As I have previously mentioned, in May the Maine CDC held a one day conference on Autism. The videos of the conference will be available on the Maine CDC web site, however Maine state law requires that they be ADA compliant before going up, and the process of close captioning the videos is proving to be time consuming. So in my impatience, I am uploading my copies of the videos (with permission from Maine CDC who is encouraging their free circulation.)
Conference materials available here on the Maine CDC web site.
Those who would like a set of DVD's of the conference, for yourself, your organization or to pass along to doctors and public health officials, email me.
Maine CDC Autism Conference 2009
Introduction and Overview of Autism in Maine
Dora Anne Mills, MD, MPH
Director, Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention, State Health Officer
with Becky Grant-Widen, Board Member of the National Autism Association
Next session:
Autism 101: First signs and symptoms, Maine’s new screening tool, how and when to refer for specialized diagnostics, how a diagnosis is made, AAP Autism Toolkit, diagnostic and therapeutic services in Maine.
July 1, 2009
Monsanto's Roundup Kills Human Cells
Our children have been eating poisoned foods. Keep in mind, this substance is one of the "inert" ingredients in Roundup, that actually turned out to be more deadly than the actual herbicide itself.
Scientific American:
Just to break in here for a second... Round up is protecting schools? From what, giant killer weeds that attack school children?
Apparently this guy has studied "Thank You For Smoking" in depth.
Pardon me again... but does any one believe anything the EPA says anymore?
Scientific American:
Weed-Whacking Herbicide Proves Deadly to Human Cells
Used in gardens, farms, and parks around the world, the weed killer Roundup contains an ingredient that can suffocate human cells in a laboratory, researchers say
By Crystal Gammon and Environmental Health News
WEED KILLER: New research has found that an 'inert' ingredient in the herbicide Roundup can kill human embryonic, placental, and umbilical cord cells
Used in yards, farms and parks throughout the world, Roundup has long been a top-selling weed killer. But now researchers have found that one of Roundup’s inert ingredients can kill human cells, particularly embryonic, placental and umbilical cord cells.
The new findings intensify a debate about so-called “inerts” — the solvents, preservatives, surfactants and other substances that manufacturers add to pesticides. Nearly 4,000 inert ingredients are approved for use by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Glyphosate, Roundup’s active ingredient, is the most widely used herbicide in the United States. About 100 million pounds are applied to U.S. farms and lawns every year, according to the EPA.
Until now, most health studies have focused on the safety of glyphosate, rather than the mixture of ingredients found in Roundup. But in the new study, scientists found that Roundup’s inert ingredients amplified the toxic effect on human cells—even at concentrations much more diluted than those used on farms and lawns.
One specific inert ingredient, polyethoxylated tallowamine, or POEA, was more deadly to human embryonic, placental and umbilical cord cells than the herbicide itself – a finding the researchers call “astonishing.”
“This clearly confirms that the [inert ingredients] in Roundup formulations are not inert,” wrote the study authors from France’s University of Caen. “Moreover, the proprietary mixtures available on the market could cause cell damage and even death [at the] residual levels” found on Roundup-treated crops, such as soybeans, alfalfa and corn, or lawns and gardens.
The research team suspects that Roundup might cause pregnancy problems by interfering with hormone production, possibly leading to abnormal fetal development, low birth weights or miscarriages.
Monsanto, Roundup’s manufacturer, contends that the methods used in the study don’t reflect realistic conditions and that their product, which has been sold since the 1970s, is safe when used as directed. Hundreds of studies over the past 35 years have addressed the safety of glyphosate.
“Roundup has one of the most extensive human health safety and environmental data packages of any pesticide that's out there,” said Monsanto spokesman John Combest. “It's used in public parks, it's used to protect schools. There's been a great deal of study on Roundup, and we're very proud of its performance.”
Just to break in here for a second... Round up is protecting schools? From what, giant killer weeds that attack school children?
Apparently this guy has studied "Thank You For Smoking" in depth.
The EPA considers glyphosate to have low toxicity when used at the recommended doses.
