Looks Like Autism Speaks is Faking Us Out Again

Autism Speaks, who we in the biomed community have been praising in the last few weeks for beginning to put money into researching the treatments that are actually helping our kids, might just be doing it for show.

The Rescue Post is reporting that rumors point to Eric London of NAAR being put in charge of the biomed research at AS. This would turn the program into an instant joke.

If this happens, we can all just close the door on AS and move on with our lives.

Read the Post article. And the rest of them while you are at it. Blogging will continue to be light here for a while. But they are consistently on the ball.

CDC Schedule: 43 vaccines in the first 18 months

For those of you keeping track, Hep A and Rotovirus have been added to the CDC schedule for 2007 and we are now up to 43 vaccines in the first 18 months of life.

Would you want 43 vaccines over the course of the next 18 months?

UPDATE: I forgot the flu shot! So with the prenatal and yearly flu shots that are recommended, the total is actually at 46.

Tonsil Removal May Cure ADHD in Kids

Huh. Who'da thunk it?

Tonsil removal may cure ADHD behavior in kids
10:59 PM CDT on Saturday, August 11, 2007
Contra Costa County Times

TUCSON, Ariz. — Little T.J. was a monster. There's no other way to say it.

Extremely hyperactive, the toddler ran around in circles, destroying everything in his path. He got kicked out of day care and banned from friends' homes.

His own grandmother called the 2-year-old a "monster." Friends told his family that T.J. — short for Terence Johnson — was destined to be "the next serial killer."

"He was so out of control, I was at my wits' end," said his mother, Heather Norton. "It is hurtful to realize nobody likes your child."

That was then. Today, as T.J. gets ready to turn 3, he is a changed boy. Lively, to be sure, but affectionate instead of mean.

"It's a total turnaround — this is a different child," Ms. Norton said. "Everybody notices the difference."

A frontal lobotomy? Electroshock therapy? Powerful drugs?

No, T.J. had his tonsils out.

The removal of a child's tonsils can, in some cases, significantly improve, even cure, severe hyperactivity often diagnosed as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

Now affecting more than 2 million U.S. children, ADHD most often is treated with psychoactive drugs, sometimes for a lifetime.

But in some children, simply removing the tonsils also has removed the diagnosis, by restoring normal behavior.

"Sometimes you get really great results, sometimes you see partial results in these children," said Dr. Damian Parkinson, the psychiatrist who suggested T.J.'s behavior might be related to his tonsils.

The key to making that connection is how the child sleeps. Snoring, restlessness, apnea, and gasping for breath during the night are clearly linked to hyperactive daytime behavior in very young children. And enlarged or infected tonsils and adenoids — immune-related tissue masses in the throat — most often are the cause of "sleep-disordered breathing."

In one recent study, at the University of Michigan, 22 children with ADHD and sleep-disordered breathing had adenotonsillectomies. After one year, 11 no longer battled ADHD.

"These improvements are remarkable because hyperactivity and inattention generally are expected to be chronic features in affected school-age children," the researchers wrote in a report published last year in Pediatrics.

As a result of this and other recent studies, "doctors conducting healthy-child checkups should always ask about snoring, poor sleep, behavioral and learning problems, and look for physical signs such as enlarged tonsils and adenoids," reads a summary published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in June.

Johnson & Johnson Shows Their True Colors

These guys are unbelievable.

Newsflash for J&J:

In the hearts and minds of everyone on this planet, this logo:



Means the Red Cross. Your piece of paper will never make it mean Johnson & Johnson.

This logo:



Is the only one that means Johnson & Johnson. But you already know that. I know that you know that because it is the only one on your web site. I can't find the red cross anywhere on it.

I didn't even know you guys had a red cross as your logo until you filed this lawsuit. Great PR move though. I guess you picked the Red Cross to sue because Mother Theresa was dead?

Just change your damn logo and let the Red Cross go back to driving into war zones to save lives.

Selfish idiots.

I plan to purge my house of all J&J products today.

UPDATE:

HA!

"In a related story, rumors persist that Johnson & Johnson is considering a similar suit against the Catholic Church, as well as major Christian denominations, who persist in using the company's trademark cross in their religious ceremonies."

UPDATE:

My cute husband's comment, "In other legal news, the Cavemen from the Geico ad file a law suit against Ford Motor company claiming that Ford has infringed upon their claim to the invention of "The Wheel®".

Pharmaceutical giant sues Red Cross over logo
By David Crary, Associated Press

Johnson & Johnson, the pharmaceutical giant that uses a red cross as its trademark, sued the American Red Cross on Wednesday, demanding that the charity halt the use of the red cross symbol on products that it sells to the public.

NEW YORK - Johnson & Johnson, the pharmaceutical giant that uses a red cross as its trademark, sued the American Red Cross on Wednesday, demanding that the charity halt the use of the red cross symbol on products that it sells to the public.

Johnson & Johnson said that it has had exclusive rights to use the trademark on certain commercial products -- including bandages and first-aid cream -- for more than 100 years.

It contends that the Red Cross is supposed to use the symbol only in connection with nonprofit relief services.

The suit, filed in U.S. District Court in New York, marked the breakdown of months of behind-the-scenes negotiations and prompted an angry response from the Red Cross.

"For a multibillion-dollar drug company to claim that the Red Cross violated a criminal statute ... simply so that J&J can make more money, is obscene," Red Cross President Mark Everson said.

Johnson & Johnson began using the red cross design as a trademark in 1887 -- six years after the creation of the American Red Cross but before the organization received its congressional charter in 1900. The lawsuit contends that the charter did not empower the Red Cross to engage in commercial activities competing with a private business.

"After more than a century of strong cooperation in the use of the Red Cross trademark ... we were very disappointed to find that the American Red Cross started a campaign to license the trademark to several businesses for commercial purposes," Johnson & Johnson said in a prepared statement.

It said the products include baby mitts, nail clippers, combs, toothbrushes, hand sanitizers and humidifiers.

The Red Cross said that many of the products in question were part of health and safety kits, and that profits from the sales -- totaling less than $10 million -- went to boost Red Cross disaster-response efforts.

The suit asks the Red Cross to turn over the products in question to New Brunswick, N.J.-based Johnson & Johnson for destruction and also seeks unspecified punitive damages.

"The Red Cross products that J&J wants to take away from consumers ... are those that help Americans get prepared for life's emergencies," Everson said. "I hope that the courts and Congress will not allow Johnson & Johnson to bully the American Red Cross."

