Cassandra Grantham of MaineHealth/VaxMaineKids.org Makes False Vaccine Safety Claims on MPBN's Maine Calling

Hey Mainer's... you know that ours is the next state to have a target painted on its vaccine exemptions by Offit and CHOP Co., right?  Meet Cassandra Grantham, Maine's very own Offiteer.  She is telling some whoppers about vaccine safety research.

Remember last year when Kim Spencer went on a local news broadcast and tore into Dr. Koren Boggs for claiming that there were "several" domestic and international studies that compared vaccinated children to unvaccinated children and found vaccination did not increase the risk for autism?  And remember that it pissed me off so much that I made a video rant about it and we demanded a retraction?

Boggs would not make a public retraction of her false claims, but she did privately admit on facebook to her friends that she was wrong.  Sort of.  About part of what she said.  Pitiful.

This week Cassandra Grantham of MaineHealth and Vax Maine Kids takes center stage in making up the same bogus claim on Maine Public Broadcasting.

On MBPN's Maine Calling, Host Jennifer Rooks lead a completely uncritical "panel discussion" with three of the women who are on the "lets cripple the philosophical exemption" team in Maine, Dr. Laura Blaisdell, Dr. Amy Belisle and Cassandra Grantham.

You will remember two of these ladies as some of the participants in the screening of the Invisible Threat that I unloaded on last summer.  Back story here: Invisible Threat, Ugh.

During the episode of Maine Calling, Ms. Rooks asked Cassandra Grantham, "What kind of research is out there about the safety of vaccines?"  Grantham's response was the same stunningly fraudulent claim that Boggs made last year.  Actually, her claims were worse.  That there were new vaxxed/altvaxxed/fully vaxxed studies (my fantasy study) that showed no link between autism or other risks and vaccination.


Absolutely amazing.  She just completely fabricated completely non existent research, and does it with such confidence!  Who could doubt her!

Actually... she might be on to something.  We could save BILLIONS in research spending by just speaking research into existence instead of having to go through the costly and time consuming process of actually doing research.

I think I will do that right now!  Watch carefully...

So what's really great is that many organizations have put a lot of time and effort into understanding the profound impact of beauty on the world, and there have been several recent studies that have come out showing that I am THE most attractive woman in New England.  Further they recommended that funding should be directed toward a program to make my life as comfortable as possible to preserve my rare beauty.

There!  Research done, not a penny spent!  I also heartily agree with the recommendations of these fine scientists, whose names I can't remember, because they are scientists and you are not so don't question it.  Science has spoken.

Following the screening of Invisible Threat last summer, Ms. Grantham actually emailed me and said she wanted to have an exchange on my concerns.  I thought, "hey great... a good faith person who actually is following through on the creating a dialogue BS that the vaccine industry reps usually don't mean at all."  I gave her just a taste of the problems I had with the vaccine program, and a lengthy note or two on how her VaxMaineKids.org web site was so full of false information that it would have to be taken off line with in minutes of the repeal of the vaccine injury act or they would be sued into oblivion.   But as soon as I gave her a rundown of just the start of the problems that needed to be address, and asked how she would like to proceed with the exchange, she suddenly changed her mind and decided she didn't want to talk with me any more.  I will put up the email exchange in another blog.

But as a preview as to what a propagandist this woman has turned out to be, her website states, "No other medical study anywhere in the world has ever found a link between vaccines and autism. Not one."  I sent her the list of studies that linked vaccines and autism, and she said she only accepted peer review studies.  An admission that either she does not know what peer reviewed studies are or that she is a bad faith player who was cornered and gave a BS answer.  I have to assume she never even opened the link.  Mind you this is a MaineHealth web site, one of the largest health corporations in the state.

So today I finally got the time to write to Cassandra, call her out on her bold face lie, and ask her to cite these vaxxed v. unvaxxed autism studies or retract her claim.  I have copied MPBN, MaineHealth, a Maine Rep. who called into the program, and Dr. Blaisdell, who sat quietly by and allowed Grantham's lie to go unchallenged.

Subject:	False Vaccine Safety Claims made by MaineHealth on MPBN's Maine Calling
Date:	Sat, 06 Dec 2014 16:45:00 -0500
From:	Ginger Taylor <GTaylor@HealthChoice.org>
To:	Cassandra Grantham
CC:	Laura Blaisdell, Mark Vogelzang MPBN, Jennifer Rooks and Jonathan Smith MPBN, Rep. Andrea Boland, Andrea Dodge Patstone MaineHealth

Ms. Grantham,

This week on MPBN's Maine Calling, in response to a question about vaccine safety, you made the following claim:

MPBN: “Cassandra what kind of research is out there about the safety of vaccines?”

Cassandra Grantham: “So what's really great is that is that many different organizations have put a lot of time and effort into understanding the safety and efficacy behind vaccines and there have been several recent studies that have actually come out looking at associations between vaccinations and different situations that kids may find themselves in, autism being one of them, but many others. And of course we can't do studies that actually force families not to immunize their children so that we can look at what we would call it a randomized controlled trial, it's just not fair. So what we have been able to do is look back over time at different populations of children and we've actually found that kids who are immunized, completely immunized with all of the vaccines according to the the schedule that Dr. Blaisdell was mentioning the one that recommended by the CDC, that they have no higher risk of getting autism and some of these other developmental challenges that families face than those kids that delayed or did not receive any immunizations at all. So we're finding that there is research that is now delving deeper into this topic and actually proving that the CDC's recommended schedule is safe and it does work and it doesn't increase risks of other situations for kids.”

To the best of my knowledge, this is a false claim, as no such research exists.  This as testified to by Dr. Coleen Boyle, Director of CDC's National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities during the House Oversight & Government Reform Committee hearing 1 in 88 Children: A Look Into the Federal Response to Rising Rates of Autism on November 29, 2012.  In response to a question whether or not autism risk had been studied in vaccinated v. unvaccinated children Dr. Boyle stated, "We have not studied vaccinated v. unvaccinated."  http://youtu.be/O_GrCAzpA_0?t=9m20s (please see the notes in the video that addresses the claims made by Dr. Koren Boggs that such research exists in further detail.)

My understanding of the history of this topic is that the first such request for a study was made by the FDA in 1981 after they removed mercury from over the counter products.  FDA declined to ban it from vaccines, asking CDC to first do a vaccinated v. unvaccinated study to see if it increased health risks, however CDC declined to perform the study.

The autism and vaccine injury communities have been asking for such a retrospective study to be done for more than a decade now, and health authorities have continued to refuse.  Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) introduced the Comprehensive Comparative Study of Vaccinated and Unvaccinated Populations Act of 2007 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.2832:) to force NIH to do such a study, and reintroduced such legislation in the years since.  In response to what he learned from Dr. Boyle during the 2012 hearings, Rep Bill Posey (R-FL) joined with Maloney and introduced H.R. 1757, The Vaccine Safety Study Act (https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2013/04/26/extensions-of-remarks-section/article/E576-1) that would again compel HHS to perform the study that you claim already exists. 

The bill was not passed, nor to my knowledge has any vaccinated v. unvaccinated research on autism or any other developmental disabilities been published since Dr. Boyle offered her testimony before Congress.

As such it is appropriate for you to either produce the citation for this research that the vaccine injury community has been lobbying for, or to retract your false safety claims on MPBN for the product line you are representing.

Your false claims are only made more egregious by the fact that you have publicly stated in the Portland Press Herald that, "Eliminating the philosophic [vaccine] exemption is the ultimate goal."  It is my belief that you are purposely lying to the public in order to remove parental rights and deny Maine children a Free And Appropriate Education in order to promote sales of a product line whose lack of safety is thoroughly documented both by the federal government and the product packaging itself.  This type of propaganda sales campaign should not be tolerated by any responsible medical professional, health organization, media outlet or legislator. (http://www.pressherald.com/2014/08/14/state-legislators-to-seek-stronger-vaccine-laws/)

I await your response,

Ginger Taylor, MS
Mother of a vaccine injured child
Co-author of Vaccine Epidemic
Media Director
HealthChoice.org
Facebook
Twitter
818-402-9672

Why aren't people vaccinating?  I will say it again and again and again.  Because the liability protection given to vaccine interests has very visibly corrupted the vaccine program to the bone.

Many of their claims are garbage.  To the point that their sales teams can pose as "public health interests" go on a supposedly thoughtful, intelligent program, make absurdly fraudulent, easily vetted, vaccine safety claims, which go completely unchallenged by the media, and there is literally no official recourse that the public can take to shut them down or hold them accountable for lies.

Case in point, the ONLY means of recourse I have, as a member of the public and the mother of a vaccine injured child, to address this false claim, for which she should be fired and MaineHealth should be sued and put under review by the state, is to write the above letter.  One of probably a thousand letters on vaccine fraud that I have written in the ten years since my son's vaccine induced brain damage.

And MPBN and Maine Health, and Vax Maine Kids and Dr. Blaisdell and anyone associated with this event at all is free to just ignore the complaint, or tell further lies to cover up this lie that was told to cover up the decades of lies and obfuscation being delivered to the American public.

Perhaps if they don't retract this, I will have to get really, really serious with them and write another letter.

Update:
Ms. Grantham has responded:

Subject:	RE: False Vaccine Safety Claims made by MaineHealth on MPBN's Maine Calling
Date:	Mon, 8 Dec 2014 19:31:25 +0000
From:	Cassandra Grantham
To:	'Ginger Taylor' <GTaylor@HealthChoice.org>
CC:	Laura L. Blaisdell , Mark Vogelzang, Jennifer Rooks and Jonathan Smith, Rep. Andrea Boland, Andrea Patstone

Hello Ginger ~Thank you for listening to MPBN’s Maine Calling Show – it is great to know that we have reached such a wide audience with important vaccine messages.  I want to clarify that I do not represent any product line or company other than MaineHealth, which is a health system which supports on-time childhood immunizations.  I have never been paid by or consulted for a pharmaceutical or medical intervention company or agency. Please see below for MaineHealth’s official statement regarding childhood immunizations.   