“Risk estimates for glyphosate were well below the level of concern,” said EPA spokesman Dale Kemery. The EPA classifies glyphosate as a Group E chemical, which means there is strong evidence that it does not cause cancer in humans.
In addition, the EPA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture both recognize POEA as an inert ingredient. Derived from animal fat, POEA is allowed in products certified organic by the USDA. The EPA has concluded that it is not dangerous to public health or the environment.
Pardon me again... but does any one believe anything the EPA says anymore?
The French team, led by Gilles-Eric Seralini, a University of Caen molecular biologist, said its results highlight the need for health agencies to reconsider the safety of Roundup.
“The authorizations for using these Roundup herbicides must now clearly be revised since their toxic effects depend on, and are multiplied by, other compounds used in the mixtures,” Seralini’s team wrote.
Controversy about the safety of the weed killer recently erupted in Argentina, one of the world’s largest exporters of soy.
June 29, 2009
Maloney Vaxxed v. Unvaxxed Study Reintroduced
Call your representative and ask for support for HR 3069.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: June 28, 2009
CONTACT: .
Jon Houston, Maloney, (202) 225-7944
Jeff Sagnip, Smith, (202) 225-3765
Legislation Introduced to Require First Comparative
Study of Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated Populations
WASHINGTON, DC – Reps. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) and Christopher Smith (R-NJ) have introduced the “Comprehensive Comparative Study of Vaccinated and Unvaccinated Populations Act of 2009,” HR 3069, legislation that would require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to conduct a comprehensive, peer-reviewed, comparative study of vaccinated and unvaccinated populations, which has never before been completed.
“Vaccines have been instrumental in reducing the incidence of many once-common diseases, but we owe it to parents and children to study and resolve the questions that have arisen over the possible link between vaccines and neurological disorders,” said Maloney. “What is ultimately needed to resolve this issue is a comprehensive national study comparing outcomes between vaccinated and unvaccinated children. As the most scientifically advanced country in the world, we should be jumping at the chance to resolve the questions that have been raised. Parents deserve answers, and children deserve no less than absolute certainty and safety.”
“Vaccines have been a truly revolutionary contribution to global public health that I have strongly supported. At the same time, it would be unconscionable if we did not fully investigate every aspect of vaccine safety, including varying vaccines schedules, to ensure that individuals were not being exposed to unnecessary risks,” said Smith. “This study would explore critical questions about our children’s health. Only a comprehensive, national examination of data that contrasts vaccinated children to unvaccinated children will answer some of the questions many if not all parents have about the safety of the vaccines we give our children. Congresswoman Maloney and I feel strongly that this will add greatly to the body of knowledge for the healthcare community and the public.”
Other original cosponsors of the bill include Rep. Bart Gordon (D-TN), Chair of the House Science and Technology Committee, and Reps. Dan Burton (R-IN), Patrick Kennedy (D-RI), Jim Langevin (D-RI), Virginia Brown-Waite (R-FL), and Grace Napolitano (D-CA).
Background: Maloney and Smith have also introduced legislation (H.R. 2618) that would improve the current system for vaccine safety monitoring in this country by assigning responsibility for the nation’s vaccine safety to an independent agency within the Department of Health and Human Services; and another (H.R. 2617) that puts in statute definite timelines for the elimination of mercury from vaccines.
Maloney introduced similar legislation in the 110th Congress. Click here for more information.
June 23, 2009
June 11, 2009
New Report Forecasts More Than Doubling of Vaccine Sales by 2013
Market Watch brings you, the health care consumer investor, news that vaccines are booming and expected to boom bigger.
Take a minute to read the report to get a sense of how important yourhealth money is to PHARMA.
Vaccines are a 19.2 Billion dollar a year business. I am sure that with that kind of cash at play that the medical establishment is not at all biased as to vaccine safety.
I don't wanna hear that vaccines are not a money making venture any more.
Gotta run now and go get me some "Tota Teq".
2008 was another stellar year for the world vaccine market. Sales grew 21.5% since 2007 to reach $19.2 billion. Few areas of pharmaceuticals have seen the fast-moving developments in the marketplace that the vaccine market has...
