Clearly, the media can serve to protect the public interest but more often than not they fail to do so. Read More
I saw a video about this recently...
That was pretty funny. Thanks for posting the link to it.
It goes to prove what I've written about extensively & that is that those that want us to continue believing blindly that all vaccinations are safe & effective try to convince us in the form of using comedy & cartoons.
They only have these type videos available to use against the truth that comes against them because they can't make serious & genuine videos based on lies. Not credible ones, anyway.
Ever wonder why that is, people?
They poo poo sites we try to get them to read & always say videos we send also are not to be trusted.
Could it be because our sites & videos are such a threat due to the truth behind them & they don't want you to see them?
Yes! It is.
Here are three of the most serious videos by real & credible doctors, telling it like it is.
After watching these, anyone seriously looking for answers will know for sure what's true & what's not. I don't expect the deniers who's sole purpose is to defend vaccines, no matter what. If they did watch them, they would have to face the truth, wouldn't they? They have familes too & their own loved ones could become victims. If they see the truth in black & white they might have a real change a heart & dispose of their charade while there's still time for them to do so.
Just like those agents did in that movie, "V" For Vensetta. Those agents knew they were working for the bad guys but in the end, they came around & joined the correct & moral side of humanity.
These doctors in these videos will leave no room for doubt in your minds as to the fact that vaccinations, which started out as something good, went real bad along the way.
Real bad because of the greed of man & too many looking the other way.
Too many scientists & doctors have joined the ranks of parents who saw & know vaccinations damaged their children & not one or a million of you will be able to stop the freight train that's about to run over all the deception.
Again, we can thank Dr. Wakefield for waking up so many people because now, many will be paying attention & we will be able to get on that road to recovery a lot quicker than we would have without all this controvery the with hunt against Dr. Wakefield called to attention.
Doctors have been trained to defend vaccinations & some actually believe in them, honestly. They have been duped. But they will be waking soon because the many good ones who actually have the well being of our people at heart, will be seeing to that.
"Vaccine Nation - Director's Cut (Dr. Gary Null)"
"Vaccination- The Hidden Truth by Dr. Viera Scheibner, PHD"
"Dr. Andrew Moulden" reporting in eleven parts;
Oh, here's one more item that comes in the form of video, too;
Dr. Mercola, a highly respected doctor who just won the "Game Changers" award at the best on line newspaper available, Huffingtonpost.com, has this to say;
"Dr. Larry Palevsky is a board-certified pediatrician trained at the New York School of Medicine, and one of the leading physicians in the country who, from my view, is actually able to compellingly and convincingly provide sound, rational, scientific justification as to why you need to seriously reconsider the wisdom of choosing vaccines as an option to prevent against most diseases.
"We must protect our babies!”
“Expert Pediatrician Exposes Vaccine Myths
Its really easy to let the press and drug companies & TV ads tell you what to think
#1 - just because a journal retracts it 12 years later, does mean it isn't valid (journal owned by a company beholden to many drug companies)
#2 - he never said MMR caused autism - Here is the summary of the paper - read for yourself
#3 - full paper here, that Lancet retracted -
last paragraph "We have identified a chronic enterocolitis in children that may be related to neuropsychiatric dysfunction. In most cases, onset of symptoms was after measles, mumps,& rubella immunisation. Further investigations are needed to examine this syndrome & its possible relation to this vaccine."
#4 it is a paper on 12 children - children with chronic enterocolitis & regressive developmental disorder. A paper - not a study
#5 - other studies
Sheri Nakken, RN, MA
Are thus: "If I am wrong I will be a bad person because I will have raised this spectre. But I have to address the questions my patients put to me. My duty is to investigate their stories." So said Dr Andrew Wakefield in March 1998, a week after he published research linking the MMR vaccination and autism.
He did say there was a link and you are refering to what the study said. Go back and read my post wher I point out that he WAS FORCED to be reasonable about the lack of evidence in his study by the peer review process.
You also cannot be serious about The Lancet retracting it because of pressure from drugn companies. Why would they have published it in the first place? Try a reality check there. It sounds like you have drunk the kool aid. That is unfortunate because nurses should be aware of the true evidence so they are not spreading bogus information.