 MaineHealth supports the health, safety and well-being of infants, children, adolescents and young adults.  We believe that vaccinating children on-time, as recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP), and the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG), is one of the best ways to reduce vaccine-preventable diseases in our communities and keep children safe and healthy.

 In regards to my statements about vaccine safety, I based those on these studies. 

1.      http://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-3476(13)00144-3/abstract  

2.      http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2013/The-Childhood-Immunization-Schedule-and-Safety.aspx

3.      http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2014/06/26/peds.2014-1079.abstract

 I will not respond to future emails on this subject.

 Furthermore, I request that you cease and desist using my image on your blog, Facebook page and other websites you support and represent.
 

Cassandra 

Cassandra Cote Grantham, MA
Program Director
Childhood Immunizations and Raising Readers
Community Health Improvement
MaineHealth...

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email message, including any attachments, is for the use of the intended recipient(s) only and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and prohibited from unauthorized disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message and attachments.

In short, I work for MaineHealth, here are some unrelated studies so I can pretend like I am giving an answer, while not actually citing a vaxxed/unvaxxed study, stop using my picture, and I am not talking to you any more.

Reminder that her web site says, "Vax Maine Kids is a safe place for Maine parents to discuss their concerns and ask tough questions.  We promise to always give respectful, evidence-based answers you can trust."

So much for that.

But for more irony/entertainment/fuel for your fury, the ONLY study she actually cited was by FRANK DESTEFANO!!!

Just bullet pointing the things that should be noted here on her :

1. OMG DESTEFANO?!

- DeStefano took a tiny piece of vaccines in this junk study, the part we are least worried about causing problems, studied to see if that correlated to autism.  DeStefano: "I have extablished that the spices in apple pie do not correlate to obesity."  Moms: "Ummm... yeah... we were worried about the sugar, the butter and the crust.  Or the pie as a whole.  Because you are recommending our kids eat a crap load of pies, and our kids are getting really fat."

- Grantham is misusing the junk study exactly the same way everyon else uses it. "The spices in apple pie are not linked to obesity, therefor eating four apple pies in one sitting is not linked to obesity."

- Grantham goes further beyond the misuse of this study by claiming it compaires vaccinated and unvaccinated children.  Mind you, the word "unvaccinated" does not even appear in the paper.  Nor do the words, "CDC," "Schedule," or the phrase, "fully vaccinated."  Therefore, it is difficult to see how Ms. Grantham could be both earnest and competent and put this paper forward to defend her MPBN claims.

- DeSoto's critique of the study reports that it did not correctly match cases, and is invalid. http://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-3476(13)00662-8/fulltext (and the Journal even links to her critique from the link Grantham provided)

- FRANK DESTEFANO HAS BEEN CAUGHT HIDING THREE DIFFERENT AUTISM LINKS IN HIS WORK AT CDC AND IS CURRENTLY THE SUBJECT OF A CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATION FOR FRAUD!  Here is the rundown for those who want to get current on the developments.  (Yet Grantham refers to his work while trying to defend the integrity of the vaccine program.  This is me right now.)

- Frank DeStefano, in Sheryl Attkisson's interview with him about the charges against him claimed that it was not possible for vaccines to cause autism, then four days later changed his statement, admitting that he has never looked to see if vaccines can cause individual cases of autism, and that is something that someone could look into.  HE IS THE HEAD OF THE CDC IMMUNIZATION SAFETY OFFICE... HE IS THE ONE WHOSE JOB IT HAS BEEN TO LOOK INTO THIS FOR MORE THAN A DECADE! (insert Mugatu)

2. The 2013 IOM Report: The Childhood Immunization Schedule and Safety: Stakeholder Concerns, Scientific Evidence, and Future Studies 

- The report actually reports that there is NO VACCINATED V. UNVACCINATED RESEARCH. She actually sent me proof of my claim that I didn't know about.  Thank you Ms. Grantham for further indicting yourself. From page 19 of the pdf:

"The committee’s literature searches and review were intended to identify health outcomes associated with some aspect of the childhood immunization schedule. Allergy and asthma, autoimmunity, autism, other neurodevelopmental disorders (e.g., learning disabilities, tics, behavioral disorders, and intellectual disabilities), seizures, and epilepsy were included as search terms. Furthermore, the committee reviewed papers on immunization and premature infants.

In summary, few studies have comprehensively assessed the association between the entire immunization schedule or variations in the overall schedule and categories of health outcomes, and no study has directly examined health outcomes and stakeholder concerns in precisely the way that the committee was charged to address in its statement of task. No studies have compared the differences in health outcomes that some stakeholders questioned between entirely unimmunized populations of children and fully immunized children. Experts who addressed the committee pointed not to a body of evidence that had been overlooked but rather to the fact that existing research has not been designed to test the entire immunization schedule." 

- The report says that it has evaluated doing such studies, that they would be doable, useful, but expensive, time consuming and difficult, so they don't recommend them.  Here is their full statement on vaxed v. uvaxed studies. 

"Initiation of New Prospective Observational Studies

Observational studies are another form of clinical research that can provide useful insights and information that may be used to answer research questions. The committee reviewed opportunities to study groups that choose not to vaccinate using a prospective cohort study design. However, such a study would not conclusively reveal differences in health outcomes between unimmunized and fully immunized children for two main reasons. First, to be informative, cohort studies require sufficiently large numbers of participants in each study group and the sample populations often suggested for use in a comparison of vaccinated and unvaccinated children (such as some religious groups) are too small to adequately power a comparative analysis, particularly in the case of rare adverse health outcomes. Because meaningful comparisons require thousands of participants in each study group and less than 1 percent of the U.S. population refuses all immunizations, the detection of enough unvaccinated children would be prohibitively time-consuming and difficult. 

Such a study would also need to account for the many confounding variables that separate some populations from the average U.S. child, including lifestyle factors and genetic variables. To be useful, a comparison would require children matched by age; sex; geographic location; rural, urban, or suburban setting; socioeconomic group; and race/ethnicity.

The committee acknowledges that large-scale, long-term studies of infants through adulthood would be informative for evaluating health outcomes associated with immunization. A new research initiative, the National Children’s Study, is a multicenter, congressionally funded effort that meets these criteria. Although such studies would be the optimal design for evaluating long-term health outcomes associated with the childhood immunization schedule, they would require considerable time and funding, and the committee did not find adequate epidemiological evidence to recommend investment in this type of research at this time."

 Skimming through the report, it seems to be full of comedy gold, like this gem: "The committee identified concerns among some parents about the number, frequency, and timing of immunizations in the overall immunization schedule. These concerns were not expressed by clinicians, public health personnel, or policy makers in the committee’s review."

"Well Jim, the customers are not buying because they don't trust the product, but the salesmen are fine with the product, so screw the custmers!"  Of course the salemen are happy, they can lie about the product, don't have to know the true safety profiles, can't be sued and THEY GET PAID!

Astonishing how these people believe this approach will increase vaccine uptake.  Crazy pills.

3. Safety of Vaccines Used for Routine Immunization of US Children: A Systematic Review

- The ONLY reference to the "unvaccinated" is in a discussion of an Italian study on the flu shot and ER visits and referred to kids who has not received a seasonal or H1N1 flu vaccine.

- The ONLY discussion of autism in the paper is in regard to the MMR vaccine, no unvaccinated populations studied.

So Grantham has not only proved herself wrong, she has proved herself either incompetent to read medical literature, a bad faith player or both.

I responded to her with the following email:

Subject:	Re: False Vaccine Safety Claims made by MaineHealth on MPBN's Maine Calling
Date:	Mon, 08 Dec 2014 15:37:29 -0500
From:	Ginger Taylor <GTaylor@HealthChoice.org>
To:	Cassandra Grantham
CC:	Laura L. Blaisdell, Mark Vogelzang, Jennifer Rooks, Rep. Andrea Boland, Andrea Patstone, Jonathan Smith

Ms.  Grantham,

None of the citations you offer contain any research on autism risk, or any other developmental disabilities, in vaccinated v. unvaccinated children, which is the claim you made on Maine Calling.  Again, no such publish research exists in any form. 

I therefore demand a retraction of the fraudulent safety claim by yourself, MaineHealth and MPBN.

I will not cease using your image, as this is a very newsworthy story and the professional headshot of a medical corporation employee making false claims about the product safety of the pharmaceuticals that it sells is fair use of this image.


Ginger Taylor, MS
Media Director
HealthChoice.org
Facebook
Twitter
818-402-9672

As Ms. Grantham has informed me that she is not talking to me any more, I assume I will not be hearing from her again.

So as is appropriate, I have asked MPBN to retract the statement, and review the issues at play with new eyes.

Subject:	Request for Retraction of False Vaccine Safety Claims on MPBN's Maine Calling
Date:	Mon, 08 Dec 2014 16:12:12 -0500
From:	Ginger Taylor <GTaylor@HealthChoice.org>
To:	Mark Vogelzang <mvogelzang@mpbn.net>, Jennifer Rooks and Jonathan Smith <talk@mpbn.net>, Jonathan Smith <jpsmith@mpbn.net>
CC:	Cassandra Grantham <COTEC1@mmc.org>, Laura L. Blaisdell <BLAISL@mmc.org>, Rep. Andrea Boland <sixwings@metrocast.net>, Andrea Patstone <PATSTA@mainehealth.org>

Ms. Rooks, Mr. Smith and Mr. Vogelzang,

On your December 1 episode of Maine Calling, Cassandra Grantham, a representative of MaineHealth, made a fraudulent safety claim on your show.  I have copied you on the my email exchange with her, which details the false claim, my correction of the false information as supported by the Congressional testimony of the head of the CDC's Director of the National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, and my request to Ms. Grantham for her to cite the multiple studies that she claim exist or retract her claim.

