of “cultural differences” that could supposedly account for cases being ignored, as if minority parents don’t notice or care when children don’t reach milestones, or that there’s more “cultural acceptance” in some quarters of children who don’t speak, sleep or who exhibit endless raging meltdowns. It should be interesting to hear what the next apologia will be now that rates among the same groups have exploded, and bitterly fascinating to see whether the pop-psych hypothesis of the “autistic killer” receives more media play as a result of the epidemic being racialized, particularly in light of the fact that the theory was founded on arguably racist research. It will also be curious to watch what happens with “investor confidence” in the multi-billion dollar autism drug market now that fresh blood has been thrown into the pool.

What’s also bitterly fascinating—and not mentioned in media coverage of the recent study on high rates of autism among ethnic groups— is that there had also been a radical shift in ethnic and economic demographics regarding vaccine uptake. At one time, for instance, African Americans were the least compliant and most “under-vaccinated”:

Factors That Distinguish Fully Vaccinated Children from Undervaccinated Children (2001 NIS)

These analyses indicated that, compared with fully vaccinated children, undervaccinated children were significantly more likely to be black than Hispanic or non-Hispanic white; younger; or foreign-born than born in the United States. Undervaccinated children were significantly more likely to have a mother who was young; widowed, divorced, or separated than married; had educational attainment that was high school or less than a college degree; and whose preferred language was English than Spanish. Finally, undervaccinated children were significantly more likely to live in a household with an annual income below the poverty level than in a household with an annual income greater than $75 000…

Unfortunately the study above, which was originally accessed in June, 2011, may have been bowdlerized—the title and text altered.  In any case, the old link to the 2001 study (Pediatrics)  now redirects to a 2004 study which weaves in the updated issue of “unvaccinated” privileged white children whose parents avoid vaccines rather than having reduced access—something not mentioned at all in the 2001 study. The original 2001 title appears only in the citations of other studies at this point.