Fisher-Price Recalls Toys for Lead

Seriously? We took the lead out of life like 30 years ago. Why are we suddenly sliding back into this. First lunch boxes, then Thomas the Train, and now Big Bird and Dora.

[see update at bottom. Head of Chinese company that supplied the toys committed suicide. Paint supplied by his best friend. It is so sad to see how many lives are destroyed by people who cheat just to make a few bucks.]

Fisher-Price to recall nearly 1M toys
By ANNE D'INNOCENZIO and NATASHA T. METZLER,
Associated Press Writers Wed Aug 1, 9:33 PM ET

WASHINGTON - Toy-maker Fisher-Price is recalling 83 types of toys — including the popular Big Bird, Elmo, Dora and Diego characters — because their paint contains excessive amounts of lead.

The worldwide recall being announced Thursday involves 967,000 plastic preschool toys made by a Chinese vendor and sold in the United States between May and August. It is the latest in a wave of recalls that has heightened global concern about the safety of Chinese-made products.

The recall is the first for Fisher-Price Inc. and parent company Mattel Inc. involving lead paint. It is the largest for Mattel since 1998 when Fisher-Price had to yank about 10 million Power Wheels from toy stores.

In an interview with The Associated Press on Wednesday, David Allmark, general manager of Fisher-Price, said the problem was detected by an internal probe and reported to the Consumer Product Safety Commission. The recall is particularly alarming since Mattel, known for its strict quality controls, is considered a role model in the toy industry for how it operates in China.

Fisher-Price and the commission issued statements saying parents should keep suspect toys away from children and contact the company.

The commission works with companies to issue recalls when it finds consumer goods that can be harmful. Under current regulations, children's products found to have more than .06 percent lead accessible to users are subject to a recall.

Allmark says the recall was "fast-tracked," which allowed the company to quarantine two-thirds of the toys before they even made it to store shelves. In negotiating details of the recall, Fisher-Price and the government sought to withhold details from the public until Thursday to give stores time to get suspect toys off shelves and Fisher-Price time to get its recall hot line up and running. However, some news organizations prematurely posted an embargoed version of the story online.

Allmark said the recall was troubling because Fisher-Price has had a long-standing relationship with the Chinese vendor, which had applied decorative paint to the toys. Allmark said the company would use this recall as an opportunity to put even better systems in place to monitor vendors whose conduct does not meet Mattel's standards.

He added: "We are still concluding the investigation, how it happened. ... But there will be a dramatic investigation on how this happened. We will learn from this."

The recall follows another high-profile move from toy maker RC2 Corp., which in June voluntarily recalled 1.5 million wooden railroad toys and set parts from its Thomas & Friends Wooden Railway product line. The company said that the surface paint on certain toys and parts made in China between January 2005 and April 2006 contain lead, affecting 26 components and 23 retailers.

"Anytime a company brings a banned hazardous product into the U.S. marketplace, especially one intended for children, it is unacceptable," said Nancy Nord, acting chair of the Consumer Product Safety Commission. "Ensuring that Chinese-made toys are safe for U.S. consumers is one of my highest priorities and is the subject of vital talks currently in place between CPSC and the Chinese government."

Carter Keithley, president of the Toy Industries Association, praised Mattel's quick response to the problem, and suggested Mattel will use this setback as a lesson for not only the company but for the entire industry. However, he expressed concern about how the recall and other toy recalls will play out in consumers' minds in advance of the holiday season.

"We are worried about the public feeling," said Keithley, adding he observed how toy companies are embracing strict controls during a recent toy safety seminar in China. "We have thought all along that (consumers) can be confident in the products," he said. "But if companies like Mattel have this, then you have to ask how did this happen?"

Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., introduced a bill last month that he contended would dramatically expand the product safety commission's ability to protect consumers. In a statement Wednesday night, Durbin also called for better safety standards for products imported from China.

"Sadly, this is the most recent in a series of disturbing recalls of children's toys. While the toys may be different, they have one thing in common — they were manufactured in China," he said. "With the current tools and resources the Consumer Product Safety Commission has, it cannot adequately protect American consumers."

Owners of a recalled toy can exchange it for a voucher for another product of the same value. To see pictures of the recalled toys, visit http://www.service.mattel.com. For more information, call Mattel's recall hot line at 800-916-4498.

UPDATE:

China toy boss kills self after recall
By AUDRA ANG, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 15 minutes ago

BEIJING - The head of a Chinese toy manufacturing company at the center of a huge U.S. recall has committed suicide, a state-run newspaper said Monday.

Zhang Shuhong, who co-owned Lee Der Industrial Co. Ltd., killed himself at a warehouse over the weekend, days after China announced it had temporarily banned exports by the company, the Southern Metropolis Daily said.

Lee Der made 967,000 toys recalled earlier this month by Mattel Inc. because they were made with paint found to have excessive amounts of lead. The plastic preschool toys, sold under the Fisher-Price brand in the U.S., included the popular Big Bird, Elmo, Dora and Diego characters.

It was among the largest recalls in recent months involving Chinese products, which have come under fire for globally for containing potentially dangerous high levels of chemicals and toxins.

The Southern Metropolis Daily said that a supplier, Zhang's best friend, sold Lee Der fake paint which was used in the toys.

"The boss and the company were harmed by the paint supplier, the closest friend of our boss," a manager surnamed Liu was quoted as saying.

Liu said Zhang hung himself on Saturday, according to the report. It is common for disgraced officials to commit suicide in China.

"When I got there around 5 p.m., police had already sealed off the area," Liu said.

A company official who answered the telephone at the Lee Der factory in the southern city of Foshan on Monday said he had not heard of the news. A man at Lee Der's main office in Hong Kong said the company was not accepting interviews and hung up.

According to a search on a registry of Hong Kong companies, Zhang — whose name is spelled Cheung Shu-hung in official documents — is a co-owner of Lee Der. The other owner, Chiu Kwei-tsun, did not return telephone messages left for him.

The recall by El Segundo, California-based Mattel came just two months after RC2 Corp., a New York company, recalled 1.5 million Chinese-made wooden railroad toys and set parts from its Thomas & Friends Wooden Railway product line because of lead paint.

The maker, Hansheng Wood Products Factory, was also included in the export ban announced Thursday by the General Administration for Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine, one of China's quality watchdogs.

The administration also ordered both companies to evaluate and change their business practices.

Lead poisoning can cause vomiting, anemia and learning difficulties. In extreme cases, it can cause severe neurological damage and death.