As you can see, she has failed to produce any research comparing autism rates in vaccinated and unvaccinated populations and failed to retract her claim.

I there for request that Maine Calling retract Ms. Grantham's claim in the same format which it was offered, noting the false claim on the archived version of the interview if MPBN chooses to leave it online.

I further strongly encourage Maine Calling to perform an honest evaluation on why vaccine rates are low in Maine and falling nationally.  As the educated mother of a vaccine injured child, I can attest to the real reason.  It is because the liability protection given to the entire vaccine industry in 1986 has resulted in massive corruption in the vaccine program.  Ms. Graham's behavior on your show is case in point.  Medical providers and medical industry representatives can make any safety claims that they choose, even completely false claims, because there is no accountability mechanism in place for the public to hold them accountable for false claims.  Even when a child is killed by a vaccine after a false claim like this is made to a parent coercing them into administering a vaccine that they would not have otherwise agreed to have delivered to their child, there is no recourse to hold anyone accountable, or even force them to stop making these false claims.  So false claims like this one, once spoken by someone claiming to hold authority in vaccinated, simply continue to circulate and be repeated. 

No doubt Ms. Grantham's false claim will now be circulated by those who have heard your program, even medical professionals who administer vaccines to children.

The vaccine show you did with these three women on December 1, was not just about vaccine rejection, it is the REASON for vaccine rejection.  It is a real time example of how and why vaccine interests are alienating and loosing the public trust by abusing the public trust.  Your guests correctly reported that the exodus from the vaccine program is being lead by educated parents who have serious misgivings of the safety and trustworthyness of the vaccine program, while they themselves were making false claims about the safety of the vaccine program, thereby proving the untrustworthy of the vaccine program.  And MPBN is participating in this corruption by allowing false claims to made on your platform with out challenge or correction.

I hope that the irony that a show you aired to raise confidence in the vaccination is actually destroying trust in the vaccination is not lost on you. 

Now this claim of Ms. Grantham is merely one of many problematic statements made by herself, MaineHealth, VaxMaineKids.org and Dr. Blaisdell, and I would be happy to go over the false information that they are sharing with the public under the guise of serving the public if you decide to do a proper investigation of the fraud taking place in the vaccine program both in Maine and at the federal level.

But for now, I await a response on your retraction of this particular false statement.  I cannot imagine that MPBN would allow any medical professional, industry representative or government official to make such false claims about any other medical product line or medical program.  I don't expect Maine Calling to allow this to stand either.

Thank you for your consideration,
Ginger Taylor, MS
Media Director
HealthChoice.org
Facebook
Twitter
818-402-9672

Also as appropriate, I have contacted MaineHealth and asked for a review and retraction of their multiple false vaccine safety claims, disciplinary action against Ms. Grantham, and a clarification on their position to remove the rights of parents to decline vaccines that can cause disability, brain damage and death, and still send their children to school.

Subject:	Information Requested on how to file a formal complaint against a Maine Health staffer for fraudulent claims
Date:	Mon, 08 Dec 2014 19:25:15 -0500
From:	Ginger Taylor <GTaylor@HealthChoice.org>
To:	William Caron , Kimberly Nemic
CC:	Rebecca Arseneault, Deborah Deatrick, MPH, Robert Frank, Katie Fullam Harris , Cassandra Grantham, Jonathan Smith, Joe Lawlor, Laura Blaisdell

Dear MaineHealth,

This past week, Cassandra Grantham of MaineHealth appeared on MPBN's Maine Calling and made a fraudulent vaccine safety claim. She reported to the public that there are several studies comparing vaccinated v. unvaccinated children that find no increase risk of autism and other developmental disabilities in children vaccinated according to the CDC's recommended schedule. 

In fact, no such research has ever been published. 

I contacted Ms. Grantham and asked that she cite the research she claims has been undertaken, or retract her statement.  She not only failed to cite such studies, she actually cited a 2013 IOM report that confirmed that no such research exists in the medical literature, and that recommended against undertaking such research because of cost, time and difficulty.  She has also failed to retract her fraudulent claim and says she will not be responding to me on this matter again.

This is just the latest of several false vaccine safety research claims that Ms. Grantham has made on behalf of MaineHealth both in public and on the VaxMaineKids.org web site, a MaineHealth Childhood Immunizations Program project.  Several of these false statements have been brought to her attention over the last five months, and she has failed to properly address them.  I can therefore only assume that Ms. Grantham is a bad faith player and is purposefully misleading of Mainers on vaccine safety matters

This is made all the more egregious as Ms. Grantham has been quoted in the Portland Press Herald as stating that, “Eliminating the philosophic [vaccine] exemption is the ultimate goal,” of the work your organization is undertaking.  It is unconscionable that MaineHealth would make fraudulent safety claims in order to advance the agenda of removing parental rights and depriving children of a free and appropriate public education if their families decline to participate in a medical program that presents severe adverse health risks including disability, brain damage and death.

I wish to file a formal complaint against Ms. Grantham with MaineHealth.  I believe that it is the duty of MaineHealth to review and retract Ms. Grantham's false vaccine safety claims and to exercise disciplinary action against Ms. Grantham, as well as clarify the organization's position on the rights of parents to receive full and accurate vaccine safety and efficacy information, and practice uncoerced informed consent in vaccination.

I have forwarded the email exchanges with Ms. Grantham and MPBN below for your review.

I am publicly documenting this process here.

Please direct me to appropriate contact on this matter so I may offer a full account of the problem and offer MaineHealth my support in assuring that it is offering accurate, evidence based information on vaccine safety to the public.

Thank you,
Ginger Taylor
Brunswick, Maine

I have decided that this is going to be a test of the system.

A rep of a health management corporation makes fraudulent claims about the product line that the corporation is selling to the public, and for which it is taking insurance payments and government funding.  Is it possible to hold them accountable and force a review and retraction of their false claims, or does the 1986 Vaccine Act prevent the functioning of all public accountability?  As always, my money is on the latter, but we have to give them a chance to do the right thing, don't we?

UPDATE:

Guess what... they didn't do the right thing.  Neither did any of the state and federal authorities I filed complaints with. The results of my four month attempt to hold them accountable here:

MaineHealth Remains Completely Unaccountable of False Vaccine Claims.  So I Wrote a Bill.

Pharmacutical Sales Rep Paul Offit Teaches Doctors to Ignore Pharmacutical Package Inserts

Paul Offit teaches doctors to ignore pharmacutical package inserts, calling the medical information morally and ethically required be given to patients who could be harmed by said pharmacutical, "the bane of [his] existence."

Not something that the physician needs to use to fully understand the Rx they might offer to a patient, "the bane of his existance."

He is not a doctor, he is a pharma sales rep.

Why would you want to see a doctor who is trained by this man?  From the LAT:

"I know you doctors keep telling me that vaccines don't cause autism. If that's true, then why is it on this package insert?" he asked, playing the role of a parent who had read the blogs and heard the celebrities who connect the two.
Shifting in her seat, the designated victim shot Offit an unsure look.
Then she began citing studies and said that drug packaging inserts include many "temporally associated symptoms" that weren't necessarily caused by the vaccine.
"Why?" Offit pressed. "Why would they put that there — just to scare me?"
The doctor kept trying. "They're required by law," she said. "I actually didn't know the answer."
Offit broke character to explain: Drug companies must list any condition known to have occurred within six weeks of a vaccination, whether the medication caused the condition or not, and even if it occurs at the same level as with a placebo.
Package inserts are legal documents, not medical documents, he said, calling them "the bane of [his] existence."
"If you look at the original package insert for chicken pox vaccine, it says, 'Broken leg has been associated with this drug,'" he added.

Please Stop Redefining Autism to Suit Your Own Agenda

So over at TMR, The Eagle wrote a piece on the heat that she has been subject to because she used the word “recovery” in relation to her son's autism.

“I always grew up believing the F-word was something we didn’t say. But it turns out that in the autism world, the R word is definitely the bad word.
Recovery.
It’s all raising its ugly head as I am releasing my book, which has a tag line of “A son’s recovery.” Whoa!
“How dare you insinuate your son doesn’t have autism anymore? Just because he’s functioning, doesn’t mean the autism isn’t there.”
“You can’t ever recover from autism. No matter how well you’re doing, you’re always autistic.”
These are just a few snippets from people who don’t know me or my son, or our story, but have literally judged the book by its cover.”

I think a huge part of the problem is that people have redefined "autism" to mean what they want it to mean, then project that onto what other people are talking about.

So let's review what “Autism” actually is.

"Autism" is a group of behavioral symptoms which include impaired communication, impaired social interaction, and stereotyped behaviors.  Feel free to review the full DSM IV criteria here.

You need those BEHAVIORS to get an autism diagnosis.  Conversely, if you no longer have those behaviors, then according to the definition, you can no longer be diagnosed with "Autism."

But when parents or those with the diagnosis begin to redefine it as an experiential state, or spiritual condition or a state of mind or an "identity," and then foist that definition on others, then the madness begins. They can insist that even when the behaviors are gone the autism is still there... but it is just their opinion and something that does not fit the actual definition of autism.

