January 31, 2012

Admitting That Vaccine Injured Children Are Acceptable Losses

by Ginger Taylor

I have actually found something new on the internet.  In seven years of blogging, I have never seen someone actually be honest about their belief that vaccine injured children are "acceptable losses."  I am a little bit stunned.

Now we all know this is true.  Every parent of a vaccine injured child clues in pretty fast that their child is one of the discarded.  As soon as their doc stops actually trying to heal them after their vaccine injury, stops being interested in medical symptoms you report, stops treating the family like a valued customer... you start to get it.  But everyone keeps up the pretense that your kid is still worth something, if only in lip service, while they are given the shaft.

Then along comes Rick Jones at CFO magazine to say what we all know to be fact, in an article entitled, "The Value of Life: Why an ethically complicated calculation can help determine the value of your company’s risk reduction programs."  That vaccine injured children are acceptable losses.
"The lives saved and dollar benefits from vaccines are hard to calculate, but it’s safe to say that these and other immunizations have greatly improved the quantity and quality of life for millions of people -- at the tragic, yet accepted cost of a few. "
Leave it to a heartless financial rag to have the balls to say what Offit and Mnookin and Gorski are to cowardly to say.
"I don't give a shit about your child, I only care about the bottom line, my agenda and 'The Program'."  (what ever their particular program is)
I can't remember the last time I read something that felt so freeing!  You don't care about my children!  Thank you Mr. Jones!  Thank you for admitting that you don't give a damn about my children!

I know you expect me to rail on the morally bankrupt Mr. Jones, but I am not going to do that.  In fact, I sincerely praise the man for speaking the truth.

Because I would rather deal with Voldemort than Delores Umbridge.  You know that Tom Riddle's alter ego is all about his own program and is happy to step over your dead children on the way to his vision of the perfect society, you reject him outright, and are not manipulated one bit into signing onto his value system.  But Umbridge, smiling so pleasantly in her pretty pink dress, pretending to care about your child... she is the true monster in the story, is she not?  She does what He Who Shall Not Be Named could never do... get a naive and trusting public to sign on to the mutilation and death of the innocent in the name of 'order' and 'the greater good'.

So I say this with out an ounce of irony to Mr. Jones:

Thank you Rick for admitting that you don't care that my son was given severe brain damage from the DTaP vaccine.  You might be a bastard, but you are an honest bastard, which makes you a better man than most of the people defending and working in the vaccine program in my book.

Of course, this is with the caveat that I whole heatedly reject your value system and hope you will take a hard look at yourself and see if you still have a soul left to salvage... happy to talk with you any time about how destructive this world view is if you are looking to rebuild your humanity.


If the bottom line continues to be how you judge what is good and what is bad, you might take a second look at the vaccine program again and really check and see if your cost benefit analysis is actually based on fact.  'Cause if you do your own survey of your own vaccinated v. unvaccinated workers/family members, you might find that the vaccinated are costing you way more due to life long, chronic conditions than even the occasional hospital stay for a child who has the complications from the measles would.  You do know that NO ONE keeps track of vaccine adverse reaction rates or costs, right?  That they are not factored into any risk analysis or cost/benefit ratio in existence anywhere?  That HRSA that runs the vaccine program has released a statement saying that vaccines cause:
"encephalopathy [that] may be accompanied by a medical progression of an array of symptoms including autistic behavior, autism, or seizures.  Some children who have been compensated for vaccine injuries may have shown signs of autism before the decision to compensate, or may ultimately end up with autism or autistic symptoms, but we do not track cases on this basis."
And that there is absolutely no data to back up the claim that the current vaccine program is doing more good than harm?  Your wrote that, "There is no doubt that vaccines have the potential to do harm to a very small portion of the population."  Pediatrics reports that 54% of American kids are chronically ill, developmentally disabled and obese, with no research on how such an aggressive program might be exacerbating this horrid epidemic of sick children... so how do you know that only a "very small" portion of the population is harmed by vaccines?  Did you ask for proof of that claim by those who make it before you wrote this article?  That is what a good CFO does, right?  Checks the facts so risk analysis is accurate as possible?

Either way... feel free to call me and I will be at your disposal.