The quality watchdog also said police were investigating two companies' use of "fake plastic pigment" but did not give any details. Such pigments are a type of industrial latex usually used to increase surface gloss and smoothness.

Telephones rang unanswered at the public security bureau in Foshan and at Dongxing New Energy Company, which is the paint supplier.

In its report, the Southern Metropolis Daily said Zhang, who was in his 50s, treated his 5,000-odd employees well and always paid them on time.

The morning of his suicide, he greeted workers and chatted with some of them, the newspaper said.

Chinese companies often have long supply chains, making it difficult to trace the exact origin of components, chemicals and food additives.

Ritalin For Infants

Good God. I will have to look it up, but I am pretty sure this is one of the signs of the end times.

GPs 'Giving Ritalin to Babies Under A Year Old'
By PAUL SIMS
30th July 2007
Daily Mail

Thousands of children are needlessly being prescribed mind-altering powerful drugs for hyperactivity, according to opposition MPs.

Research suggests that some GPs are even handing out Ritalin pills to children under a year old.

Almost 400,000 youngsters aged between five and 19 are being treated with Ritalin and similar drugs for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, or ADHD, despite fears about the drugs' side-effects.

The Conservative Party says the number of prescriptions for behavioural problems has risen by 156 per cent in the last six years.

Those diagnosed with ADHD often display disruptive behaviour and have difficulty paying attention to specific tasks.

In the last five years alone, NHS spending on stimulant drugs such as Ritalin has trebled - despite concerns over the potential health risks.

Official guidelines recommend drug treatment only for the most severely affected children. But the Tories claim that Ritalin and similar drugs are being prescribed to those with mild symptoms.

A formal diagnosis of ADHD should take many hours, but they say some GPs are prescribing powerful drugs after brief consultations.

This is despite reports of sideeffects such as cardiovascular disorders, hallucinations and even suicidal thoughts.

At least nine deaths have been reported to the UK's Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency since Ritalin became available in the early 1990s. Shadow Commons leader Theresa May said: "They are powerful prescription drugs and we don't know what their long-term effects are. Despite this, they are being given to children before they are a year old.

"I have no doubt that there are children in the UK with ADHD who will benefit from Ritalin.

"But the increase of prescriptions raises questions in my mind as to whether it is being prescribed properly in each and every case.

"A six-year-old who was prescribed Ritalin experienced low moods and marked depression and tried to throw himself out of a window within two months of starting treatment. He recovered after drug withdrawal."

She is calling on NHS bosses to review their policy on prescribing such drugs. "With such widespread use of these prescription medicines we need a review of the current guidelines, with a view to tightening them," she said.

"More research should be done into the effectiveness of non-drug treatment and natural remedies to treat ADHD."

As there are no official records on the number of children prescribed Ritalin in Britain, the Tories used research compiled from global studies conducted over the past decade.

It comes after a report by the University of California showed the use of ADHD drugs has tripled worldwide since 1993.

Monthly prescriptions for Ritalin in England and Wales increased from 4,000 in 1994 to 359,000 in 2004, it claimed.

But Andrea Bilbow, chief executive of ADHD charity Addiss, dismissed the research as "misleading" and claimed that the disorder was still "under-diagnosed and underprescribed".

Author Focuses on 'New Autism'

Buy two copies, one for you and one for your pediatrician.

Author focuses on 'new autism'
By Elaine Jarvik
Deseret Morning News





Here's what Dr. Bryan Jepson thought he knew about autism six years ago: that it was a rare, genetic, developmental, untreatable brain disorder. But that's the "old autism," he says.

Jepson, who graduated from the University of Utah School of Medicine in 1995, says what he knew about autism then he mostly learned from the movie "Rain Man." Later, in 2001, his lovable, happy 18-month-old baby began to change — to "fade away," as Jepson puts it. The toddler no longer wanted to be read to, wouldn't look his parents in the eye and liked to spin in circles in the middle of the floor.

A child psychiatrist told Jepson and his wife, Laurie, "Prepare yourself for the time when Aaron will need to be institutionalized. Forget experimental therapies."

Instead, Laurie Jepson took to the Internet. And before long, her husband — who categorizes himself as a "mainstream" physician — was deep in medical literature about the biochemistry of autism. Soon he was convinced that autism is a complex metabolic disease that has as much to do with the gut as it does with the brain.

Bryan Jepson, who is now director of medical services at Thoughtful House Center for Children in Austin, Texas, is back in Utah this week to talk about his new book, "Changing the Course of Autism: A Scientific Approach for Parents and Physicians." On Saturday, he will speak at a free workshop sponsored by Porter's Hope, a Utah-based company that assists the families of children diagnosed with autism.

"All of a sudden, there's an explosion of autistic kids," Jepson says. As recently as 1980, autism was rare, with a rate of about 1 in 5,000. Now, he says, it's 1 in 160.

It's an epidemic, he says, "and there's no such thing as a genetic epidemic."

At the same time, the "new autism" is less likely to show up within the first six months or year of a baby's life, and is much more likely to be "regressive," showing up at 18 months to 3 years to rob the child of previous skills — sometimes almost overnight, sometimes as a gradual decline.

There's a genetic susceptibility for autism. But something else has to explain the sudden rise in numbers — and it's not simply a matter of better diagnosis or a broader definition of what autism means, he says.

The answer appears to have something to do with the increased toxicity of the environment, he says, from food additives to vaccines and antibiotics. Children who are born with a genetic susceptibility for autism have trouble detoxifying, he says.

The increase in other chronic diseases such as asthma is evidence that autistic children may also be proof of what's to come, he says. "It's kind of like the canary in the coal mine."

Already, he says, the treatments he uses have helped children with attention-deficit hyperactive disorder, or ADHD, as well as autism. He believes that eventually the knowledge of how autism works will affect our understanding of conditions such as chronic fatigue, dementia and Parkinson's.

Jepson's book is a review of scientific studies conducted by the Autism Research Institute, whose founder, Bernard Rimland, was "the first to put the puzzle pieces together," Jepson says. The book also examines studies done by independent scientists.

Many primary-care physicians and pediatricians are not up-to-date on the latest research, he says, "and it's hard to do autism in the 15 minutes" allocated for many doctor visits. Jepson, who founded the Children's Biomedical Center of Utah before moving in 2006 to Texas, says he knows of only two Utah doctors who are currently treating autism as a medical disease rather than a behavioral disorder.

Calling autism a behavioral disorder, says Jepson, is like calling a tumor a headache. Instead, he says, autism is just one symptom of a disease process that affects the digestive, immune and neurological systems.