Don't get me wrong, I am all for those who wish to expand on their experiences as a person who has an autism diagnosis.  God knows how helpful it has been to me to hear from communicative adults with an autism diagnosis on what their experience is in giving me ideas on what might be going on inside my son's mind, but those do not define autism.

Nor do my son's experiences define “autism.”  Nor to his physical maladies that are tied to autism define autism.  Because the definition of autism includes none of these things... no experiential descriptions, no medical conditions, no biomarkers nothing other than OBSERVABLE BEHAVIORS.  It is narrow, and crappy and inadequate in so, so many ways, but it is what it is.  ONLY a description of behaviors.   And those who want to go beyond that description need to either lobby that the description be changed to include those experiential, spiritual and medical phenomena, or make up their own term to describe the version of “autism” that they are talking about, so it does not get confused with other types of “autism” or foisted upon people who don't actually have the type of “autism” that they are describing.

And while families and individuals might be guilty of redefining the condition and then asserting that others should then be subject to their redefinition, the medical profession is the worst.  Because it is the job of science to actually be systematic and exact in the language that they are using to describe conditions, diseases and disorders.

If I hear that “autism starts in the womb” one more time, I am going to... I don't know... retreat to my back yard and start blowing bubbles all day long in a catatonic starefest.

When you show me that a fetus can have impaired eye contact or trouble speaking or difficulty in forming friendships while still in utero, then you can say that you think “autism” starts in the womb.  I'd even grant you a conversation based on the idea that “autism” starts in the womb if you could show me some ultrasounds with the unborn flapping a bit or trying to spin.  But as it stands... autism cannot be diagnosed in the womb because the behaviors are not there and AUTISM is strictly a behavioral diagnosis.

From NPR:

“Brain Changes Suggest Autism Starts In The Womb
The symptoms of autism may not be obvious until a child is a toddler, but the disorder itself appears to begin well before birth.
Brain tissue taken from children who died and also happened to have autism revealed patches of disorganization in the cortex, a thin sheet of cells that's critical for learning and memory, researchers report in the New England Journal of Medicine. Tissue samples from children without autism didn't have those characteristic patches.
Organization of the cortex begins in the second trimester of pregnancy. "So something must have gone wrong at or before that time," says Eric Courchesne, an author of the paper and director of the Autism Center of Excellence at the University of California, San Diego.”

So many assumptions and leaps there... but this is what my mind immediately jumps to...

That would be fascinating and helpful IF THE DIAGNOSTIC DEFINITION OF AUTISM INCLUDED PATCHES OF DISORGANIZATION IN THE CORTEX!  BUT IT DOESN'T!

It would even be very helpful to families like mine if it did, because then we could check some brains out and see if they have these actual physical anomalies and know whether or not our children had “Autism” defined by those terms and if not, we could know that our children didn't have “Autism” and move on to other areas to look for answers,

But it doesn't... because autism is ONLY BEHAVIORAL SYMPTOMS.

And... oh yeah... They only looked at 11 brains and only 10 of them had the cortical changes mentioned so no... you can't define “autism” to include cortical changes.  Just like you can't define it to have GI distress, because not all kids with and 'autism' diagnosis have GI problems and just like you can't define it as a vaccine injury because some kids with autism are unvaccinated and just like you can't define it as “Rain Man Syndrome because not all these kids have super powers, or define it as “seeing the world in a different way” and on and on and on.

Repeating... Autism is a crappy, narrow, barely useful diagnosis based on 70 year old, outdated information and ONLY on... say it with me.... OBSERVABLE BEHAVIORS!

Put 20 kids with an “Autism” diagnosis in a room and you are going to get 20 different sets of associated medical conditions, educational struggles and (insert almost everything else about a child)

We need to stop thinking of Autism as a disorder.. it isn't.  It is a symptom set.  It is like a fever, and caused by many different things.  Do I need to even insert the list in here?

So if Evan McCarthy lost his Autism diagnosis because he no longer fits the symptoms, and has graduated to “weird,” stop saying he still has autism or that he never had it in the first place.  He had the symptoms to qualify for a diagnosis, and then later he didn't.  You don't get to redefine “Autism” to suit your agenda.

If I might be so bold as to recommend a course of action... I consider the optimal response to, “My son lost his autism diagnosis!” to be:

“Yay!  I am so excited for you that he is doing so well!  Congratulations!  Please let us know what worked for him or any advise he has so that we can see if it might be something to help other kids who are diagnosed with autism!”

Because I seriously cannot believe in this day and age that anyone is still under the illusion that “Autism” is one thing.  It is junk like this in 2014 that makes me want to get on board with those who want to dump the obsolete “Autism” label all together.

Update:  And two weeks later Jerry Seinfeld announces that he has autism.  My considerably cynical thoughts about that on Age of Autism.

One of Our Moms Needs Help

Some of you may know autism mom, Melanie Baldwin, a founder of The Thinking Moms' Revolution and subject of Jessica's Lioness Arising blog post.

Melanie is a mom who is battling cancer for the third time.  She also has a son with profound autism.  The cost of caring for a child with autism is astronomical, but coupled with the cost of battling cancer, it's insurmountable unless they have help.

If you'd like to help, Melanie's Give Forward page can be found here.  

Thanks for reading, and please share!

My Op Ed in the Portland Press Herald on the Real Reasons for the Growing Vaccine Refusal

So in July, I was interviewd for an hour for an article on vaccine refusal in the Portland Press Herald.  I long story short, they did a hatchet job on me.  So I wrote an op ed response, and they actually printed it.

Please visit and comment.


"Maine Voices: Breakdown in accountability at heart of decline in vaccinations
Opposition to the current U.S. vaccination program is based on its failures, denial and bad law and policy.

BY GINGER TAYLOR

BRUNSWICK — I was interviewed for an Aug. 9 front-page article by Joe Lawlor, titled “More Maine families are skipping or delaying childhood vaccines.” What was published was a complete misrepresentation of the interview I gave him.

As I told Mr. Lawlor, I’m neither anti-vaccine nor opposed to vaccination, and I vaccinated my children. My opposition is to the current U.S. vaccine program, which has become corrupted by bad law and policy, the failure to disclose known risks to families, the failure to pre-screen children who are showing symptoms that they are at risk for vaccine reactions and the denial of vaccine injury cases – rather than the proper recognition, diagnoses and treatment of vaccine-injured children.

In 1986, Congress gave liability protection to all vaccine interests – pharmaceutical companies, government agencies, doctors, nurses, etc. – so no one in this country can sue for vaccine injuries or deaths. As a result of this disregard of Americans’ Seventh Amendment rights, a vaccine injury case hasn’t been brought before a jury in almost 30 years, there is no longer accountability in vaccine safety and the vaccine program has fallen into massive corruption.

The effectiveness of vaccines is overstated, safety claims made are overstated and parents no longer get accurate risk information. Instead, vaccine consumers are offered a single sheet of information in the doctor’s office that leaves out almost all of the side effects listed on the vaccine package insert, on the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Vaccine Injury Table and the disorders that HHS has concluded can be caused by a given vaccine.

Doctors are not trained on federal guidelines for vaccine injury, nor are they required to know the side effects listed on the vaccine package insert. Therefore, few physicians know how to recognize adverse reactions in their patients. As a result, such cases are usually ignored or misdiagnosed and are rarely properly medically assessed, and patients can become victims of medical neglect for a lifetime.

Further, the vaccine schedule has tripled since 1986, so a child born today will receive more doses of vaccine by the time he’s 6 months old than I did by the time I went to college. There is almost no long-term safety testing of vaccines, and no safety testing of the overloaded schedule as a whole.

This breakdown in the U.S. vaccine program’s accountability to consumers is at the heart of the country’s decline in vaccinations, because when parents take the time to look into physicians’ safety claims, they find they’re being given incorrect and biased information.

Case in point: The claim that the vaccine-autism controversy began as the result of one debunked study is utter misinformation. In fact, more than 80 research papers demonstrate the associations between vaccines and autism, and the mechanisms by which vaccines can cause autism.

When Mr. Lawlor asked me why I believed my son was vaccine-injured, I directed him to the HHS Vaccine Injury Compensation Table and walked him through the symptoms of pertussis-vaccine-induced “encephalopathy,” the medical term for brain damage, which my son exhibited following his 18-month shots:

 Decreased or absent response to environment (responds, if at all, only to loud voice or painful stimuli).

 Decreased or absent eye contact (does not fix gaze upon family members or other individuals).

 Inconsistent or absent responses to external stimuli (does not recognize familiar people or things).

My son’s case is not unusual. Because few doctors have ever read the federal vaccine injury table, children exhibiting symptoms of vaccine-induced brain damage are often diagnosed with “autism” without ever being evaluated for this vaccine reaction.

The Press Herald has published a follow-up article and an editorial that make clear its agenda is to not investigate and report the facts on this issue, but to coerce families who have safety concerns into vaccinating according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s recommended schedule – against their better judgment, by removing their legal right to exercise informed consent in medicine.

Parents are not declining vaccines because of Jenny McCarthy or because of a 15-year-old British research paper. Parents are justifiably hesitant because the vaccine program has become overly aggressive, dosing is one-size-fits-all, promoters don’t disclose true risks to patients and program managers are not taking responsibility for helping the countless children and adults who have serious adverse vaccine reactions. Parents like me found out the hard way that once your child suffers a vaccine injury, you are on your own.

— Special to the Press Herald"

Invisible Threat: Ugh.

I've been gone for a long time doing Health Choice and media work... please forgive... blah blah blah...

So tonight I was down in Portland for some business meetings, and after the first Scott and I walked two blocks to Starbucks for a coffee.  I was at the table when he brought my drink and dropped a piece of paper in front of me.  "Look what I found on their bulletin board."