And the comment referring to it as a paper not a study makes it sounds like you are taking your talking points from Age of Autism. Another source that lacks credibility.
Your article and all the resulting intellectual aeronautics complicate this matter, in my opinion purposefully, so that most will switch off from the story. Your article states Wakefield
"... claim that the UK released the MMR vaccine without properly testing it."
Here is the key in my opinion . Would you mind showing or providing the link to the data that shows that the MMR vaccine is safe ? The data that the UK government may have used at the time? The type of data that shows the safety of the MMR vaccine for vaccinated vs unvaccinated children. That shows it has no long term consequences for overall health status long and short term. That shows society is not trading a week in bed with the measles with long term chronic health consequences like asthma, autism, allergies,etc?
Another study I would love to see is one that addresses the question as to why outbreaks of measles often occur in vaccinated populations and not unvaccinated populations as is constantly alluded to by media reporting?
The link to the Brian Deer, The Sunday times and the British Government and drug companies has recently been dealt with in the latest issue of medical veritas. details here,
MMR is part of a consortium of toxic chemicals given to our children( by allopathic medicine) as part of their war against germs. When will they realize you cannot win a war on nature. We are nature.It is a war on ourselves and our children. No winners. Autism is only a fraction of the collateral damage.
There is no justification for doing the vax vs unvax study as not vaccinating exposes the individuals to an increased risk of childhood diseases. You can do your own homework on the efficacy and safety of the MMR vaccine. Then again, if you were swayed by scientific evidence you would not making the claims you are making.
Wow, what a condecending reply. Was that some sort of behavior modification technique? Or just poor manners? Does your mother know how you speak to people?
The problem with scientific evidence, is that in many incidences, it is manipulated by the sponsor. Parents are fed up with words like "scientific" being thrown around to justify corruption, greed and fraud.
There has clearly been a cover-up in the vaccine/autism epidemic. Dr. Wakefield is one of the most visable targets of the campaign to stamp out the debate. But our kids are real people. They aren't going away. Our families, friends and neighbors saw what happened to them after their vaccines. You can't stamp out the truth forever.
At least two of those three are what Wakefield was guilty of.
Well, I thought some of my other replies were much more insolent than that one but thanks for the manners lesson. The children I work with are real people too. People I care a great deal about. I care about their families and the teachers that work with them. Most of the people involved in service provision to persons with autism care deeply about people. What is really ironic here is that the anti-vax movement harms people. Diseases that have been eradicated by vaccination are making a comeback. And you are right, the truth will prevail. That is what is happening to Wakefield right now. The truth, as rendered by the GMC, is that he was dishonest, irresponsible, and unethical.
You are welcome. But wrong again, Dr. Wakefield has done nothing to be ashamed of. But I am glad to hear you care about people. That is good. And speaking of ironic, you continue to refer to the "anti-vax" movement. Hello? You are talking to parents that allowed their children to be vaccinated, only to see them hurt by them. We want to see the dangers of vaccines properly disclosed, and we want to find avenues to help undo the damage our children suffered. Instead we are given false assurances about vaccine safety. Just because a particular disease is bad, doesn't make a particular vaccine safe or effective. Each vaccine is a medical product that is unique in its pros and cons. And parents are becoming less gullable and no longer believe that there are no cons. Some vaccines have more risks than others. We would like the sacred cow status of vaccines removed, and real science set free and real honest to goodness critiques allowed to take place.
If as you suggest doing vaxed vs unvaxed study would expose individuals to increased risk of childhood diseases why then are populations not vaxed for MMR and indeed many other vaccinations , not dropping like flies from infectious diseases? ( Amish, Unvaccinated natural health practice of Dr Eisenstein in Chicago? Populations not vaccinated in Holland) Say you were right , which you are not , But lets say kids got infectious diseases ,How do you know they would not be protected from chronic illness as a result?
Ive done my homework and know there are no such studies -as you do too. Show me those studies if you are such a fan of science?
The urban myth that the Amish don't vaccinate was started by a UPI reporter about five years ago. Dr. Eisenstein's claims regarding the vaccination status of his patients has never been confirmed, and quite frankly are ridiculous.
If unvaccinated children aren't coming down with measles, it's because they are surrounded by children whose parents are responsible enough to protect them from preventable diseases.