The majority of children with autism have gastrointestinal problems, sometimes causing severe pain. Their tantrums and head banging may be a manifestation of pain they can't articulate, Jepson says. If the gut disease is treated — with diet, nutritional supplements and medication — that behavior goes away.

"Your gut is an immune organ, and it can trigger inflammation elsewhere in the body, including the brain," he explains. "And it's a big source of your metabolism. If it's not working right, you're not getting the appropriate amount of nutrients from your food, and you're not preventing toxic exposures as you otherwise would."

The sooner children are put on aggressive gastrointestinal-immune-detoxification treatment, the more likely they are to recover, he says. There's still no cure, he says, but the vast majority improve. The Jepsons' son has gone from "pretty severe to pretty moderate."

Autism Speaks Announces Plans to Fund "Complementary and Alternative Medicine"

Earlier this month, Autism Speaks began lobbying in PA for health insurance coverage.

They they opposed AB 16 in California that would have expanded the mandatory vaccine schedule in that state.

Last week JB Handley (no fan of AS) personally and publicly thanked them for supporting the Mercury Free Vaccines Act of 2007.

And today this:

Autism Speaks Seeking Requests for Applications for New Treatment Grants
On July 27, 2007, Autism Speaks called for research proposals targeting three broad treatment approaches for autism spectrum disorders. The "Pharmacological Treatment for Autism Spectrum Disorders" RFA focuses on developing robust pilot data that evaluate the safety and efficacy of candidate pharmaceutical agents that could lead to larger clinical trials. Similar applications are sought for the "Special Interventions in Autism Spectrum Disorders" RFA, but instead of pharmaceutical agents, the focus is on behavioral and non-behavioral interventions such as educational, physiological, and technological treatments. Given the frequent use of non-traditional interventions within the autism community, the "Complementary and Alternative Medicine in Treating Autism Spectrum Disorders" RFA aims to provide preliminary but high quality data to help evaluate the safety and efficacy of some of these approaches and to identify promising protocols that warrant further investigation and development.

To assist researchers in developing high quality proposals for the Complementary and Alternative Medicine grants, Autism Speaks will hold information sessions for invited proposals where interested investigators can discuss their applications and the review process, as well as topics relevant to the preparation and submission of their applications, such as common challenges in study design.

“We are pleased to expand our treatment portfolio to include a variety of grant mechanisms that will advance our understanding of how to treat autism,” said Peter Bell, Autism Speaks executive vice president for programs and services. “Autism is clearly treatable but we need to understand which interventions are safe and effective and which children will benefit from them. Moreover, it's important to address both the biomedical and behavioral/educational aspects of the disorder to achieve the best outcome for those affected by autism.”

Read more about the Pharmacological Treatment for Autism Spectrum Disorders RFA (PDF), the Special Interventions in Autism Spectrum Disorders RFA (PDF) and the Complementary and Alternative Medicine in Treating Autism Spectrum Disorders RFA (PDF).

(Of course I am not thrilled with researching the drug route, but the cynic in me thinks that they had to do that too in order to keep the pharma money flowing.)

The pdf begins this way:

Although medical care in the United States is increasingly driven by evidence based practice, societal pressure for tolerance and incorporation of complementary alternative forms of health care is significant. Many children (estimates vary from 50% to 75%) with autism spectrum disorders are treated with some form of complementary alternative intervention, and approximately 1/3 of these are being so treated at the time of diagnostic evaluation.

They begin their statement with the admission that most parents are treating autism with biomed and that the "pressure" they are bringing to bear is "significant".

Congratulations parents.

And Congratulations Autism Speaks.

This will be the best money you have ever spent. If you spend it right.

Of course the cynical optimist in me also wants to wait and see how the grants are distributed. I need to see the words, chelation, HBOT and Lymphoid Nodular Hyperplasia as well as the names of a few docs and researchers that the biomed community has come to know and trust, before I am going to sing love songs to Autism Speaks. But if they are doing this in earnest and actually get results, I will sing them love songs.

(However, if they give Eric Fombonne money to do a blood mercury study, I will be out in front of their building with a bull horn. But let's just assume that they are not pulling any shenanigans with this and just enjoy the moment.)

I think that it would be great if our trusted DAN! medical professionals could keep us parents abreast of their applications to this program. I would love to know who is applying for what and who is getting funded or turned down.

But as to not seem to be taking this to glibly, I want to thank Autism Speaks, because I am starting to believe that they are listening to us the way that they say that they would.

As an update to the Autism Speaks letters, I have not sent them in yet. I have been away from autism activism a good deal this month because I have been spending so much time on my boy's health. (We are finishing up a round of IV chelation (his first IV) on him and the results have been really exciting for us, but I will write about the whole thing in a week or so when he is done.) So if anyone still wants to include their letter, send it along.

The tide has turned.

How great would it be if a year from now if all I had to write about was plummeting autism rates, new treatment interventions that are covered by insurance and recovery stories.

How great would it be if this blog became irrelevant.

A Message From The CDC

Julie Obradovic sums it up nicely.

Congratulations on your new baby! And Welcome to the War on Disease!
By Julie Obradovic
The Rescue Post

We're the CDC and we'd like to take this opportunity to introduce ourselves. We'll be working closely over the next several years, and we need to get acquainted more quickly than you think!

Our job as the Center for Disease Control is to control infectious disease as well as possible. We believe that while nutrition and sanitation have substantially reduced the level of infectious disease in our world, the most important tool in doing so has been herd immunity via vaccinations. Admittedly, we have no proof to substantiate this. (For example, the Measles was 97% eradicated by the time the vaccine was developed.)

By now, your brand new little soldier may have already received his or her first piece of equipment (a vaccination) without you even knowing it!

In the late 1980's, the development of the Hepatitis B vaccine allowed us to provide a newborn with protection from this disease within hours of birth. Hepatitis B is a dangerous virus that is usually spread via an infected mother, sexually promiscuous people, and/or intravenous drug users; however, it can also be spread in hospitals, which is likely where you are now. Because of this risk, we believe getting this vaccine into your child as soon as possible is the most responsible thing we can do, with or without your permission or proper understanding. It is imperative you trust us if our relationship is to work.

Over the last several decades, scientists have been able to develop many vaccines to help eradicate and/or control dangerous (and sometimes just-plain-annoying) diseases. In fact, whereas in 1983 children only had the benefit of 10 vaccines for 7 viruses before kindergarten, they now have the benefit of 36! (And the list keeps on growing! Right now, there are over 300 new vaccines in the works! Imagine!)