It was a flier for the new "hit" vaccine propaganda piece, "Invisible Threat."  (Since when to people who are in a film, review the film? Oh wait... HHS owns patents on the vaccines it licenses and recommends... forgot who I was dealing with.)

Watch the trailer below and be terrified that your child will die of disease if you don't vaccinate.

Invisible Threat Trailer from CHSTV Videos on Vimeo.

It is, of course the same old, same old, but with a twist this time.  This was not done by the vaccine lobby, this was done by unbiased high school students!

So I was all... "UGH... too bad I can't go, cause we gotta meeting.  And it starts in 12 minutes."

Then Scott was all, "Just drop me off and go, you don't even need to be at this meeting."  So I did that.

And there was a good reason to go... because I know a bit of the back story for this film.

You see I have a beloved friend and advocacy partner named Becky Estepp.  You all know Becky, she has been a regular on Fox News Channel, and lots of local San Diego area news pieces for years.  If you want to talk a parent in Southern California who can discuss the problems with the vaccine program, and its relationship to the autism epidemic, Becky is your go to gal.

Four years ago, she got a phone call from a high school boy from CHSTV, an awkward sophomore, who said they were making a documentary, and had some questions.  Becky had a long conversation with him, but could tell some of the things she was trying to teach him were a bit over his head.  Then she never heard from anyone on the film again.

Cut to this year when she sees the trailer for "Invisible Threat," and realized THIS was the project she was interviewed for. A totally biased piece, allegedly done by teenagers, that was a bit difficult to believe was done by teenagers.  Why did they not interview her for the actual film?  Great question... I wondered too!

We also wondered, "Kids made this?  Really?"  From my estimation, yes they did.  But it seems pretty obvious that they were lead around by the nose on what what and how to "investigate."  In fact we were told at the outset that one of the kids parents worked for Scholastic and "helped" the kids.  I am sure that Rotary "helped" too.  Also apparently the Gates Foundation, "helped"... so....

Fortunately there was a parking space right by the building and I whipped into my chair with one minute to spare before they started.  A very attractive lady from Vax Maine Kids (I think) explained that these kid had done two award winning documentaries, and were approached by The Rotary Club to do a pro-vaccine documentary.  The kids, of course, turned them down because they wouldn't do something like that, but then agreed to make one on their own terms where they would investigate the issues and then make their movie on what they had learned. (Yes they took the money.)

(P.S. Don't take your medical advice from Play Boy Bunnies, take it from teenagers?)

She explained that this was the first time the film had been shown in New England (Really?  They picked Portland, Maine?) and later explained that one of the reasons that it has not been widely distributed is because the children received death threats after the movie, just like poor Paul Offit (who we have asked for some documentation on these threats, a police report, anything, because, you know... if that shit is really happening, then NOT OK, and we would shame such people into oblivion for it... cause we are kinda sick of being called "baby killers" and being threatened with Child Protective Services as well.)

But apparently the death threats to children are not really a problem as they will be releasing the film broadly on August 1.  Not super clear.  I guess that arrests have been made and the problem is solved?

Of course my cynical self imagines the conversation:

"Well we premiered the film last spring, three days before the beginning of "Autism Awareness Month" to take headlines away from the vaccine injury problem, so aren't people gonna be all. "WHAAA?" if we don't release it until August, just in time for the back to school vaccine push?"
"Um... just tell them there were death threats so we had to hold off the release."  

I text all this to Becky and she is not convinced.  "Don't you think that if that really happened it would be all over San Diego TV?"  Becky makes great points (and is also very physically fit.)

Vax Maine Kids did say that they wanted open and respectful dialog on vaccines issues.  Well they have never contacted me or any of my loud mouth friends in Maine to have this open discussion, but I'll take her word for it that she means it for that event.

So the film begins, and it is all the same tropes.  It's all Wakefield's fault.  Your body is crawling with a bazillion creatures out to kill you.  Mothers of children who have died of "vaccine preventable" illnesses are beautiful and worthy of your compassion.  Mothers of children who believe vaccines cause their child's autism are into hippy dippy crap like rubbing oils on their kids and moving their limbs around to heal them.  The docs that treat their kids are unattractive quacks.  The docs that say vaccines are totally safe are attractive and established and should have angelic music behind them when they speak.  Paul Offit is the super smartest and objective guy ever and he thinks moms like me who write critical things on the internet about the vaccine program are "evil."  (Also, profiteers... which is hilarious and forces me to stifle a laugh.) MMR induced encephalitis is one in one million. (Wait... I thought vaccine injury in general was one in a million?)  And finally, VACCINES ARE SAFE, VACCINES SAVE LIVES, VACCINE REACTIONS ARE RARE, AND VACCINATION IS THE RIGHT CHOICE.

***UPDATE:
Apologies that this post is a bit of a mess.. wrote it at 3am.  I forgot the BEST part of the movie.  Parents who don't vaccinate are made analagus to THE TALIBAN!!

Yes... because every country on earth vaccinates... "except for one, THE TALIBAN!"  Then they point out that Talibanians killed polio vaccine workers.  They fail to point out that it was after the CIA used a fake vaccine campaign to harvest the DNA from Afgahan locals to find out if Osama Bin Lahadeen and family were in the area, which caused haters of The Great Satan to stop participating in vax programs and even attack them.  Because they assumed they were CIA.

Ergo, according to the NYT the CIA is runing vaccine uptake.

Also you are a Talabanian.

But this "documentary" is totally unbiased.***

So by the end of the film I think my blood pressure was 1000/1000.  I don't know why I let my self get so upset about this crap anymore... again... the New England premier and there were 20 people in the room.  And then they called the panelists (and moderator and projectionist) to the front of the room... And then there were 13 audience members... including me. (And from the chit chat at the end... clearly they were almost all friends of the panel/people working on vaccine uptake.)

So I did a little self-talk to calm myself down, which worked a little.  (Damn... I should not have had coffee before I went there.)  So I decided I would not talk, but if I did it would just be some mild questions at the very end.  Just to see where they really were on this stuff.

The panel was a very sweet gray haired older mother in a matronly dress who had lost her teen age son to meningitis, three pediatricians (two female and one male, now come to think of it, I can't remember if the second female was a doc... she didn't say much... might have been a professional advocate), and a former Maine epidemiologist.  One of the pediatricians was from my town, and is well known for publishing the most bone headed vaccines rah rah rah junk in our state via the Bangor Daily News.

Wait... I actually looked the event up.  Here is the panel:

"The public is invited to this free showing at 5 p.m. Wednesday, July 23, at the Portland Public Library. A panel discussion will follow the film. The expert panel will include: Larry Losey, M.D., of Brunswick Pediatrics, Laura Blaisdell, M.D., MPH, of Intermed Pediatrics and Researcher at Maine Medical Center Research Institute, Center for Outcomes Research & Evaluation, Jeri Greenwell, parent and Maine advocate for the National Meningitis Association; Emily Rines, MPH, CHES Community Impact Director at United Way of Greater Portland, and Stephen Sears, M.D., MPH, Chief of Staff, VA Maine Healthcare Systems and former Maine State Epidemiologist."

The first question was from Vax Maine Kids pretty lady (I really should look up her name, but I don't wanna.  Also she had a great skirt on. *edit: Cassandra Grantham of VaxMaineKids.org) It was about social media.  (Here we go..) How did the internet, etc impact their efforts on vaccine uptake.  Then I had to sit through that, "Oh the horrible internet, blah blah blah conspiracies, yadda yadda, misinformation, The End." discussion.  I refrained from shouting that it was the 21st century and every document ever published (Unless it is covered under National Security... and even a lot of those that are covered under National Security) is on the damn internet, and that poo pooing internet information is now exactly equal to saying, "Don't read books.  Or anything printed.  Or hand written." any time before 1987.

None of them said that they had ever learned anything from the critics of the vaccine program.

(Crap... I just looked at the Vax Maine Kids web site.  I really should not have done that.  Did you know that, "the mercury in the preservative Thimerosal has never been shown to harm children or cause autism?"  Wow!  Not even once!)

It should come as no surprise that reasonableness on the issue was inversely proportional to the age of the panelist.

Small ray of light came from Dr. Blaisdell, who opened with, and repeated often, that she wants open dialog with parents, and does not want to push parents.  But later was discouraged that she repeated the absurdity that, "Aluminum is necessary for human life to function," (No.. it really isn't , its a neurotoxin ); she mocked the use of the word "toxins" (even making air quotes when she said it) telling people in that give me a break, condescending tone, "Please don't listen to people who talk to you about "toxins." (I guess she wants the field of Toxicology to shut down?), and claimed that the Jacobson v. Mass SCOTUS ruling said that states can force people to vaccinate (Clearly the woman has neither read it nor met Mary Holland.)

I had been such a good girl and held my tongue, but apparently I got to the "I feel like I'm taking crazy pills" moment because after Losey said the 25th awful thing (I don't even remember what it was, but I did learn from him that if I didn't like my ruling in the VICP that I could go to civil court and sue the vaccine maker.  He had never heard of Bruesewitz v. Wyeth) I let out a snort that I am sure sounded like an angry horse, and my hand involuntarily shot up (Insert joke about how there is probably a vaccine for that.)

(Seriously... ten years of this crap and they STILL can't get basic information about the real problems right?  They are STILL repeating this garbage? JB Handley made the point many years ago, if peds have not bothered to learn by now, it is their own fault.  They shouldn't be coddled any more.)