Those populations DO exist by the way. the Amish do not in general vaccinate and they do not run to the doctor for every new chemical concoction that is invented . They have a belief in 'the old ways'. They feed their kids decent foods etc etc. dr Eisenstein does exist and you can check out his web site with a lot of archived information from vaccine experts you would be as well to listen to.Sure the CDC have not trumpeted his stuff on the pediatrics website but hey this is corporate America didn't you know?
Parents of non vaxed children are surrounded by parents who have given their own children partial, temporary, inferior immunity to a disease that should be overcome naturally and thus strengthen the gene pool not weaken it with constant rounds of "booster' doses because the flawed faith that was put in vaccination does not work. Partial ,incomplete immunity renders infants of the next generation MORE not less susceptible as the mother has no maternal antibodies from the real disease to pass on. they are creating a generation of weaker children with total reliance on big pharma for their health, some progress!!!!
The vaccinating parents are taking away the chance for non vaccinated kids to aquire a disease in childhood where there is less chance of complications.
1) The Amish do vaccinate at a much lower rate than the general population. And the incidence of autism is much lower in the Amish.
2) Several large vax vs. non-vaxed studies would put the argument to rest. Why does Big Pharma refuse to conduct these sudies? What are they afraid of? If Big Pharma is so certain of the long-term, subacute safety of the US vaccine schedule vis-à-vis neurological disorders and chronic illness, then they should welcome any opportunities to prove the superior health of vax vs. non-vaxed pediatric populations.
3) Several, large vax vs. non-vaxed studies CAN be done and they MUST be done. Large numbers of unvaccinated children can be easily found in the Amish, Christian Science, and Waldorf School communities (among others).
Let's conduct the studies. And follow the SCIENCE.
You are incorrect in saying we could run a study involving vax vs unvax. Random assignment is an essential component to group design research and we cannot (ethically) randomly assign children to get vax or not vax (due the health risks associated with not vaccinating).
Scientific studies have to follow specific criteria for their results to be valid. Random assignment is but one (passing the IRB approval is yet another and the study you are proposing would NOT); learn about how research is conducted before saying a particular study can be done.
You are 100% on target. Thanks for the comment.
We have the people vaccinated & not vaccinated for the study already so how can there be any health risk? No one's talking about picking & choosing who to vaccinate & who not to.
They already exist so what would change that would bring about any health risk?
If you want to argue this you have to use reason & make some sense, you know?
That study would not change a thing putting anyone at risk because the ideal arragement alreay exists. What a cop out. How ridiculous. You should think about what you wrote.
You wrote, "Scientific studies have to follow specific criteria for their results to be valid. Random assignment is but one (passing the IRB approval is yet another and the study you are proposing would NOT); learn about how research is conducted before saying a particular study can be done."
Then that needs changed. Time to come out of the dark ages & do it right.
Geeeez. Do you people believe those who actually have the well being of the children & nation at heart will buy that crap?
The ideal arrangement does NOT already exist. Again, you obviously know little if anything about how research is conducted. I think this discussion is a moot point with you; you are convinced you are right, and you can hear no one else. However, I will comment in hopes to teach you or someone else how to be a better consumer (of research).
The study you propose would not be controlled and the results would not be valid UNLESS random assignment was done. If you simply chose from the populations that already don't vaccinate and compare them to the ones that do vaccinate, you would be unable to tease apart all other CONSISTENT variables WITHIN those specific populations that DIFFER ACROSS the other population (capitalization is for emphasis as italics is not an option). In other words, if a population does not vaccinate, the fact that they do not vaccinate is one variable that is CONSISTENT WITHIN that population. However, there are multiple variables that are consistent within a specific populations and if you don't randomly assign within those groups you cannot determine what variable really is the cause.
For example, the Amish have higher levels of alkaline phosphatase activity in the soil that produces much of their food (a CONSISTENT variable WITHIN the population--the Amish) compared to the no-till farm that is most common in US (so the variable that is consistent within--the alkaline phosphatase--differs across the other population). I am not saying low levels of alkaline phosphatase has any negative effect on any disorder/behavior (I do not know), but if we are comparing the Amish with another population we cannot tease this variable apart from vaccination UNLESS we randomly assign participants to a vax vs. no vax group (the IDEAL arrangement would be that some Amish would get vax some would not). That is just one example of a confound in your proposed study.