Of course, all medical benefits come with their risks. We feel strongly, however, that the benefits far outweigh them. You probably don't remember the days when thousands of people suffered or died from diseases like Polio, the Measles, and Diphtheria. Allowing a child to suffer from those and other diseases in an era where we can possibly prevent them is frankly, irresponsible. Furthermore, without your participation in the vaccination program, these diseases may resurface even stronger than before. Ultimately, you might be putting your own child and others at great risk.

In the interest of transparency, however, here are some things to consider about us:

For starters, you should know we function with a high conflict of interest: We are in charge of promoting vaccines, ensuring their safety, and finding ourselves guilty of neglect if they are not. We profit from vaccines substantially, and almost all of our scientists are working simultaneously for the private pharmaceutical companies who manufacture them.

Surprisingly, we can actually not be held liable in a court of law for anything that happens if something goes wrong. In fact, if your child should have a negative vaccine reaction (which we emphasize is very, very rare), you will need to take it up with a specially created "Vaccine Court". Limitations on when you can use this resource do exist for our protection, and therefore if you do not realize your child's negative reaction was due to his/her vaccine within that statute, you are unfortunately without much recourse.

Moreover, any monetary settlement that you receive should the "Vaccine Court" find us liable will actually be paid by you, the consumer; Every vaccine given to children has a $0.75 surcha rge attached that funds these settlements. (In other words, if we mess up, you pay for us to defend ourselves and give you compensation!)

This of course, is in your best interest, as we might not survive a sympathetic jury awarding an astronomical settlement to the few children's families that are ever affected negatively. If that were to happen, pharmaceutical companies might lose the incentive to produce vaccines (which is money), putting all of us at great risk for infection. Truly, we are at the mercy of their bottom line if as a society we want to remain disease-free. As harsh as that reality is, you can surely understand how important your cooperation and participation is for the benefit of the masses. Without you, the system just doesn't work.

Specific risks of vaccination, again rare, include but are not limited to death, seizure, paralysis, mental retardation, loss of motor skills, and other life-threatening, life-altering conditions. We have the ability to identify at-risk children for these reactions, but choose not to because of the expense, and the reality that if we did it in our country, we'd have to do it in others. We simply don't have those resources, and therefore, have decided it's best no one receive special treatment. You will simply not know if your child will have a negative reaction until it is too late. (And, you will unlikely be able to prove it actually was, as the majority of our personally funded research shows vaccines rarely, if ever, do harm.)

The ingredients of a vaccine include but are not limited to, mercury, aluminum, formaldehyde, anti-freeze, chicken embryos, monkey cells and aborted fetus diploid cells. (Yes, some vaccines contain aborted human fetus cells.) None of these ingredients has ever been individually tested for safety, even though some are neurotoxins. We believe, however, that the small amount of them used prohibits any possible negative effect. We have no proof of this belief.

Vaccines are not regularly studied in combination for any negative consequences they may have when used cumulatively versus individually, even though they are not given individually.

Vaccines have never been studied for long term consequences such as cancer or autoimmune conditions. We simply don't know what consequence they have long term, as we have never studied the vaccinated versus the unvaccinated, and have no plans to do so. The answers to such a study may cause a panic that would prevent people from participating in the program, a potential public-health disaster.

Your doctor will use his/her preferred brand of the required immunizations. Each brand contains different ingredients and different amounts of them. In order to know what they are, you will have to research that privately, as a list of ingredients in lay men's terms will not be provided for you upon your well-baby visits. (As a side note, questioning the doctor about this matter may prove uncomfortable and awkward, as your physician will probably take it personally that you are questioning his/her judgment.)

Vaccinating your child is the law in most states, although there are exceptions. If you chose to opt out of the system, you will be forced to provide a religious or medical exemption that you may or may not have, while signing damaging documentation that acknowledges you are willingly putting your child at great risk and are possibly an unfit parent. You may be investigated for child abuse or neglect as a result. Only a few states allow a philosophical exemption. Entry into a public or private school setting will require compliance with the law of your state.

Vaccines do not work on every person. For some, one is plenty, for others, several are needed. To save time and money, we just give everyone several of them to be sure. The vaccination schedule is universal and not concerned with your individual child’s needs.

Your pediatrician may be compensated based on how well his/her patients follow our vaccination schedule. You can expect a lot of pressure if you don’t comply, and in some instances may be asked to leave the practice.

Finally and most important, your input on how, when and why to vaccinate your child is not welcome. Unless you are one of us, we believe you simply do not have the expertise to know what is best for your child.

Again, to emphasize, we promote the vaccines, profit from them, investigate ourselves for neglect and cannot be held liable if we have committed it. We insist vaccines cause minimal harm, but do not allow independent researchers to validate our claim. (Even though thousands of parents swear their child's Crib Death or Developmental Delay, such as Autism, is due to their vaccine, we vehemently deny this with our own research. We do admit they can and do cause speech delay.) You pay for our legal troubles and your own compensation if it is awarded through a special vaccine court. You have to participate in this program as mandated by law or your parental fitness may be questioned and your child may not be allowed to attend public school. We do not know if your child will have a negative reaction to vaccines until it is too late, even though we have the resources to know otherwise. None of our products or their ingredi ents has been independently tested for cumulative use or long term safety. Questioning your doctor about this system or our product may result in his/her refusal to work with you.

Admittedly, it's not a perfect system, but it's what we've got to offer you. Participate, and accept the aforementioned risks of our flawed program, our lack of safety studies, and a possible debilitating negative reaction, or opt out, and accept the risk of polio and other life altering diseases that you may have prevented in your child (not to mention the difficulty in finding a doctor or attending school). Not a great choice, we know, but one all parents must make.

Ultimately, just trusting us is best for everyone involved.

In conclusion, please remember that in the event your child is hurt via his/her vaccinations, you can take comfort in knowing it was for the greater good. In all wars, some equipment back-fires and there are casualties. While it will be heartbreaking and guilt-ridden, your sacrifice ensures the safety of others. We respectfully remind you though, your little soldier’s sacrifice will only be quietly acknowledged, if at all, so as not to alarm other parents or care-takers. Your quiet suffering is appreciated and expected, and you will likely receive no public sympathy or support from the society who benefited from your family's sacrifice. Unlike other wars, your child will not be considered a hero, no plaque or medal will be issued to him/her, and no public display to honor him/her exists. You will still be expected to have your other children participate in this war regardless and promote the program for others, or risk public criticism and scrutiny. Speaking out about your negative experience and safety concerns will undoubtedly render society to question your mental and parental fitness and is highly frowned upon as irresponsible rhetoric.