My comment on his post for CFO.com:
I am the mother of a vaccine injured child (not compensated by the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, which is largely corrupt and uses every excuse, valid and invalid, to actually prevent from recognizing and compensating vaccine injury), and as shocking as this might be to hear, I am happy to see this article published. 
To actually see in black and white, what parents of vaccine injured children know is true, that our children are not valued by society and are considered "acceptable losses" for the gain you have gotten from the vaccine program, is a refreshing change from the lies usually told surrounding vaccine injury... either that vaccine injury does not exist, or that those who are vaccine injured are valued, while only given feigned compassion and lip service rather than the help they need and deserve. 
To know that you don't care what happens to the minority (including my precious son)  as long as it works out for the fortunate is of course, absolutely morally repugnant... but the fact that you will admit, out loud, that killing children and giving them brain damage is acceptable to you, actually gives people fair warning that this is what they are getting involved in when they choose to participate in the current vaccine program.  It is a huge wake up call that their child is merely a commodity to the world, and the vaccine program, and when they suffer adverse reactions, they will be simply thrown away.
Please take this statement at face value, because I don't mean this sarcastically at all.  Thank you for being honest in your devaluation of my son and of those vulnerable to vaccine injury.  It is going to save the lives and health of a lot of children whose parents will see what the world really thinks of their kids, and prevent them from becoming used for cannon fodder by being drafted into public health's "war on communicable disease".
I wish more people were as honest, so that parents could truly have informed consent before their kids get hurt.
 And just because WAY too many things are disappearing from the internet, a copy of the full article here:
| January 31, 2012 | CFO.com | US
The Value of Life, Statistically Speaking
Why an ethically complicated calculation can help determine the value of your company’s risk reduction programs.
Rick Jones
How much are you worth? I’m not asking about your money or property but your ultimate physical asset -- you. At the individual level, life is valued as priceless. But at a societal or business level, our lives and safety do have price tags. This is the reality associated with having finite resources to reduce risk. So the real cost-benefit question is how much can a society or a company afford to do to save lives and reduce injuries? The statistical value of life is a term developed from answering this question.  
Here’s an example how the value of a statistical life can be computed. Suppose a state government decides to reduce the speed limit on its roads. The general correlation between highway speed limits and auto deaths is well known; highway safety statisticians estimate that if the maximum speed limit is reduced to 50 miles per hour, 20 lives would be saved each year. However, in order to enforce the new law, additional resources will be required, costing the state $120 million per year. So it costs the state $120 million each year to save 20 lives or $6 million per life. This is the value of a statistical life related to this highway risk reduction program.  
Statistical life values can be useful tools to help measure the value of your risk reduction programs either through direct calculations or by comparing your calculations with other industry estimates. The comparison can provide a valuable benchmark with various situations that you can use to judge and perhaps justify programs to others in senior management and the board.  
The methodologies used to compute these cost-benefit statistics vary, but they all stem from two basic components: the estimated lives saved and the costs associated with the programs. The calculations are a blend of science and statistics that often require detailed research and analysis, and they can also be interpreted and applied differently depending on the activities involved. For example, in a 2010 report relating to engine emissions, the Environmental Protection Agency applied a mean value of a statistical life at $9.1 million. The Food and Drug Administration works with a figure around $8 million, and other government agencies use numbers around $6 million.
The fact that these numbers differ makes sense. Not all risk reduction programs are equally efficient at reducing risk and, of course, the calculations contain statistical uncertainty. Yet in addition to these sources of variation there can be ethical issues that have the potential to transform the technical analyses into philosophical debates.  
Are all lives saved worth the same amount? Is saving the lives of children equivalent to saving senior citizens? Is it worth saving or extending the life of a person for a period of years if that person requires ongoing and intensive medical care? In dealing with saving lives, the “type” of life being saved and the quality of remaining life may be variables in the analysis. The point is, depending on the situation, ethical judgments can be included in the analyses that in effect, answer these questions.  
While making these decisions on the surface may sound unfair or elitist, they are made one way or another when only finite resources are available to reduce risk. And since this is always the case, virtually every health, safety, or other risk management program contains decisions related to these ethical issues.  
For example, either as a parent or a child, most likely you have been exposed to programs that contain some of these issues. Inoculating children to prevent infectious disease transmission is good for society from both health and financial perspectives, but some initially healthy children may suffer adverse reactions, injury, or even death. For vaccines, the enormous societal benefits trump the tragedies of the few. And in order to keep the vaccine costs affordable, the U.S. government administrates and pays all vaccine compensation claims through its Vaccine Lawsuit Injury Compensation program. Inoculation requirements and the accepted reasons to opt out vary by state. In 2011, the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program received over 1,000 new claims and awarded 250 plaintiffs more than $228 million for injuries and deaths from the vaccines administered to both adults and children.  
There is no doubt that vaccines have the potential to do harm to a very small portion of the population. But just look at what vaccines have done for us. Polio is no longer a threat in most of the world. Measles, chicken pox, pertussis (whooping cough), and of course smallpox, the former serial killer, have been virtually eliminated. The lives saved and dollar benefits from vaccines are hard to calculate, but it’s safe to say that these and other immunizations have greatly improved the quantity and quality of life for millions of people -- at the tragic, yet accepted cost of a few. 
Value of statistical life and also statistical injury calculations provide metrics you can compare with other industry or government produced calculations. Together these results can help you answer the question “Are we doing ‘enough’ to reduce risk with our available resources?” And perhaps more importantly answer the question: “Should we do more?”
Rick Jones has spent the past 30 years applying risk analysis and management techniques to industrial and business problems. He has presented at several conferences and is the author of numerous articles and technical research papers. His third book, 20% Chance of Rain: Exploring the Concept of Risk, was recently published.

Found Man, Lost Country

By LJ Goes

Richard Catlett, a missing adult with autism from Naperville, Illinois, has been found.