The only other audience participation up to that point had been a mom who had of course vaccinated her kids, and wanted to know if Maine's philosophical exemption was making it harder to get kids vaccinated and meet public health goals.  Blaisdell made the point that she didn't know, because detailed records are not kept, and not getting the Hep B is not a problem like not getting the Measles vaccine, but opt out rates are higher in states with those exemptions.  Losey, to his credit, recognized that getting rid of the exemption was impossible in the current climate, as the bills being considered in Augusta are all to loosen their hold on pushing parents to vaccinate, and, for at least now anyway, not gonna happen.

So this is toward the end of the panel discussion, and I just unloaded on them.  And not gracefully either.  The angry, talking 60 miles an hour Ginge burst out of me.  I explained that I was the mother of a vaccine injured child and... blah blah insert my creds here... and watching the movie (that they had all extolled) was hard for me because it contained so much that was false and incomplete and sucky.  (I didn't really say sucky.)

I don't even remember all I said, but I took them on/correct them on many of the things they said.  I do remember saying, in that give me a break, condescending tone, "Do you really think the decline in vaccine uptake is because of one British study that came out 15 years ago."  But the big points that I made where that the film addressed NONE of the reasons that we don't participate in the vaccine program any more, that I was going to go ahead and do a point by point take down of the film when it comes out in wide release, and that this does not even address (because they never address it) the real root of the problem, which is the vaccine injury liability they all have.  Which assures that they will never have to be put under oath to testify and be cross examined on all the stupid things they say. (No I didn't say that last part either.)

So Dr. Blaisdell addressed me very nicely/handled me, and asked me questions, so I was like.. "Fuck it... I am just going to keep talking as long as they will let me," which was a while.  But then she brought it around with a "well what would you recommend for us" giving me a final say... again, good, but totally handling me.

"How could I choose just one thing!" my brain screamed.

So I choose two.  Stop attacking "those people on the internet and listen to them/learn from the professionals/stop calling us anti-vaccine" and "realize that because of the vaccine injury and death liability protection you have, that you live in a bubble, with no accountability for what you say and do, that you get to believe whatever you want to believe about vaccines."

Oh... also they called me "passionate" a lot, which is a polite/dismissive way of noting that I am a super angry woman.  Which I am.

"Oppression makes a wise man mad."

And then I shut up.

And then their tone changed.  They were more balanced, they addressed me directly, and in the wrap up question, they suddenly acknowledged that safety is a problem, that they need to do more to avoid vaccine reactions, and parents like me must be engaged.

Of course we know what people really want, because they actually DO the things that are important to them.

So on the way out I made sure to sign the registry with my contact info, since engaging parents and learning how to avoid vaccine injury is important.  So I'm sure they will call, right?  I am sure my phone will be ringing off the hook tomorrow with questions like, "What are these eighty plus studies you mentioned about vaccine induce autism and their mechanisms?  What are the ways you think vaccine reactions can be avoided?  Where is this information from federal officials on vaccine injuries?  What was that you said about aluminum and the vaccine schedule not being safety tested?"

I think I will clear my schedule tomorrow.  And perhaps Friday in case they want to have lunch and look at my research.

And then I can spend the day surfing facebook because they won't call me.  Or anyone else like me.  Because they never do.  Because they don't have to.  The threat to them for harming children with their mis information and bad practices is not an "invisible threat" it is a non existent threat.

They get to do and believe whatever they want.  The only consequence is the occasional crazy mom showing up to rant at them.

Update!

Check below!  A doc that does what she says she wants... you know... words and actions!  Wow.

Second time evah a doc has actually followed up with me on stuff.  The first was like five years ago, a med student wrote me and said, "I disagree with everthing you say, but I do have one question."  That one question turned into years of conversations long into the beginning of his practice.

UPDATE!!!!

As my regular readers know, last week I suffered and massive brain hemmorage and died after attending a screening "Invisible Threat" a propeganda film made by HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS on the vaccine debate.

Well today, following a touching and heartfelt funeral (seriously guys, I had no idea how insanely you loved me... I was moved) They had to dig me up and readmit me to the emergency room, where I died again, after reading the follow up email I received from the Maine Health Department.

They said if I filled out a survey on the film they would send me my CME credits in two weeks.  FRIGGING CME CREDITS!!!

My next funeral will be held this Saturday at my house.  Bring chocolate chip cookies.

This was my reply:

Ms. Lawson,
After attending this event, I was stunned to get this email.
Let me get this straight... you are giving CME credits to medical professionals for watching a movie made by high school students?  Not medical professionals... minors.  We are talking about children.
Emphasizing... their highest qualification is that they graduated from Jr. High School.
It was FILLED with inaccuracies, partial information and compared people who don't vaccinate to the Taliban, but this is to be used for guidance in how to provide medical care?
How exactly does this qualify as advancing a medical education?  How are they qualified to teach medical professionals?
I await you response,
Ginger Taylor

UPDATE again...

So despite leaving two messages for Dr. Blaisdell in the last three weeks, no response from her.

But you know what I just noticed?  Paul Offit is listed as the "Science Technical Adviser" on the film.  But don't worry... just because the vaccine industry's defacto salesperson, who has made millions off his own vaccine patent is the guy providing them technical science advice, does NOT mean that this is unbiased.

Just to emphasize... Offit is in the movie, he is the guy who shaped the movie, and he also reviewed the movie.  JOURNALISM!!!

Final update:

Blaisdell never made good on her invite to talk.

It took me a full month to figure out why I was so incredibly angry at this documentary, when we face this kind of schlock so often that we are kinda desensitized to it.  It was because they are using kids to sell dangerous drugs to other kids.  No better than street corner drug dealers.

I Refuse To Be Enlisted Into The "Mommy Wars"

So the attack on vaccine resistant parents in the media this "autism awareness month" has been nothing like any of us has ever seen before.  Even Paul Offit has taken a departure from his oh so laid back and wise doctor act to get nasty on us.  Pharma needs not only for parents to be ok with the current recommended schedule, but to be open to the open ended vaccine schedule that will include the 200 or so vaccines they have in their development pipeline.  They do not want to come to terms with the fact that their market has reached it saturation point and it is all downhill from here for their vaccine profits.

So because they could not sell us, and because they could not bully us, they have now taken the tack of getting us to bully us.  As Meghan at LivingWhole.org so succinctly put it in her piece The Hate Debate, "...whether or not we vaccinate is now part of the “Mommy Wars.”  Setting mother against mother, to bully them into violating their evolutionary and God given instincts on how to protect their child, to do what Pharma says instead.

" As if mothers didn’t have enough things to be divided over, you’ve made it so that wherever we go be it daycares, schools, or playgroups we are ridiculed, judged, shunned, and our children as a whole are blamed for the re-emergence of diseases that never left and for spreading diseases they’ve never had. You made this a “Mommy War” issue when you somehow insinuated that a woman isn’t a good mother unless she vaccinates her child. You made this a mommy issue when I had to kneel down and explain to my three-year-old child why she was being discriminated against. You made this a mommy issue when you supported and promoted the following hateful belief system:

 “[On the topic of vaccines.] We owe it to our children–all of our children–to speak out against this dangerous and misguided parenting choice before more are infected with horrifying diseases that were extinguished decades ago. Choosing not to vaccinate is not yet another anodyne trend in personal parenting. It’s not a quirk; it’s a menace—and a growing one at that.” – Bethany via the Federalist Papers

 You know what makes a good mother, one who actually educates herself, questions what is put into her child’s body and makes an informed decision (whether she chooses to vaccinate or not). Call me a menace, call me a misguided parent, and blame me for spreading “horrifying diseases” that are actually neither horrifying nor extinguished. If it makes you feel better to fuel fire and spread hate than by all means proceed, as it doesn’t make your side of the movement look very good. I will neither hate nor discriminate against a mother’s decision on the issue of vaccination. No, I will not be part of the hate debate."

So I am here to say that I refuse to participate in the "Mommy Wars."  It would be very easy for me to judge parents who are not treating their child's "autism" medically, but I have no right.  Just as no one else has the right to judge me for my vaccine decisions.  

So if you see a child being physically abused by their parents, or cases of neglect where they are not being fed, clothed, housed and placed under the care of a health care provider, then please call child protective services and express your concern.  But if you just don't agree with a parents medical choices, especially because some crap mass media outlet dripping in pharma ads has tried to turn you into the vaccine patrol, time to take a deep breath, deprogram yourself, and stand down.

I support autism families who choose not to do biomed.  It is hard for me, it is not my choice, it is not what I want for their children, but I KNOW that it is not my decision to make for that child.  It is theirs.  And I have NO INTENTION on making their life harder, or even making them feel pressured, to do something that they are not comfortable with. 

I am horrified that any mother could write the things that I am seeing online to the effect of, "if they don't vaccinate they should have their kids taken away from them."  That is just flat out evil.  How any mother could wish that on another is horrifying.  I started my career in child protective services as a case worker, and even the abusive and neglectful parents... I was still rooting for them to get their crap together and be able to parent their children again.  It only happened in one of my cases in two years, but it still makes my cry when I think about that mother who was able to step up and be there for her daughter again.

I don't ever want to see a family ripped apart because of their medical choices.  And I don't want to make people feel bad for their earnest decisions.

With other autism moms, I listen like a friend, if I have something that might help them with what they are struggling with, I usually say something like, "I know of some new medical interventions that might help with his aggression/tummy trouble/attentional issues/etc, so lemme know if you are interested in exploring any of them," and then I leave it at that.  And if they never bring anything up, I don't either.  If they don't want to talk about their aggressive vaccine choioces, then I don't either.  And I support them in their parenting.

Are you a mommy?  Then I support you and want you to have the best chance at raising your little ones that you know better than anyone. 

I am not going to participate in the "Mommy Wars."