Thanks for taking the time to get to know us. And thanks for being a team player. We hope this has informed you about the reality of vaccinating your child. And once again, Welcome to the War on Disease! Together, we will win!

Sincerely,

The CDC

WSJ: Grass Warfare, Pesticides and Parkinson's

Grass Warfare
Is what you put on your lawn your own business? Growing local movements say using pesticides is a choice that affects the whole neighborhood. The battle over how 'green' your grass should be.
By GWENDOLYN BOUNDS
The Wall Street Journal
July 7, 2007; Page P1

Finally the grass is greener on my side of the fence.

I've spent the past year converting my lawn to organic care. After some early setbacks, my lawn looks pretty great, and the only herbicide I've used is an all-natural corn substance that's safe enough for my dog to eat.

The same scene is playing out in yards around the country -- but it's not a peaceful transition. As the organic lawn movement grows, so are tensions in some communities. The latest front is over whether lawn-care methods are the horticultural equivalent of secondhand smoke: a choice that affects the whole community. Neighborhood activists argue that using pesticides on one lawn exposes everyone nearby to the chemicals, including kids and pets.

Enthusiasts are trying to shame their neighbors into joining them with pro-organic lawn signs, prompting some residents to apply their chemicals covertly. Homeowners who want to stick with pesticides say how they groom their lawns is their own business. Even spouses are facing off over which comes first -- eliminating chemicals or creating a dazzling no-fuss lawn. The lawn-care industry, meanwhile, is walking a tightrope, hoping to profit from organics without turning against their traditional products.

In Wisconsin, the village of Whitefish Bay has become a microcosm of the new turf wars. Intent on switching the community over to an organic approach, a citizens' group is hanging tags on residents' doors urging them to lay off pesticides and posting "All Living Creatures Welcome" signs in their own yards.

"It's really dicey, and some people are receptive and some are hostile," says Sandy Hellman, age 37, a member of the Healthy Communities Project. "I look at it as the secondhand-smoke issue. Kids run back and forth between the yards and windows are open all the time."

Organic supporters say data are slowly building to cause concern. Last year, researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health found that individuals reporting exposure to pesticides had a 70% higher incidence of Parkinson's disease than those not reporting exposure. The report notes that among individuals who are not farmers, the significant association is "most likely explained by use of pesticides in home or in gardening."

That study echoes findings of a Parkinson's-pesticide link in men reported last year by the Mayo Clinic. There have been other studies, including one in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, suggesting that exposing dogs to some herbicide-treated lawns and gardens may increase their chances of developing cancers.

The pesticides used in lawn-care products found on shelves nationwide are considered legal by government standards. But broader research on health risks from such chemicals has prompted general warnings. The Environmental Protection Agency, which regulates pesticide use, notes on its own Web site that kids are at greater peril from pesticides because their internal organs and immune systems are developing.

In addition to the scientific debate, lawn care is also highlighting questions about personal-property rights. Some critics say the organic push is a nanny-state attempt to tell people what they can do on their own land.

Ms. Hellman's group convinced Whitefish Bay officials to stop spraying pesticides on medians near an elementary school, but didn't initially get funding for the pricier organic weed-control or fertilizer products. When dandelions returned in droves, neighbors balked, fearing the seeds would spread to their properties. Money was later approved to hire an organic lawn-care service, but not soon enough for some residents.

"I don't want those weeds -- that's the bottom line," says Gloria Tylicki, who has written Whitefish Bay town officials complaining about the organic results near her home. She hires a service to spray her lawn with herbicides three times a year, and doesn't like the trend of neighbors telling her what to do on her own property. "Can I not plant a certain flower because someone blocks away doesn't care for that?"

Elsewhere, similar battle lines are being drawn. This spring, 7-foot billboards were erected on the platforms of New York area railroads depicting a young father standing on the lawn of his home, cradling his young daughter. The caption: "I've got one great reason not to use chemicals on my lawn." The ad campaign was part of a larger pesticide reduction program being pushed by the Grassroots Environmental Education organization, a Port Washington, N.Y.-based nonprofit.

Fundamentally, "going organic" simply means getting grass and soil healthy enough to crowd out weeds without pesticides, the umbrella term for chemical substances that destroy unwanted pests or weeds. (A herbicide is a pesticide targeting plants; an insecticide kills insects.) Pesticide opponents say homeowners unwittingly bring the toxics into homes via shoe soles and pet feet, tracking it into carpets where kids play. They also worry about runoff into streams, rivers and groundwater -- and into their own yards.

Organic supporters also advocate using natural fertilizers instead of synthetic ones. Most packaged fertilizers contain three key ingredients -- nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium -- which are listed in a familiar N-P-K ratio. In organic versions, the nutrients come from plant, animal or mineral sources, such as blood meal, seaweed extract, bone meal and sulfate of potash. Because the soil's microorganisms must first digest the organic nutrients to make them useful to the grass, it takes longer to get that dark greening effect many homeowners are accustomed to seeing after they fertilize. A 3,000-square-foot lawn costing $200 to treat traditionally might be double using organic solutions, at least initially.

Currently, nothing on the market annihilates existing weeds as fast as chemical solutions. So while many people like the idea of going organic, they don't so much like living with some weeds while they convert.
[Pesticide free lawn sign]
[Pesticide lawn sign]
Dueling yard signs in the pesticide battle.

"We used to accept a few weeds," says Jay Feldman, director of Beyond Pesticides, a nonprofit group that runs the National Coalition for Pesticide-Free Lawns. Now, uniform swaths of green, weedless grass are the standard. The rise of pesticides, says Mr. Feldman, "redefined our aesthetics."

In some cases, families themselves are split about whether to switch. Last year, Mary Beth Nawor of Highland Park, Ill., marched through town in a Fourth of July parade promoting safer pesticide use. "It was all the women taking the info we had and the men brushing us off," she says. But that wasn't the biggest surprise. When Ms. Nawor later recounted to her husband how a friend had marveled at their chemical-free lawn, he sheepishly admitted to putting down an herbicide.

"It's a point of pride for men," says Ms. Nawor, a high-school environmental-science teacher. "They like to be out there showing their grass off."

Andrew Sprung of South Orange, N.J., grew his lawn from seed and uses a four-step annual lawn program that includes pesticides and fertilizers. His wife wants him to stop using chemicals, he says, and he's moderated a bit. Still, he says, "I find it hard to believe that the legal chemicals I drop on my lawn in moderate quantities is harming anything."