As I write this, I watch from the window in my study as a young woman walks with seven disabled adults around the pond behind my house. I can tell three of them have the false diagnosis of autism. As I read the story, I am thrilled to see Richard has been found. I actually became very excited at the idea of him being a good runner, that he was about to begin a job in food service. Of course, I hold in my heart the hope of a full recovery for my Noah. But, I can't help but wonder if the moms of these adults walking around our pond, thought the very same thing.

I also, cannot help but feel great despair at the idiocy of the closing comment on the attached report. "...Richard Catlett has “no other underlying medical condition that we are aware of other than autism."

 "Autism" is not technically a medical condition. It is a made up word for several severe medical illnesses that cause (which means RESULTS IN) profound neurological damage. Autism is a disease that has at it's cellular core, greed and destruction. It is a man made illness that is taking our children's health. The same greed that created autism also creates asthma, allergies, adhd, arthritis, and diabetes--daily. The big dogs like nagalese and mycoplasma I'll save for another day--unless you live in our world--the world of non-pharma funded research--these very real and very sad medical conditions could terrify you. I don't want that. If you're scared you can't help me. And I need your help. People like Richard need your help. We cannot do this alone.

I wonder, how many of those adults that just passed my window will have access to the services they are getting right now, due to the changes in the DSM? I wonder if this walk, probably the only break their aged parents get in a day, will be taken from them? While other countries are battling autism and winning, America is still trying to figure out what to call it. America is still trying to hide the real numbers. Creating the illusion of a "spectrum". Kids are healthy or sick. If they are on maintenance medications to stay healthy, they are not healthy. They are sick. The spectrum, instead of provoking medical and research professionals to enthusiastically study causation, has done nothing but create a bunch of parents who are fighting to get their kid to the top of the food chain, "high functioning." Then they get there and realize their still sick kid, because he looks less sick than the others, doesn't get any help for his illness because he is better at disguising it.

They are on their second lap. An incredibly handsome african american man with very smart glasses and a pea coat with animal hair all over it folds his hands in front of his face as he walks. He is staring at his fingers. "Nice hands." I mumble. He is trying to control his temper. My son Noah does the exact same thing. He is 5.
No one wonders why. They just sit around in ivory towers spending all your money trying to figure out what to call it. Your country. Our children. Aren't you the least bit curious?

January 30, 2012

My Yearly Birthday Donation Drive

by Ginger Taylor

Happy Birthday to me.  Another year older, wiser and infinitely hotter.  ;)

If Adventures In Autism has been of service to you this past year, I hope you will consider putting a little birthday gift in the tip jar.

Thank you for being my community and my support.  

January 29, 2012

Girls Night Out

By:   LJ Goes

"Hey, get together tonight!" My friend reminded me.  I could barely hear her over my son's screaming.  

Ugh, I thought.  I hadn't showered all day.  We just started a new regimen to help with our son's complex adrenal dysfunction and he'd been off all day.  By "off" I mean he hit me a total of 27 times (mostly open hand slaps with a sprinkling of fist poundings, always aiming for the face), we could not successfully redirect him from walking on the counters and touching the stove, and his general disposition was surly.  So, along with a paid helper, I'd spent my day thus far preparing his special food, trying to keep him from launching himself out the kitchen window, burning his toes and landing a left hook to my jaw.

"Uhm...yeah...I don't think it's gonna happen." I mumbled over his piercing screams. My husband looked at me quizzically.  I explained I had a meeting he didn't have to worry, I wasn't going to actually go.  A gesture of mercy ensued and he told me I needed to go. I had to get out even if it was just for a couple hours.  This is why I love this man.  Pure selflessness.  Autism (and a nation folding in on itself) teaches you this, if you let it.  

After rushing through a shower I scooted out the door. On the way my mother phoned to tell me her best friend of 68 years died after her first in a series of several chemo treatments scheduled to treat her liver cancer. Broken words through sobs, "so unexpected...her poor grandbaby...she was going to fly in for a visit in June..."  We shared a good cry and I sat in silence the rest of the way.  Even when dense with sadness I've grown to appreciate silence like breath.  
Upon arrival I was warmly welcomed along with several others toting wine and snacks.   Like veterans heading to the VFW for a fish fry there is no nervous anticipation, no anxiety, just the comfortable acceptance expected when one weathered soldier greets another.  

I know, my friend. I know. It did happen. Come in and rest awhile. 

Unlike most girls nights, ours spans culture, socioeconomic status, race and religion.  The discussion is cerebral but folksy.  We are at ease with one another and there is no small talk.  All of it, every word, is big and meaningful and the right combination may save a child's life.  I know I'm supposed to drink wine and relax but I always bring a notebook and a pen.  I don't want to miss anything.  

No talk of Ashton's abandonment of Demi during her stint in rehab or rejuv or whatever it's called when celebrities can't cope with disappointment.  No yammering on about who wore what to the last big awards show.  

Hey, can you help me with this porphryin test? What's the latest on your son's cerebral folate test? What did the muscle biopsy reveal? Do you think it's mitochondrial dysfunction that's causing the cerebral folate deficiency or is CFD a condition of mito disease in idiopathic autism?  Hey, did anyone read Eric London's chapter on the biopsychosocial model for autism treatment?  Groundbreaking!   How about that study on inflammatory cytokines compromising the integrity of the blood brain barrier?  Did anyone happen to bring a hard copy of the Kennedy Kreiger paper?