Annual Birthday Fundraiser

As today is my 29th... I mean 34th birthday, I will celebrate me by focusing on me. 

If my work 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.  

New Years To Do: Opt Out of Your State Vaccine Database

Today the Washington Post printed a story entitled, "2013 is the year that proved your ‘paranoid’ friend right."  So now that we are all on the same page that the US government is completely run amok, is all up in in everyone's business, and that those of us who trusted that it would look out for our own good (rather than the corporate $$$ interests of their donors or their own profit and power) were naive babies... and that none of the three branches give a crap that you don't like what they are doing... let's look forward to how to avoid the next thing that they are gonna do to piss people off.  That right now... of course... we are called crazy for considering might become a possibility.

THE COMING VACCINE PUSH!  (who are we kidding... they are constantly pushing...)

Paul Offit, Pharma Face for Vaccines, of course, has been telegraphing this for years.  Pharma goes, "what completely insane thing do we wanna do that we know we will never get away with?"  Then they tell Offit to write about that thing, then they get their blogdoggies to push that thing, cause God Offit said the thing, then five years later, they are actually pushing the thing out in the open like it is totally sane and people in positions of power to make that thing happen are all... "well yeah... we should do that thing!  People have been talking about it for years!"  (As they cash the Pharma check.)

We are in the middle of such a thing now.  Three years ago Offit was quoted in The Lancet suggesting that parents must complete an education program (to of course tell them what a bad choice they are making) before having the right to opt out of vaccinating their children.

“Offit suggests one way to raise vaccination rates is to make it harder for people not to get themselves or their children vaccinated. This could mean, for example, attending educational classes that teach the public what the safety profiles of different vaccines are, before they are allowed to opt out of vaccination. “You have to convince people that a choice not to get a vaccine is not a risk-free choice; it’s just a choice to take a different risk.”

Jump ahead two years, and what do you know...  a pediatrician in the legislature, backed by AAP and every Pharma whore ever... introduces AB2109 in California, requiring that parents must complete an education program (to of course tell them what a bad choice they are making) before having the right to opt out of vaccinating their children.  Apparently they had been lobbying for it quietly for at least a year, so by the time it came up for a vote, parents were too late to get legislators on their side.

One year later... what's that Paul Offit?  You are teaching an online education program to tell parents what a bad choice they are making if they opt out of vaccinating?  YOU DON'T SAY?!  Wow... who saw that coming!



How long before these all merge and you have to take Offit's propeganda course before you are ALLOWED to make decisions on what goes into your own body or the bodies of your children in your state/school system/medical practice/profession?  Stay tuned to find out.

So let's stop being niave and pretending these things happen organically, rather than being planned in marketing boardrooms years in advance.

On to state vaccine registries.

While no one was noticing... all fifty states set up databases of who has and has not been vaccinated with what.  And yes you and your kids are probably in there.

"Ginger, that's crazy!  We have medical privacy... surely that would violate our privacy rights!"

"Wake up and smell the 1984," I say.

Here is the CDC's master list of all the state databases: CDC Immunization Information Systems (IIS)

Here is my state's information on the program:  ImmPact:  Maine Immunization Information System

Here is what the program is for:

Intent:  The Immunization Information System is intended to be a repository for accurate and up to date immunization records for all persons born, residing, or receiving vaccine in the State of Maine. The primary purpose of the system is to collect data related to vaccine administration, and to promote effective and cost efficient prevention of vaccine preventable diseases.

Note the language, "all persons."  That is me and us and everyone here.

Here is how the program works:

4.         Establishment Of The Immunization Information System:

            A.        All children born in Maine and registered in the Electronic Birth Certificate system shall have their demographic data entered into the Immunization Information System (hereinafter referred to as the “IIS”).

            B.         The Department may use any birth record, Medicaid record, school record, or immunization record for the purposes of obtaining an individual’s Immunization and Demographic Information and entering that Information into the IIS.

            C.         An Immunization Provider who administers immunizations with vaccines provided by the Department shall record or report all immunizations administered directly into the Immunization Information System, or through other methods as approved by the Department, within five (5) working days of administering the immunization.

            D.        All Patients will be informed during an initial immunization encounter with an Immunization Provider of the inclusion of their immunization record and demographic information into the IIS, and will be provided with the opportunity to opt-out of the IIS. All Patients will automatically have their immunization and demographic information maintained in the IIS, unless a Patient states in writing on a form prescribed by the Department, that he or she wants to opt out of the IIS.

Note that they are supposed to tell you this ahead of time, and that if you don't want in, you have to opt out. (Hey Mainers... do you even know about this database?)

Here is the bit on confidentiality:

5.         Confidentiality Of The Immunization Information System

            A.        Identifying information contained in the IIS shall only be disclosed to Authorized Users and the individual that it identifies, except in the case of an authorized exchange (as specified in Section 10-C), or in the event of a public health emergency, as defined by statute.

            B.         Authorized Users must sign a user agreement in a form prescribed by the Department that sets forth the terms for using the IIS. Any such Agreement shall include a confidentiality clause, as well as provisions related to penalties for unauthorized disclosure.

            C.         Authorized Users shall not disclose information from the IIS about an individual except to another Authorized User when allowed by these rules, or by state and federal laws addressing patient confidentiality.

Isn't that Adorable?!  (Must have been written before 2012.)

You can read all the rules here.

Who cares if they know exactly what vaccines you and your kids have had?  Well this is where a little clause in the Obamacare law can make things relevant to your interests (emphasis mine):

H.R. 3590 An Act Entitled The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, 
TITLE IV, 
Subtitle C-Creating Healthier Communities, 
section 4204,  Immunizations, 
(b):Demonstration Program To Improve Immunization Coverage-
‘(1) IN GENERAL- The Secretary, acting through the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, shall establish a demonstration program to award grants to States to improve the provision of recommended immunizations for children, adolescents, and adults through the use of evidence-based, population-based interventions for high-risk populations.
‘(2) STATE PLAN- To be eligible for a grant under paragraph (1), a State shall submit to the Secretary an application at such time, in such manner, and containing such information as the Secretary may require, including a State plan that describes the interventions to be implemented under the grant and how such interventions match with local needs and capabilities, as determined through consultation with local authorities.
‘(3) USE OF FUNDS- Funds received under a grant under this subsection shall be used to implement interventions that are recommended by the Task Force on Community Preventive Services (as established by the Secretary, acting through the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) or other evidence-based interventions, including--
‘(A) providing immunization reminders or recalls for target populations of clients, patients, and consumers;
‘(B) educating targeted populations and health care providers concerning immunizations in combination with one or more other interventions;
‘(C) reducing out-of-pocket costs for families for vaccines and their administration;
‘(D) carrying out immunization-promoting strategies for participants or clients of public programs, including assessments of immunization status, referrals to health care providers, education, provision of on-site immunizations, or incentives for immunization;
‘(E) providing for home visits that promote immunization through education, assessments of need, referrals, provision of immunizations, or other services;
‘(F) providing reminders or recalls for immunization providers;
‘(G) conducting assessments of, and providing feedback to, immunization providers;
‘(H) any combination of one or more interventions described in this paragraph; or
‘(I) immunization information systems to allow all States to have electronic databases for immunization records.

States will be given money to come to your house and give your children their "recommended" vaccines.  (One bully school system already tried it, took a local news crew along to film it, and they both were sued for it. Video here.)

You know what states love?  Money.

Federal Government: "Hey State....  Wanna million dollars to count the number of dots on all the backs of all the salmon in your state?"

State:  "Sure... why not

Federal Government: "What about ten million for a door to door vaccination program?"

State:  "Hell, yeah!"

The only thing preventing all states from asking for this cash for door to door vaccination?  The fear of doors slammed in faces and angry voters calling to yell at the Governor VaxALot.

But I am sure there will be a campaign on the way to get people to accept that too.

So in the mean time.  Contact your state IIS and get your names off the database.

ADDENDUM:

Some have asked about how to opt out.  Check with your state.  Here is how to do it in Maine:

6.         Individual’s Right To Opt Out Of The Immunization Information System             A.        Any individual may choose to be excluded from the IIS, thereby limiting future access to his or her Immunization Records and Demographic Information from the IIS, by submitting a signed and witnessed document to his or her Immunization Provider on a form prescribed by the Department. The Department’s form shall contain, at a minimum, the following information:                         (1)        the Patient’s name;                         (2)        the Patient’s address;                         (3)        the Patient’s date of birth;                         (4)        the Patient’s signature;                         (5)        the Witness’s signature                         (6)        the Patient’s reason for the requested exclusion; and                         (7)        the Department address.             B.         The Patient is responsible for notifying any Immunization Provider at each encounter of the decision to be excluded from the IIS. No Immunization Provider or health plan shall be liable for entering a previously excluded Patient into the Registry if that Patient did not provide that Immunization Provider or health plan with written notice of the exclusion. This rule does not relieve the excluded Patient from the obligation to comply with current immunization requirements set forth in State Law.             C.         Upon being notified that a Patient wants to be excluded from the IIS, the Immunization Provider is responsible for opting out that Patient from the IIS, and continues to be responsible for the maintenance of appropriate immunization record keeping for the Patient.             D.        In the event that an individual does not have an Immunization Provider, that Patient shall notify the Department directly in writing on the prescribed form of his or her decision to be excluded from the IIS.

Vaccine Trials Course at Johns Hopkins University, Institute of Higher Brain Washing. I Mean... Learning.

So biomed mom Shannon Strayhorn took a class on from my alma mater, Johns Hopkins University, on vaccine trials.  She offers us a little insight into the brain washing that is taking place inside the halls of "higher learning."