Today the organic movement is a bright growth spot in an otherwise lackluster $24 billion U.S. lawn and garden market, growing at double digits over the last five years while overall sales stagnated in 2006, according to Marketresearch.com. This January, Scotts Miracle-Gro launched its first organic lawn fertilizer. It has a natural bio-herbicide in development and aims for half its product line to be naturally derived in coming years. The nation's largest lawn-care company, TruGreen-ChemLawn, this year shortened its name to just TruGreen, in part to deflect criticism about its pesticide use. Home Depot is carrying organic landscape products in every store, and executives insist they are here to stay.

But the split in public sentiment makes it tricky for companies to navigate the divide. Homeowners often tell professionals they want organic products, says TruGreen's chief marketing officer, Vic Yeandel, then complain when it costs more or takes longer. "They say, 'I don't want the weeds to grow -- do you have a weed control that is not a pesticide?' And the answer is, 'No, we don't.' That defines what the issue is.'"

To try to make everyone happy, In Harmony Sustainable Landscapes in Bothell, Wash., offers three tiers of weed programs: "No Weeds," "Minimum Pesticides," and "Completely Organic." When new customers call up, co-owner Mark Gile says he subtly encourages the latter two programs.

Community peer pressure is one thing. It's another to mandate organic care by law. In 2001, Canada's Supreme Court ruled that the nation's communities can restrict cosmetic pesticide use on private as well as public property. To date, more than 129 have done so.

That ruling mobilized the U.S. pro-pesticide movement like never before both on a grassroots and legislative levels, says Allen James, president of the Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment, a trade group representing makers and suppliers of pesticides and fertilizers. "Canada was the warning shot for us," he says.

Partly due to RISE's efforts, today all but nine states currently forbid local lawmakers from enacting such residential bans, because it would pre-empt state laws.

As a result, organic activists to date have instead concentrated on getting pesticides banned in public properties where municipalities have control. Just last month, Connecticut extended a ban on lawn pesticides through the eighth grade. Currently at least 20 U.S. towns have pesticide-free parks and several hundred school districts have laws or policies designed to minimize kids' exposure to pesticides.

Such actions unnerve homeowners such as John Schmaltz in Cromwell, Conn., who fears private property could be next. He sees a hypocritical undercurrent to organic lawn enthusiasts' pleas. "People put on deodorant, perfume and cosmetics, and who's to say about those?"

Given homeowners' passions, things can get tense. Philip Dickey runs the Washington Toxics Coalition, a Seattle-based environmental health organization, and estimates his group has distributed nearly 5,000 Pesticide Free Zone signs with ladybugs on them. To get a sign, homeowners must promise to speak with at least three people about organic care. On the coalition's Web site are talking tips, including playing the kid card (they often run barefoot on grass) and avoiding a "holier-than-thou attitude."

Still, not-in-my-backyard brawls do surface, Mr. Dickey says. "I got a photograph back from a guy who put up a pesticide-free sign and his neighbor then put up a sign that said Hazardous Material Storage. There is no dialogue going on there." Nor in Harvard, Ill., where Andrew Cook showed his neighbor a note from his wife's doctor explaining she was highly sensitive to pesticides. No dice, his neighbor refused to change her lawn-care regimen. Mr. Cook then aimed one of the ladybug signs squarely at her house. "You can only lead a horse to water," he says.

To keep peace for now, some homeowners are brokering their own land resolutions. Tihamer Toth-Fejel uses no lawn-care treatments whatsoever on most of his Ann Arbor, Mich., yard, but throws down an herbicidal Weed and Feed product on the portion abutting his neighbor's property so "he won't think I'm trying to infect his perfect lawn." Jim McNicholas of LaGrange, Ill., asked his organic neighbor to tell him when she's going on vacation so he can spread fertilizer without strife. And in Lyndhurst, Ohio, city councilman Joe Gambatese agreed to hire Good Nature Organic Lawn Care to treat his own home turf for a three-year trial after residents there pushed for pesticide reductions. So far, he says, "my yard looks fantastic."

As for my block, a couple of acres separate me from my neighbors so they haven't had to witness my battle with the weed brigades. After a frustrating summer fighting dandelions and plantains, last fall I plowed up the lawn, replanting it with new grass seed and 1,400 pounds of organic compost.

That did the trick. My grass was among the first up in my area this spring, which helped choke back any weeds. I spread corn gluten meal, a natural pre-emergent herbicide, just as the forsythia began blooming and have spent only a few hours total hand-weeding. As for fertilizer, this year I'm trying a worm waste product from a company called Terracycle as well as Scotts' new Organic Choice lawn food. I left a swath of old lawn for comparison and so far the difference is notable. In the meantime, there's not much to do other than mow.

Write to Gwendolyn Bounds at wendy.bounds@wsj.com

Thank You Dan Olmsted

Dan Olmsted began writing his Age of Autism series more than two years ago, and in it he has brought to our attention some of the most fascinating and compelling aspects of the thimerosal/autism story. He has done much of the medical investigating that the CDC should have done, but didn't, and found that the links between autism and thimerosal go back to the first case of autism ever recorded.

If the CDC had any sense they would take their "transgender beauty pageant" budget and instead hire Dan to do their investigating for them. But then again if the CDC had any sense, none of us would be here now, would we.

One of the most significant things that I feel that Dan's work has done is show just how much the CDC et. al. does NOT want to properly investigate this. Dan's revelations, which repeatedly garnered, "Holy Crap!" reactions from autism parents, were met with a collective yawn from health officials. The fact that Julie Gerberding could make statements like, "CDC recognizes that parents want answers. We share their frustration at not having more answers about the causes and possible cure.", while failing to follow up on all that Dan has brought to the topic, is proof positive that CDC does not want to know what is going on in autism. If Julie wanted answers, Dan would not have not had to spend two plus years writing this series. The CDC would have taken his info and run with it and they would have found patient zero long before Dan did.

Dan Olmsted has proved Julie Gerberding a liar.

I am sad to see the series go, but thrilled that Dan is still on the trail. The Age of Autism series should be published in one volume and be required reading for everyone in the autism world. Evelyn Pringle was dead on when she called him, "Autism's Dick Tracy". Some smart publisher needs to give this guy a bucket of cash and send him back out. There is no telling what this hound can sniff out.

Thank you Dan for looking out for our kids.