When the libations really start flowing we talk about doctors.  Mostly, their incompetence.  We talk about how we all saw our children decline, many of us saw a correlation to their vaccinations, and most of our physicians said we saw nothing.  They told us changing their diet was useless and that after months and months of prodding on our part, an evaluation by a government funded institution known as "early intervention" could point us in the right direction.   Of course, early intervention is where most of us get our first autism diagnosis disguised as "developmental delay".  A bunch of therapists come in and tell you they can't really tell you anything at all, except, your kid is delayed across the board in all categories and he needs therapy.  The doctors echo this sentiment. Our mainstream pediatricians and our government's evaluation facilities partner in the proliferation of the greatest ponzi scheme of our time, the ridiculous theory of Better Diagnosis. While they pat themselves on the back for "catching it early" us moms saw the damage a year ago but kept right on listening and vaccinating; thereby exacerbating our children's mitochondrial disease and wasting precious time that could have been spent treating all the metabolic and methylation issues our children's raped and weakened immune systems could not remedy on their own.  

When one of my friends discovered her son exhibited several characteristics of the bowel disease that Andy Wakefield lost his license for discovering, she was told by her physician that she was mistaken.   How can a mother be mistaken about bowel obstructions, bowel disease, infected excrement and the resultant neurological illness she observes in her child?  Not only does she live it, but she's flown all over the country seeing the only research physicians capable of diagnosing it.  She has study after study test after test to PROVE his illness.  Her mainstream pediatrician and his remarkable ego told her she needed to "go to church" to figure out her problem.  She did.  She went to the church of higher thinking, the church of research physicians who listen to parents and treat real medical symptoms.  Then she came back to enlighten her doctor so he might help her child and countless other patients that suffer as her son does.  It was an act of good will on her part. 

Go to church, he says

We all have a good laugh at the expense of my friend's doctor and his "scientist friends".  Their remarkable egos.  Their thoughtless comments.  They are--well, they're idiots.  Puppets.  Fools.  Every last one of them.  And, criminals, really--when you think about it.  Every single doctor who refuses to listen to a parent after that parent reports a reaction to a vaccine needs to be held accountable.  It is my belief this will soon happen.  The thing about my mom friends and I is, we are very smart.  Our families, our babies, have been harmed.  Our precious innocent children. We are not going away.  We are women.  We talk...and talk, and talk and talk. But, we don't talk about Jenny, Andy Wakefield, or even mercury anymore.  We talk about macrophages, auto-immune-mediated tissue damage, IgG, IgA and IgM immunoglobulins in neuroglial cells.  We talk about disturbances in the homeostasis of the human body.  We talk about chronic illness in our children and it's iatrogenic causes.  

We are amused by Nancy Snyderman, Marc Seigel, Paul Offit, Seth Mnookin and their tragic confederates who will be studied by Macolm Gladwell.  They'll  soon take their place in history along side executors of Christians and Holocaust denialists.  Once hailed as heroes, they will be mocked and disgraced for their arrogance and ignorance. It's not that we haven't tried!  Lord knows, we have tried! Representatives of the highest casts in autism research have done everything in their power to educate our doctors, our congress, the public. Their sage tutelage falls on the deaf but powerful and extravagantly perfumed ears of the Sadducees. If their science is too compelling, their case too strong, they are destroyed. Merck and their buddies descend upon our learned and honest researchers like a pack of wolves.  They take away licenses, destroy reputations, disembowel practices.  We, the moms, laugh.  Do you really think that is going to stop the truth?  Do you really think we don't see?  I tried explaining to my son that Dr. Wakefield's paper was fraudulent but it didn't stop his violent diarrhea and painful bowel disease as I'd hoped.  I also ordered him to stop having vaccine encephalopathy when my doctor said it couldn't happen because it was so "rare".  Gosh darn if his little head didn't swell even bigger.  

Sometimes ya just can't teach stupid no matter how hard you try.  No matter.  The moms have arrived.  We are in every neighborhood.  And WE. are. taking. OVER. 

The Beginning. lj goes

Welcome LJ Goes to Adventures In Autism

This blog was supposed to be a log of my journey in being an autism mother.  It was... and as my journey traveled through the corruption that made my son sick, and kept him from healing, it transformed into medical corruption blog.  Because that is where I am on this adventure.

But as you may have noticed, over the past year I kept posting pieces by Lisa Goes, that really resonated with me.  They communicated all of the frustration and anger and pain and chaos that we lived through in Chandler's early years, and they did it with a transparency that I consider brave.  Because it is brave to expose that much of yourself and your pain to the world.

So as I have become a professional activist and my son is so much better (he is a happy, happy child) I wanted to bring some of that former light and energy back to this space.  I am pleased to announce that LJ has come on board to share her experiences with my audience.  She is someone I have affection and respect for, and who loves and defends our children passionately.

Join me in welcoming LJ Goes.