So I took a class this summer from Johns Hopkins on VAX trials.  The class was "Vaccine Trials: Methods and Best Practice".  I started taking as many vaccine/health/eviro health classes as possible because I think we need to approach the subject from every imaginable way. Knowing what is being taught and what kind of conversations are bring had is important to being able to provide truth in a public way. Of course every time I said something they would say it has to be backed up with science (I had all the links on there).

They would not read them. Then they would respond that they needed to be peer reviewed medical/science papers (they were if they bothered to read). Then without reading they would repeat again that there is no science.

I would bang my head and once again share all the links (pages of them). Then I would get "well millions of them couldn't possibly be wrong" (Ha!).
In response of course I asked them to read the science and feel free to counter it with their own to prove me wrong (none could or did-not one paper). So then they would give me their resumes...blablabla...I have a PhD, I work in the industry, etc.

So of course I shut up...NOT!

I kindly said while I am soooooo impressed with their degrees and careers that I find it scary that someone so educated could in fact get to that point considering they couldn't even be bothered to read the science, and couldn't counter one little mom like myself. I asked if it was necessary to post my resume too? I was told we are just parents who are so clueless and don't understand what the difference is between causation and correlation, that the discussion was going to be stopped because it was off topic, and that it wasn't necessary to counter what I shared because the science was in and definite. Definitely in.

Bahahaha....oh it is in....but it is clearly not showing what they want!

It was completely out of their typical playbook:

1. Deny science.
2. Pretend parents are dumb.
3. Make it all about Wakefield and say things he never said.
4. Pretend no other science exists.
5. Use your PhD to convince people they must believe you because you are smarter.
6. When panicked reference their idol Offit.
7. Deny any corruption or financial ties unless you need to defend why you think Wakefield was wrong in which case that is allowed.
8. Claim correlation and say how you understand the stupid parents are desperate and how bad you feel for not having answers and in same breathe say they must not understand science.
9. Deny any and all proof that pharma has a history of lies and corruption and if someone points that way redirect and say how awesome of a job you do taking safety as the priority.
10. Pretend you have no idea who Thorsen is or if pressed claim it doesn't matter.
11. Use terms like "studies in other countries" (because people won't know) or say crap like "mercury has been removed" (use MMR because you think that is what we want to hear) or if all else fails talk about antigens.
12. Blame parents.
13. Accuse parents of following newspapers, and celebrities.
14. Repeat there is no science.
15. Repeat your degree.

Oh and i totally fell for that too....because you know I am just another desperate, uneducated, Mom, who clearly knows nothing. Bring it on!!

Just for the record I will say that the discussion is mostly driven by those enrolled and the instructors mainly just redirected and said these subjects where off topic although we did get into it over the idea that the science is "in". The peers if you will, carried the wonderful condescending comments. The class itself was not very controversial and really about just what "should be done and how in trials" and other than the discussions and a few things I personally didn't agree with, it was not a bad class and actually refreshing seeing a different side (by the books without corruption-the way things should be!

P.S. Ended with a 98% in the class.  No clue how that is possible when I am so dumb.

 Seems they just wander around campus repeating, "There is no science. There is no science. There is no science."  Sorry to break it to ya... but there is more than just a little bit of science.

No wonder it is getting so easy for us to do this work.  They just get more and more absurd.

Course info:

Vaccine Trials: Methods and Best Practices

Karen R. Charron, BSN, MPH, CCRC

Associate Lecturer

Center for Immunization Research

Amber Bickford Cox, MPH, CCRC

Research Associate

Center for Immunization Research

This course will explore the process of evaluating investigational vaccines in clinical trials including informed consent, recruitment, enrollment, safety evaluation, and quality data collection.

About the Course

Vaccines are evaluated through a series of clearly defined controlled studies to assess these investigational products for safety, immunogenicity and efficacy before they are approved for licensure.  All clinical vaccine trials are bound by international ethical guidelines and, in the case of US trials, Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations.

Good Clinical Practice is defined by the International Conferences on Harmonization (ICH) as: “A standard for the design, conduct, performance, monitoring, auditing, recording, analysis, and reporting of clinical trials that provides assurance that the data and reported results are credible and accurate, and that the rights, integrity and confidentiality of trial subjects are protected.”

That’s a tall order, so how is it done?  Individuals who enroll as subjects in these trials play an essential role in the development and evaluation of new and improved candidate vaccines.  They are average citizens who volunteer to roll up their sleeves and, in the process, make a tremendous difference in society.  So why do they volunteer and what safeguards do we put in place to protect their rights, safety and well-being while in the trial?  What are the responsibilities of the investigators, sponsors and ethics committees who conduct and oversee these trials? 

Along with our colleagues, we will introduce you to how GCP is applied in clinical vaccine trials to ensure proper and ethical scientific conduct. The course will use examples from real vaccine trials to demonstrate the application of the FDA Code of Federal Regulations and ICH GCP Guidelines to explore methods and best practices involved in implementing phase I and II vaccine clinical trials.  This short course offering through Coursera is based on our work at the Center for Immunization Research and an in-depth graduate course taught at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

We hope it inspires you to work in this exciting field.

Course Syllabus

This course will cover the following topics: A brief review of vaccine history and types; how vaccine trials are conducted, including which data are collected and how those data are managed and evaluated; appropriate processes to ensure human subjects protection and informed consent; methods for recruitment and enrollment of participants; and vaccine safety assessment. Upon successfully completing this course, students will be able to:

Describe the types of vaccines in use today

Describe how vaccines are evaluated in phase I and II clinical trials

Identify key regulatory requirements, considerations and ethical standards for human subjects protection and informed consent. 

Discuss how clinical trials are conducted with an emphasis on quality data and protection of the rights, safety and well-being of volunteers.

Recommended Background

The pre-requisite for this class is a basic understanding of vaccines.  For those without this background, the CDC Epidemiology and Prevention of Vaccine-Preventable Diseases (Pink book) is an available resource providing information on routinely used vaccines and the diseases they prevent! http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/index.html.

A course on Vaccines is also taught by Paul Offit through Coursera which may be helpful to those enrolling in this course but is not required. 

Course Format

The course will involve weekly lectures followed by a short assessment assignment.

FAQ

Who should enroll in this course?

The audience for this class includes: Those currently working in clinical trials, pre-clinical development, regulatory and ethical review of research and students of public health, medicine, nursing, and biological sciences

Do I need a textbook for this course?

All the material needed for this course can be found on the web or within the lectures. The course will reference the US Code of Federal Regulations 21 CFR 50, 56 and 312 and the ICH Standards of Good Clinical Practice E6. You can also find electronic versions on the web. USFDA and ICH GCP E6. For those with strong interest in this field, we recommend that you purchase a printed GCP reference book at www.clinicalresearchresources.com.

Syllabus

Course Schedule

- Week 1

Course Overview (Karen Charron and Amber Cox)

Lecture 1: Type of Vaccines, How Vaccines are Administered, and the Vaccine Development Process (Neal Halsey)

Lecture 2: Essential Elements of a Vaccine Protocol (Karen Charron)

- Week 2

Lecture 3: Characteristics and Outcomes of Vaccine Trials (Clayton Harro)

Lecture 4: Protection of Human Subjects (Amber Cox)

- Week 3

Lecture 5: Vaccine Trials in Pediatric Populations (Elizabeth Schappell)

Lecture 6: Vaccine Management and Preparation (Hye Kim and Vivian Rexroad)

- Week 4

Lecture 7: Data Management, Quality Assurance, and Quality Control (Karen Charron)

- Week 5

Lecture 8: Community Involvement and Recruitment (James Williams)

Lecture 9: Study Start-Up and Implementation (Karen Charron)

- Week 6

Lecture 10: Screening Volunteers (Karen Charron)

Lecture 11: Enrollment and Implementation Procedures (Karen Charron)

- Week 7

Lecture 12: Safety Assessments and Management of Adverse Events (Anna Durbin)

CDC No Longer Denying Vaccine/Autism Link?

So the Actual Reporter, eagle eye Sharyll Attkisson posted this note on her facebook page... and apparently CDC has had the following on their autism page on the CDC web site for 18 months:

Causes and Risk Factors

We do not know all of the causes of ASDs. However, we have learned that there are likely many causes for multiple types of ASDs. There may be many different factors that make a child more likely to have an ASD, including environmental, biologic and genetic factors.

• Most scientists agree that genes are one of the risk factors that can make a person more likely to develop an ASD.
• Children who have a sibling or parent with an ASD are at a higher risk of also having an ASD.
• ASDs tend to occur more often in people who have certain genetic or chromosomal conditions. About 10% of children with ASDs also have been identified as having Down syndrome, fragile X syndrome, tuberous sclerosis, or other genetic and chromosomal disorders.
• When taken during pregnancy, the prescription drugs valproic acid and thalidomide have been linked with a higher risk of ASDs.
• We know that the once common belief that poor parenting practices cause ASDs is not true.
• There is some evidence that the critical period for developing ASDs occurs before birth. However, concerns about vaccines and infections have led researchers to consider risk factors before and after birth.
• A small percentage of children who are born prematurely or with low birthweight are at greater risk for having ASDs.

ASDs continue to be an important public health concern. Like the many families living with ASDs, CDC wants to find out what causes the disorder. Understanding the risk factors that make a person more likely to develop an ASD will help us learn more about the causes. We are currently working on one of the largest U.S. studies to date, called Study to Explore Early Development (SEED). SEED is looking at many possible risk factors for ASDs, including genetic, environmental, pregnancy, and behavioral factors.

I laughed when I first read that bullet point I highlighted.  Took a team of lawyers to craft that one, now didn't it!

Screen shot for posterity.  Full size here.