Update:
More on Dan:

Wade at Injecting Sense
Kim Stagliano at Kim Stagliano
Lisa Blakemore-Brown at Thimerosal Thoughts

$75,000 Offered For MD to Publicly Drink Vaccine Additives

$75,000 Offered For MD to Publicly Drink Vaccine Additives

Jock Doubleday, director of the California non-profit corporation Natural Woman, Natural Man, Inc., has offered $75,000 to the first medical doctor or pharmaceutical company CEO who publicly drinks a mixture of standard vaccine additives.

The additives would be the same as those contained in the vaccines recommended for a 6-year-old according to U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines, and the dose would be body-weight calibrated. It would include, but not be limited to:

* Thimerosal (a mercury derivative)
* Ethylene glycol (antifreeze)
* Phenol (a disinfectant dye)
* Aluminum
* Benzethonium chloride (a disinfectant)
* Formaldehyde (a preservative and disinfectant)

On August 1, 2007, if no one has taken the challenge, the offer will be increased to $90,000 and will increase at a rate of $5,000 per month until someone accepts.

Vaccination Liberation Press Release

Jock Doubleday’s Vaccination Liberation

April 25, 2007

Ojai, California -- On January 29, 2001, I offered $20,000 to the first U.S.-licensed medical doctor or pharmaceutical company CEO to publicly drink a mixture of standard vaccine additive ingredients:

http://www.mercola.com/2001/feb/10/vaccine_offer.htm

The offer had no takers.

On August 1, 2006, I increased the offer to $75,000 (see below):

The new offer had no takers.

Therefore . . .



as of June 1, 2007, the $75,000 vaccine offer will increase to $80,000;

as of July 1, 2007, the vaccine offer will increase to $85,000;

as of August 1, 2007, the offer will increase to $90,000;

as of September 1, 2007, the offer will increase to $95,000;

as of October 1, 2007, the offer will increase to $100,000;

as of November 1, 2007, the offer will increase to $105,000;

as of December 1, 2007, the offer will increase to $110,000;

as of January 1, 2008, the offer will increase to $115,000.


The offer will increase $5,000 per month, in perpetuity, until an M.D. or pharmaceutical company CEO, or any of the 14 relevant members of the ACIP (see below), agree to drink a body-weight calibrated dose of the vaccine additives M.D.s routinely inject into children in the name of health.

This offer, dated April 25, 2007, has no expiration date unless and until superceded by a similar offer of higher remuneration.

In health,

Jock Doubleday
Director
Natural Woman, Natural Man, Inc.
A California 501(c)3 Nonprofit Corporation

Dr. Mercola's comments:

Not surprisingly, this offer has been on the table since 2001, but no one has been willing to take that toxic chemical cocktail -- except for the children who innocently go in for their routine vaccinations. With the average amount of loans for medical students now well in excess of $100,000 you might have thought some doctor would have tried to cash n on this so they could accelerate the payment of their student loans.

In addition to the vaccine additives listed above, others can include ammonium sulfate, amphotericin B, pig blood, rabbit brain, monkey kidney, betapropiolactone, tri(n)butylphosphate, and a laundry list of other chemicals. The mercury-based preservative thimerosal, in particular, is dangerous. Mercury is a poison and potent neurotoxin. Injecting it into a child, whose nervous system is rapidly developing, can have terrible consequences.

From the evidence I have reviewed and my own clinical experience it is clear that mercury is one of the reasons autism skyrocketed in the last 10 years. Autism has started to decrease now that some the vaccines have eliminated mercury, but be wary; many vaccines still do contain thimerosal, no matter what you may have heard.

And even those vaccines without thimerosal still contain an incredible number of dangerous chemicals. When the mercury is removed, it is typically replaced with another toxic additive that is frequently just as health-harming. The aluminum hydroxide used in many vaccines has been linked to symptoms associated with Parkinson's, ALS, and Alzheimer's. Phenols, methanol, isopropyl, and 2-pheoxyethanol are other ingredients which are corrosive or toxic.

The bottom line is, if you are a parent and are considering vaccinating your child, please read up on the potentially devastating side effects of vaccines before doing so. It could mean the difference between life and death. Avoid the fear mongering and take some time to read ALL sides of the issue, not just the propaganda conventional pediatrician will present to you. Most educated parents that I know that have done a careful analysis of the data invariably chose not to vaccinate their children.

NAA: Call The White House

Call The White House

ACTION ALERT

Please call the White House and tell them not to veto the House Labor HHS Bill which contains provisions to protect children from mercury in vaccines. Demand that President Bush uphold his campaign promises!

Comments: 202-456-1111
Switchboard: 202-456-1414
FAX: 202-456-2461

For Immediate Release

Bush Set to Veto HHS-Labor-Education Appropriations Bill Due to Provision to Remove Mercury from Infant Vaccines

SafeMinds and autism community call the White House declaration “irresponsible and dangerous.”

Washington, DC – According to the Congressional Quarterly, the White House stated on Tuesday that President Bush would veto the HHS-Labor-Education Appropriations Bill because of the cost and “objectionable provisions” such as a measure to ban the use of childhood flu vaccines that contain thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative.

Autism advocacy groups are outraged because President Bush stated in a questionnaire during his 2004 campaign: “I support the removal of Thimerosal from vaccines on the childhood national vaccine schedule. During a second term as President, I will continue to support increased funding to support a wide variety of research initiatives aimed at seeking definitive causes and/or triggers of autism. It is important to note that while there are many possible theories about causes or triggers of autism, no one material as been definitely included or excluded.”

But since 2005, President Bush has steadfastly refused to issue an Executive Order banning high amounts of mercury in vaccines that would protect children and pregnant women despite repeated requests from the autism community that he uphold his campaign promise. Under his current administration, mercury has been and will continue to be knowingly injected into the youngest of American citizens. The controversial mercury-containing preservative thimerosal has been linked by thousands of parents as being the cause of their children’s mercury poisoning and autism.

The flu vaccine which continues to be manufactured with mercury is recommended for all pregnant women, infants and children despite the fact that the Institute of Medicine in 2001 recommended against the policy of exposing these same sensitive groups to thimerosal containing vaccines. According to the EPA, one in every six women of childbearing age already has blood levels of mercury high enough to cause neurological damage to their unborn children due to environmental exposures alone. “Injecting even more mercury into the bodies of pregnant women, infants and children when it is not a necessary component of vaccines is just bad medicine,” said Lyn Redwood, president of SafeMinds and parent of a mercury-injured child. “It defies logic that a flu vaccine must be disposed of as a hazardous waste if it is not used, but somehow injecting the same mercury-containing vaccine into a baby is safe.”