January 26, 2012

OSHA Supports Health Care Workers Rights To Decline The Flu Shot

Statement from OSHA:
OSHA's Official Position on Flu Vaccination of Healthcare Workers
"The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is strongly supportive of efforts to increase influenza vaccination rates among healthcare workers in accordance with the Healthy People 2020 goals. However, at this time, OSHA believes there is insufficient scientific evidence for the federal government to promote mandatory influenza vaccination programs that do not have an option for the HCP to decline for medical, religious and/or personal philosophical reasons.                                                                                                       
While we are supportive of the Healthy People 2020 goal of a 90% vaccination rate, we have seen no evidence that demonstrates that such a high rate is in fact necessary. Furthermore, the current influenza vaccine is no magic bullet. The current state of influenza vaccine technology requires annual reformulation and revaccination and the efficacy is quite variable. Every year there are numerous circulating strains of influenza that are not included in the vaccine. In years where the antigenic match is good, the vaccine only provides protection against the 3 strains in the formulation. In years when the antigenic match is poor, the vaccine may provide no protection at all. The limits of current influenza vaccine technology are especially problematic in the context of a mandatory influenza vaccination program that results in job loss. Lastly, reliance on a mandatory influenza vaccination policy may provide healthcare workers, health care facility management and patients with an unwarranted sense of security and result in poor adherence to other infection control practices that prevent all types of infections, not just influenza. Influenza vaccination has always been just one part of a comprehensive multi-layered infection control program. 
While OSHA does not believe that there is sufficient evidence to meet the bar necessary to support mandatory vaccination programs, we nonetheless are convinced that influenza vaccination is generally beneficial and are supportive of efforts to promote vaccination. Influenza vaccination exemptions should be for HCP with valid medical contraindications to vaccinations, or religious and/or personal objections and a signed declination statement that indicates the HCP has been educated regarding influenza, is aware of the risk and benefits of influenza vaccination, has been given the opportunity to be vaccinated with the influenza vaccine at no charge, and can receive the influenza vaccine in the future at no charge to the HCP."


January 20, 2012

Offit Teaches Physicians How to Talk To The Public About Vaccines: Contemptuously Lecture, Stonewall, Bully and Throw Them Out

Reading Jake Crosby's piece today on being thrown out of yet another Paul Offit speech, I am struck by the ironic pattern in these speaking engagements.  

Paul Offit (and Seth Mnookin) have been holding events at prestigious institutions to tell medical professionals and academics how to handle the public on the vaccine controversy.  Yet I think that it is completely lost on them that they are not just giving a speech on how to handle people who question the current vaccine program, they are actually holding a lab, will full scale demonstrations, on how to handle people who question the current vaccine program.

Because people don't really pay as much attention to what you say as they do to what you do.  (Ask any parent trying to teach a child NOT to do something that they do themselves.  "Don't smoke kids.  Now pass mommy her cigarettes.")  And what Offit and Mnookin have done, is offer a bunch of words that will likely have little impact, but then actually demonstrate how to treat doubters of their message, which has a huge impact.

So here is the take away that event goers are getting when attending an Offit/Mnookin event:

1.  Offit gives a lecture at NIH entitled “Communicating Vaccine Safety Science to the Public,” says a bunch of words, then demonstrates how to communicate "vaccine safety science" to someone who is a steakholder in the issue (Jake Crosby, who may be vaccine injured) by falsely accusing him of being a stalker, by not letting him ask a question (although he is behaving completely appropriately) and by throwing him off the premises. 

Take away:  To communicate with the public, talk AT them.  If they have questions that you don't want to answer, make them your adversary and have them removed from the property.

It is OK, and even preferable, to demonize vaccine safety skeptics, and treat them very poorly. 

Bully them.

2.  Offit gives a lecture at Yale entitled “Hard Knocks: Communicating Science to the Public,” says a bunch of words, then demonstrates how to communicate "science" to someone who is a steakholder in the issue (Jake Crosby, who may be vaccine injured) by falsely accusing him of being a stalker, by yelling at him, by not letting him ask a question (although he is behaving completely appropriately) and by throwing him off the premises.

Take away:  To communicate with the public, talk AT them.  If they have questions that you don't want to answer, make them your adversary and have them removed from the property.  Offit has also inferring that the "Hard Knocks" do not refer to the medical professional being "knocked" when trying to talk to communicate to the public, but actually to the vaccine safety skeptic who was actually "knocked" trying to communicate with the medical professional.  "When engaging the public, it is OK to give them 'hard knocks'."

It is OK, and even preferable, to demonize vaccine safety skeptics, and treat them very poorly. 

Bully them.

3.  Mnookin gives a lecture at  American University's School of Communication entitled  "How to Communicate with Anti-Vaccine Parents," says a bunch of words, then demonstrates how to communicate "science" to someone who wants to make their own vaccine decisions, by telling the audience that you are offended and repulsed by such parents, and that you think they are "Total Assholes."

Take away:  To communicate with the public, hold them in contempt.  Even when they are parents earnestly working in the best interests of their vulnerable children.

It is OK, and even preferable, to demonize vaccine skeptics, even as you admit that vaccines may not even work for their child.