In other words, one could make NO conclusive findings from you proposed study; in your proposed study, one could equally blame other variables within each of the populations that vaccinate or don't vaccinate. Nothing would be added to the "do vaccines cause autism" debate with your study.
I'm not sure where your "dark ages" comment comes in; I would hope you are not implying scientific research should reduce their standards (please see the example above and how by 'doing it right' would add nothing to our understanding). You say we need to "do it right," but your study is so wrong. I think your comment is mainly exemplifying your lack of knowledge on the matter of research.
Unfortunately, I have a feeling this post is not going to "make sense" to you. As your understanding of research methodology is so little. I think the reason people are so confused and oppositional on this blog is because they have little, if any, understanding of scientific research. They don't know how to read it, or understand it. It is very unfortunate. Everyone should learn about science and what science is, especially if one will be attempting to influence others with their claims (as you and many on this blog are).
And by large, many, told us they do not vaccinate.
Bill, you do not understand, self-evidently, the difference between different types of studies. The "early case report" that Dr. Wakefield, Professor John Walker-Smith and Professor Simon Murch (et al.) published in The Lancet in 1998 did NOT claim that the MMR vaccine caused autism (as the major news outlets have reported repeatedly and inaccurately), or even that the MMR jab caused colitis. Demonstrating a causal relationship between the MMR jab and colitis or between the MMR jab and Autism would, of course, be impossible in a case report, by definition.
"Case reports and case series studies describe the experience of a single patient or a group of patients with a similar diagnosis. These types of study, in which typically an astute clinician identifies an unusual feature of a disease or a patient’s history, may lead to formulation of a new hypothesis… At that time an analytic study (most frequently using a case-control approach), can [then] be done to investigate possible causal factors.” [Hennekens C., Buring, J. (1987) Epidemiology in Medicine. Mayrent, S.L (Ed.), Lippincott, Williams and Wilkins.]
The purpose of a case series is to generate new hypotheses about potential causation. It is not designed to investigate possible causality.
Indeed, Leo Kanner’s famous 1943 paper on autism, which sparked the entire field of autism research, was based on observations of 11 children.
1. Dr. Wakefield’s paper was SIMPLY a case study of 12 children. Hundreds of case reports are published each year in the medical journals….and are essentially ignored. He didn’t make *any claims* in his original paper that has gotten all the attention.
2. His original paper was simply a hypothesis, not a claim, of the connection to Autism. Be sure to read the original paper; it’s only 5 pages long.  http://www.generationrescue.org/pdf/wakefield2.pdf
READ IT FOR YOURSELF...............
5. Dr. Wakefield’s research was never questioned by the GMC. The ruling focused on what was called “unethical behavior” – drawing blood at a children’s party, even though the parent’s who were present had given their fully informed consent. In fact, in an open letter to the Lancet, the parents of the 12 children in the study rebuke the GMC, politely calling them liars.
AND I WOULD ADD - THIS IS DONE A LOT IN THE UK - VARIOUS GROUPS DO
CONTROL LABS THIS WAY BY PAYING 5 POUNDS PER LAB DRAW TO WILLING PARTICIPANTS
Answer: It was inappropriate for the Lancet to retract his 1998 paper. What did it prove? By focusing on this paper with such fanfare, the general public has been lead to believe that Wakefield’s 1998 Lancet paper, a case report, was the ONLY paper and the ONLY research Wakefield has ever done. They sure paint it that way, don't they?
• NOT ONE mainstream reporter mentioned the 32 research papers published in peer-reviewed journals since 1998.
• NOT ONE mainstream reporter interviewed Wakefield for "balanced reporting." What does that say about the story...and the bought-and-owned, generally lazy press?
• AND NOT ONE mainstream reporter dared to report that Wakefield's observation, finding vaccine-strain measles in the gut of *some* autistic children, has been replicated by other researchers.  
• NO ONE has been told about the science that has been published supporting a connection between vaccines and autism and other disorders, and yet the list grows every day. Researchers studying vaccine-related illness have a hard task; their research is not funded by drug companies. The drug companies and the government don't want to know the answers.