Bully them.

4.  Mnookin appears at the  Public Responsibility in Medicine and Research” event,  says a bunch of words, then demonstrates public responsibility in vaccine discussion by falsely accusing a stakeholder in the issue (Jake Crosby, who may be vaccine injured) of being disruptive at events, by not letting him ask a question (although he is behaving completely appropriately) and by throwing him off the premises .

Take away:  It is responsible, when dealing with vaccine safety skeptics, to talk AT them while only allowing them to sit quietly and listen.  If they have questions that you don't want to answer, make them your adversary and have them removed from the property.

It is OK, and even preferable, to demonize vaccine safety skeptics, and treat them very poorly.

Bully them.

Do you see the pattern here?

Mnookin and Offit ARE teaching the medical world how to treat those who have questions about vaccine safety.  They are to be treated very poorly.  They are to be held in contempt and bullied.  They are to be removed from the premises.

But of course the problem for medical professionals in taking this advice, is that when they try it in their offices, they loose the argument, the loose the patient, and they loose their reputation in the community.  Taking Offit's advice is akin to shooting oneself in the foot for anyone whose job actually requires them to have a conversation with a member of the public.

And the Offiteers have lost at least A QUARTER of the public to the conclusion that vaccinating according to CDC recommendations is a greater risk to their child than adhering to their recommendations.

So I will echo Mary Holland's most salient question to Paul Offit in this last exchange:
"Would you be willing to engage in a public debate about the vaccine issue?”
And we see that the answer is, and always will be, the one that Offit gives:
“There is no need to debate the science; the science is in.”
Their answer is "No."  

So as Offit (who has become the Bagdad Bob of vaccination) and friends lock the doors to the ivory tower from the inside, to protect themselves from vicious graduate students in epidemiology at that hotbed of anti-science anarchy, George Washington University; but what they don't seem to have noticed is that all they have done is locked themselves in a broom closet, away from the real vaccine discussion that matters.  Their tiny mutual admiration society is having little impact in the direction of vaccine uptake rates, because they are not engaging with the vaccine decision makers.  You know... their customers.  The discussions that are changing vaccine uptake are happening at coffee tables, at bus stops and over back fences.  

I have them on a weekly basis, I don't accuse people who question me of being disruptive or being stalkers, I don't treat them with contempt, i don't call them "Total Assholes," I don't shout them down when they try to ask questions, I don't throw them off the premises and I DO engage them for as long as they want to talk about the issue.

I can show a mother that the claim that "The science is in and vaccines don't cause autism" (and apparently now encephalopathy) is a complete load of horse shit in 2 minutes on my cell phone from our health officials own words documents and web sites.  Not only is Offit not there to defend his stupid claim, local pediatricians are completely ill equipped to win back moms who have been educated at the coffee table, because the only thing they have been taught to do with these moms are:

1. Hold them in contempt.

2. Talk AT them.

3. Don't allow them to ask questions.

4. If they challenge your stance, throw them out.

And then of course, the next time they are at coffee, it's all, "OMG... you were totally right.  They don't know anything about vaccine injury!  He couldn't answer the questions and just tried to bully me!  What is the name of your pediatrician who is cool with your vaccine choices?"

So by all means, keep it up you two... keep it up.  Nothing proves my points more to all the women I talk to than the way you behave.

January 19, 2012

Hepatitis B Vaccine Can Cause Mitochondrial Disorders and Cell Death

Apoptosis. 2012 Jan 17. [Epub ahead of print]

Hepatitis B vaccine induces apoptotic death in Hepa1-6 cells.


Key Lab of Agricultural Animal Genetics, Breeding, and Reproduction of Ministry of Education, College of Animal Science and Technology, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan, 430070, People's Republic of China, Heyam68_hamza@yahoo.com.


Vaccines can have adverse side-effects, and these are predominantly associated with the inclusion of chemical additives such as aluminum hydroxide adjuvant. The objective of this study was to establish an in vitro model system amenable to mechanistic investigations of cytotoxicity induced by hepatitis B vaccine, and to investigate the mechanisms of vaccine-induced cell death. The mouse liver hepatoma cell line Hepa1-6 was treated with two doses of adjuvanted (aluminium hydroxide) hepatitis B vaccine (0.5 and 1 μg protein per ml) and cell integrity was measured after 24, 48 and 72 h. Hepatitis B vaccine exposure increased cell apoptosis as detected by flow cytometry and TUNEL assay. Vaccine exposure was accompanied by significant increases in the levels of activated caspase 3, a key effector caspase in the apoptosis cascade. Early transcriptional events were detected by qRT-PCR. We report that hepatitis B vaccine exposure resulted in significant upregulation of the key genes encoding caspase 7, caspase 9, Inhibitor caspase-activated DNase (ICAD), Rho-associated coiled-coil containing protein kinase 1 (ROCK-1), and Apoptotic protease activating factor 1 (Apaf-1). Upregulation of cleaved caspase 3,7 were detected by western blot in addition to Apaf-1 and caspase 9 expressions argues that cell death takes place via the intrinsic apoptotic pathway in which release of cytochrome c from the mitochondria triggers the assembly of a caspase activation complex. We conclude that exposure of Hepa1-6 cells to a low dose of adjuvanted hepatitis B vaccine leads to loss of mitochondrial integrity, apoptosis induction, and cell death, apoptosis effect was observed also in C2C12 mouse myoblast cell line after treated with low dose of vaccine (0.3, 0.1, 0.05 μg/ml). In addition In vivo apoptotic effect of hepatitis B vaccine was observed in mouse liver.
[PubMed - as supplied by publisher]  

January 18, 2012

AMA Proposes Forcing People to Participate In Vaccine Trials

You read that right.  The American Medical Association has published a piece in the Policy Forum entitled:

I am absolutely apoplectic.

The article, written by Suzanne Sheehy and Joel Meyer begins its argument for forced participation in vaccine trials with a quote from Highly Esteemed and Eminent Physician Ethically Challenged College Dropout Bill Gates.  Because he is truly who you should be going to for medical advice.  Cause... you know... he's rich.
Few would argue with Bill Gates when he describes vaccination as “the most effective and cost effective health tool ever invented”
So on the basis of this non doctor's, non-medical opinion (we do know that he owns a vaccine company, right), with no proof of the validity of this statement necessary mind you (because after all, "few would argue with him" and consensus equals truth) we are not only now going to vaccinate everyone, we are going to force people into vaccine trials.

And the medical establishment is completely baffled why people don't trust them any more and won't take their vaccine advice?

If I just stopped here, the fact that they just published this suggestion, should be enough to perhaps get mainstream med to ask themselves whether or not they really have jumped the shark on vaccine policy.  But then again, that should have happened a long time ago.  But apparently not yet.  Let's go on to the arguments they make including the ideas that:
  • "Given the often unquantifiable risks to the recipients of vaccines in early stages of development" clinical trials rely on volunteers, which is unsustainable and unethical. 
  • Volunteerism in vaccine trials is on the decline.
  • It doesn't pay well enough which tells participants that they are undervalued.
  • Most participants are "poor and vulnerable" which is unethical since the approved vaccines "benefit the whole population."
  • If we pay them more, then they will be seduced by the money and might not be practicing "informed consent"
  • Progress on new vaccines must be uneffected by people not wanting to be in vaccine trial, therefore they should consider new strategies
  • Forcing people to be involved is one such strategy, and it "is not as outlandish as it might seem on first consideration"
  • Many societies already mandate things that are for The Greater Good, like jury duty, opt-out organ donation and the draft.
And I just want to give you this whole quote, so you really see clearly that when we say that our children have been drafted into their war on communicable disease, it is not really an analogy as much as it is... well... fact:
"In both conscription and obligatory trial participation, individuals have little or no choice regarding involvement and face inherent risks over which they have no control, all for the greater good of society."
[emphasis mine]

In his chapter in our book, Vaccine Epidemic: How Corporate Greed, Biased Science, and Coercive Government Threaten Our Human Rights, Our Health, and Our Children, Allen Tate makes the point that if one is going to make a greater good argument (that one unsavory thing must be undertaken to get something more important for more people) one must first ACTUALLY PROVE THAT SUCH A THING WILL BRING ABOUT A GREATER GOOD.   He then evaluates the greater good argument made for the current vaccine program (which does not include forced vaccine trial participation) and finds that it does not even meet the standard of a "greater good".

But no problem with that here for Sheehy and Meyer, because as they point out, it is vaccine maker Bill Gates' opinion (who is very rich btw), and few would argue with him... so... it must be the best thing for everyone.

It is at this point that I have to offer Leslie Manookin high praise for so aptly naming her vaccine documentary, "The Greater Good".  Let's pause here for a moment to see what this "greater good" program is doing to the vulnerable in our society:

And that is from APPROVED vaccines.

They truly see us and our children as functionaries in their system.  Medicine does not exist to make you, the individual, better; You, the individual, exist to make Medicine better.  You are theirs to "conscript".  They can draft you into their service as an actual "lab rat."  (And no that is not an exaggeration as the third sentence in this article reads, "The lack of animal models that can reliably predict vaccine efficacy means that development still unavoidably relies on testing of novel vaccines in healthy individuals.")

See?  Not about your and your rights and your health.  Your rights are not even factored into their arguements.  Check this:
"As ever, then, the debate boils down to a consideration of the “greater good” or the “lesser evil.” A key consideration is the risk benefit ratio—risk to the individual volunteer balanced against the benefit to society. "
"As ever..." as in the only thing they are taking into account.  The deciding factor.

Then the article truly falls into Orwellian doublespeak.  They authors acknowledge that forcing people to participate in vaccine trials, will violate respect for peoples rights, violate the Universial Declaration of Human Rights, and destroy trust in the vaccine program.  Their solution?

"A more palatable and realistic option is a policy of “mandated choice.” In this case individuals would be required by law to state in advance their willingness to participate in vaccine trials [15]. The advantage of this system is that it could identify a large cohort of willing volunteers from which participants could be recruited rapidly without jeopardizing individual autonomy. It would encourage an open, noncoercive philosophy for tackling societal challenges without compromising individual freedom or public trust in the health care system."
Mandated choice?  MANDATED CHOICE?!!