This seems silly to me Sheri that you are a nurse and would actually state that vaccines are hurting our young. Polio and Rubella kills!
AND if a journal does retract an article it is because it has been found to be unsound scientifically...there is no other reason for it to be retracted. You need to start reading factual evidence. You are inherently hurting the lives of more children than you can count because you are adovacating against vaccines. There is no scientifically sound link to vaccines and autism and furthermore there is a link between gene malfunction and autism (not related to vaccines). You and Jenny McCarthy should really get it straight!!
If I recall correctly Sheri once wrote that some kids just might need to die from vaccine preventable diseases and that epidemics were the natural course of events. I think she's one of those who believes that vitamins could treat diptheria, polio, tetanus, etc.
She scares me.
This is an interesting article/post.
As you prescribe, generally speaking, a clear, ethical, educated and intelligent perspective MUST be employed by the media and others, who are in a position of influencing and impacting on the vulnerabilities and sensitivities (health and finances) of parents of children diagnosed (or suspected to be) on the Autism Spectrum.
Additionally, a very clear view of the realities regarding their child's Autism diagnosis, by the parents, needs to be established. This scenario is greatly assisted by the reponsible, accurate, truthful, unbiased, 'not-just-wanting-a-headline' (style of journalism) information, and in the parents (and their children)being respected for their rights to be provided with such.
There is always a 'snake-oil-salesman' lurking around a corner, just waiting to pounce on the vulnerabilities of another, in order to line their pockets with silver (gold - in some cases).
Much qualitative research is being conducted into the 'mechanics' (biological, psychological, cognitive etc..) of the presentation of Autism in many individuals. Before anyone jumps in headlong into revering the word of any individual who proclaims to have the 'truth' or the 'knowledge' or the 'answers' regarding Autism, much lateral thinking, analysing and disecting of the complete 'picture' of the claim should be instigated without delay, before the information is supplied to the 'community' as a revelation, a discovery, a truth or the 'answer'.
I personally and intuitively feel that vaccinations are not the cause of the truest dynamics and definition of Autism.
The reason for these beliefs of mine is that - in my family, Autism (diagnosed or undiagnosed) appears to 'travel' back through (and presents strongly) each generation of my childrens' fathers' side.
These generations cover my children; their cousins; their grandfather/father and possibly great grandparents. Autism in my family strongly appears to be part of our generational gene 'factory'. Vaccinations of those past generations, I believe, were not 'around'.
The 'rise' in the numbers of Autism figures, I feel, is mainly due to a greater awareness of the diversity of mankind (gene-kind) and that this 'discovery' (well, new to some) is really something which has been 'silently' present in the human species and animal kingdom since the dawn of time. Nothing new really.
Watch out for the 'cure', the 'cause', the 'answer' claims. There might just be a 'snake-oil-salesman' behind such claims. Or just maybe a reputable and honorable e.g. scientist/researcher exploring the possibilities of their findings (honoring the respect, personhood and dignity of the Autistic person and their loving families).
We have a right to responsible and ethical reporting from the media; just as we expect such from other sources/professionals we may seek information or answers from.
You are right, the snake-oil salesmen are everywhere. Wakefield originally wanted to promote his vaccine. This changed as he was ostracized by the scientific community for his grandstanding and less than responsible conduct. The anti-vaccine movement adopted him as their hero and now he is in the business of selling "cures." There are no "cures" and the predispositions that underlie autism will remain, even when the person achieves the optimal outcome of successfully integrating into society. There is plenty of evidence that this can happen. It is not all research showing the benefits of early intensive behavioral intervention but also the many persons with autism who have achieved great things without specific treatment (e.g., Temple Grandin, John Elder Robison - a blogger on this forum).
Autism (diagnosed and undiagnosed) in its' many presentations (individual and unique) is a constant part of my life. My children, family, friends, some colleagues, clients and other souls, who are ever present in my life, are my guides, educators and sources of the unique understanding of the many facets of the constitution of the autistic experience.
I also read as much as I am able to, to enhance my knowledge and 'expertise' regarding the dynamics of Autism. (I do not consider myself an expert).
I also am an individual who believes (and practises) in natural intuition and sensing the needs, feelings and personhood of those I encounter, live with or assist.
Books provide much information, hypotheses and extra learning for me, but the best teacher/educator is living the experience with and beside my autistic family/friends/colleagues - it is the greatest gift of information and understanding of Autism there is. (If I can use a rather tacky sentence here...this is the gift [the experience] that just keeps giving and giving...)
Professionally, I am a Professional Counsellor (ASD), Autism Therapist, Author (ASD), Qualified Integration Aide and a Professional Illustrator.
I sometimes feel that to 'know' is to 'feel' (sense, see, experience) and books/reasearch/other learning complements the equation.
Temple Grandin's mother worked with her constantly when she was young-
Also , the spectrum is large and the majority of autistic children do not possess their high intelligence so they don't make good examples to make your point. You are wrong about recovery. I have personally met many children who have recovered-including one of my grandsons.
Autism is a total metabolical disease that affects every organ in the body causing oxidative stress, immune dysfunction, mitochondrial disorder etc. For most of these children you need to address the physical symptons. Psychologists tend to look at autism as strictly a psychological/neurological disorder and that's where they fall short. As far as Wakefield goes, the retraction of the paper changes nothing. The autism community(that wants that vaccinated vs unvaccinated study) is being pushed forward by the numbers joining its ranks (1 in 100 children---1 in 58 boys) every day. We are a force to be reckoned with and getting stronger every day.
Support is enough for some, as in Temple Grandin's case and the term recovery or cure is not necessarily accurate. Why don't you read what she and others who have ASDs have to say about that. Yes the person no longer meets the diagnostic criteria but they have achieved this while being the same person. I can see the debate about terminology here as not easily resolved and suffice it to say that I prefer optimal outcome (Debbie Fein's term).
Vaccinated vs. unvaccinated research is not what you and the antiivaccination community want. There is some evidence (indirect and weak but that's the scientist in me - too bad there isn't much of that from the antivaxers) to suggest that vaccination is correlated with decreased risk. Because that V vs UnV study (putting to the side the unethical nature of it) would not yield the results you desire and you would reject it, this is because it would not confirm your beliefs. The reason your movement is a force to be reckoned with is the risk that you pose to public health. Unfortunately your movement is a force that is not amenable to empirical evidence. You will cry foul with conflicts of interest unless those conflicts of interest match your world view.
Autism is not a disease. It is a cognitive variation (including the biological/physiological aspects and variations of).
When other (for example) health/medical/social apsects of the Autistic individual are identified, and where problematic for the individual, assistance in re-balancing e.g. zinc levels, allergies, mineral deficiencies, visual and other sensory disturbances (and so on....) can have a health-giving effect, which in turn enhances the life experience (e.g. behaviours/responses to triggers/stimuli; some social outcomes; learning abilities; emotional wellbeing and so on.....).
During this enhancement of life experience, the autistic individual is still intrinsicly autistic and always will be. But, combined with maturation and quality skills and life assistance; understanding for their being and love, they can display greater life competencies (which some see as successful 'normalization') which can, to some, be interpreted as a 'cure'.
I believe in life's diversity, it is fascinating and it is real. 'Normalization' of autistic persons is abhorrent to me. Lack of acceptance and misunderstanding (of the real nature of Autism) is the only 'disease' which needs curing.
A colleague of mine, Donna Williams, an internationally acclaimed Autism Consultant and best selling author, who is on the Spectrum, has many interesting articles, on her website, in relation to discussions such as this one.
You are wrong to say that one with autism will always have it. You obviously have not talked to the many parents of recovered children. My children are recovered. Their teachers don't believe me when I tell them my children use to have disabling symptoms. But, I will say that relapse rates are high, so it's a disease that comes and goes. It's quite easy to learn this by seeking out the thousands of children already recovered. I sought out their parents and asked them how to do it. They say rid the pathogens and toxins. That's what I did, and now mine are also recovered. My children aren't struggling to keep symptoms away or compensating around their symptoms. Their symptoms are being kept away with treatments to keep their bodies healthy. Why waste your time pondering, when the successful results are already present. Frankly, unless you have recovered some children from autism, then I am not listening to you.
More information about formatting options
Bill Ahearn is Director of Research at the New England Center for Children, a private nonprofit educational facility for children with autism.
Who says marriage is where desire goes to die?