So the law REQUIRING YOU to say you will participate before hand, then holding you to it later, is choice!  It is not coercive, does not violate your right to informed consent, and will not destroy trust in the vaccine program or in medicine or government in general!

Welcome to 1984!!  The law will require you to commit you to volunteer your body to science!  The law does not even do that now for DEAD PEOPLE!

And to skip back a bit, follow this logic... paying people lots of money to participate in trials sabatoges "informed consent", but legally forcing them to consent, is "informed consent."  Coercing with money = immoral.  Coercing with a gun = moral!

Then we get to the kernel of the issue.  That people just don't value vaccines enough, so the law must now force them to be valued.  And no such article should go with out a shot at Wakefield and our community:
"But perhaps most importantly, as a society we need to evaluate our perception of vaccination. Any successful vaccine program by its very nature takes a once-feared illness out of the public eye. This means that the benefits of immunization become forgotten while side effects in small numbers of individuals fill the headlines. It is all too easy for sensationalist and unfounded stories such as that claiming a link between the MMR (measles-mumps-rubella) vaccine and autism [16] to instead take root in society’s collective psyche. Ultimately such a crucial public health intervention as vaccine development may become devalued—and only revalued once a drop in vaccination rates leads to resurgence of severe disease."
"But perhaps more importantly..."  Because more important than honoring the human rights of actual humans, is a valuable perception of vaccination.

Seriously... these people can go to hell.  Or just visit Auschwitz, where medical progress was much more important than allowing people to say to NO to forced experimentation.

So to the publishers of this article:


Your product line called "vaccine" is not as valuable as you think it is.  (In business this is called a "bubble".)  People are buying less of it.  You have reached a saturation point.  Time to wake up and smell the informed consent.  The public has been informed... AND THEY DON'T CONSENT!

You will put experimental vaccines into the bodies of my family over my dead body.  

And to Sheehy and Meyer:

I cannot find words that will express my outrage and contempt for what you have done here.  This is absolutely an abomination to the whole point of medicine, and to logic itself.  I hope that you are despised in your communities for floating a balloon like this.  It is nothing short of evil.

I do take solace in the fact that the logic in this article is such utter bullshit (MANDATED CHOICE... I still can't believe you wrote this with a straight face) that anyone with half a brain will see that you are attempting to bring back the good old days of Doctor Mengele and will flush this article down the toilet where it belongs.

So if this was some sort of ironic "A Modest Proposal" type article to point out that we have gone a bit overboard on the vaccine push, then now is the time to speak up on that.

If not... as I proposed earlier, which might not be as outlandish as it might seem on first consideration... go to hell.

January 13, 2012

Mechanisms of Aluminum Adjuvant Toxicity and Autoimmunity in Pediatric Populations

Mechanisms of aluminum adjuvant toxicity and autoimmunity in pediatric populations

Lupus (2012) 21, 223–230.

L Tomljenovic1 and CA Shaw2
1Neural Dynamics Research Group, Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC,
Canada and 2Departments of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences and Experimental Medicine and the Graduate Program in Neuroscience,
University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada

Immune challenges during early development, including those vaccine-induced, can lead to
permanent detrimental alterations of the brain and immune function. Experimental evidence
also shows that simultaneous administration of as little as two to three immune adjuvants can
overcome genetic resistance to autoimmunity. In some developed countries, by the time children
are 4 to 6 years old, they will have received a total of 126 antigenic compounds along with
high amounts of aluminum (Al) adjuvants through routine vaccinations. According to the US
Food and Drug Administration, safety assessments for vaccines have often not included
appropriate toxicity studies because vaccines have not been viewed as inherently toxic.
Taken together, these observations raise plausible concerns about the overall safety of current
childhood vaccination programs. When assessing adjuvant toxicity in children, several key
points ought to be considered: (i) infants and children should not be viewed as ‘‘small adults’’
with regard to toxicological risk as their unique physiology makes them much more vulnerable
to toxic insults; (ii) in adult humans Al vaccine adjuvants have been linked to a variety of
serious autoimmune and inflammatory conditions (i.e., ‘‘ASIA’’), yet children are regularly
exposed to much higher amounts of Al from vaccines than adults; (iii) it is often assumed that
peripheral immune responses do not affect brain function. However, it is now clearly established
that there is a bidirectional neuro-immune cross-talk that plays crucial roles in immunoregulation
as well as brain function. In turn, perturbations of the neuro-immune axis have
been demonstrated in many autoimmune diseases encompassed in ‘‘ASIA’’ and are thought to
be driven by a hyperactive immune response; and (iv) the same components of the neuroimmune
axis that play key roles in brain development and immune function are heavily targeted
by Al adjuvants. In summary, research evidence shows that increasing concerns about
current vaccination practices may indeed be warranted. Because children may be most at risk
of vaccine-induced complications, a rigorous evaluation of the vaccine-related adverse health
impacts in the pediatric population is urgently needed.

[ed note: emphasis mine]