"New products and better-than-expected profits, as well as merger activity, have transformed the vaccine marketplace," says Bruce Carlson, publisher of Kalorama Information. "Continued sales of influenza and cervical cancer vaccines have provided a foundation for growth in the adult market. Meanwhile, the pediatric market was fueled by several major products including Wyeth's pneumococcal vaccines Prevnar and Merck's new rotavirus vaccine TotaTeq."
Take a minute to read the report to get a sense of how important your
Vaccines are a 19.2 Billion dollar a year business. I am sure that with that kind of cash at play that the medical establishment is not at all biased as to vaccine safety.
I don't wanna hear that vaccines are not a money making venture any more.
Gotta run now and go get me some "Tota Teq".
June 9, 2009
ABC's Claire Shipman on the Oprah Newsweek Story
She has a must read on this story on the Huffington Post. A story that seems to have quite some legs.
Must read.
"Last year we at ABC news ran a series on autism, and new methods being used to diagnose it which are--to say the least--controversial. The medical community and established autism community tried hard to get us to kill the report..."
Must read.
June 7, 2009
How Allopathic Medicine is Shooting Itself in the Foot by Attacking Oprah
The health zeitgeist is changing rapidly in this country, and many in the mainstream medial community have not noticed.
Health care has become expensive, it is not able to address many of the complaints that patients have, when it can, side effects can be serious. Most importantly, mainstream medicine can't explain why everyone in this country is so sick.
But the wellness movement can.
It has said that we are overfed and undernourished, over medicated and in poor health, and that we are toxic. That we don't need another pharmaceutical to fix the problem, we need to go back to the symbiotic relationship we had with the planet we grew up on, and only introduce hard core chemicals into our bodies when absolutely necessary.
And guess what... people everywhere are finding out that they are right! When they stop eating processed foods and drinking diet soda, when they go organic and non GMO, when they get rid of gluten and artificial sweeteners, and start taking vitamins, they feel better and can often go off pharmaceuticals on which they have been dependent.
And really, this is what Allopathic medicine has been telling us to do for years. To exercise and eat right and take responsibility for our own health.
But now that we are doing it, they are not so happy.
Because many of them don't like the conclusions that we come to when we really and truly take responsibility for our own health.
So unfortunately, instead of being excited that Americans are doing what they have always told us to do, and partnering with them to learn from the masses what the masses are learning and experiencing and thinking and believing and implementing in regards to keeping themselves out of doctors offices, they have chosen to actually mock them.
Oprah, who is the bell weather of what is going on in the mind of the American Housewife as much as she is an influence on said demographic, is being attacked on the cover of Newsweek for allowing guests to present health opinions that are alternative or complementary to allopathic medicine.
They actually entitled the piece, "Crazy Talk: Oprah, Wacky Cures & You."
Have those who have decided to mock not noticed that "wacky cures" are going mainstream? Have they not noticed that the reason that they are going mainstream is because they work, and work quite sensibly? Do they not realize that they are making fun of a good section of their clientele who is now going to the health food store to try to correct problems before going to the Doc?
This fascinating article today out of Baltimore about the voodoo that is going on in hospitals like the shock trauma center at the University of Maryland Medical Center.
I have already told you about the Maine CDC autism conference for the states medical professionals introducing them to GI distress, dietary intervention and toxic and vaccine triggers for autism.
Clearly, a growing number in mainstream medicine are willing to go where the evidence is leading them and like their layman counterparts, embrace what is working despite the fact that it goes against their traditional sensibilities.
But too many are just making fun of the entire movement, and trying to prevent the slide away from their practices by body checking Oprah.
Those that choose that course are going to run into a few problems.
First off, Big Beef already went after Oprah, guns blazing, and lost big time. So the woman has already proven that she is up for a fight and won't be bullied into altering her course if she believes it is the right one.
Second, they underestimate Oprah's audience's loyalty to Oprah. They know her and have known her for decades. They have gotten a lot of good things from her, and even those who are not Oprah worshipers, don't think she is a nut. Those who watch her, and who hasn't during some portion of their lives, are not going to be convinced by Newsweek that she is dangerous.
Third, their attack just comes across as elitist. "You are not smart enough to know what is good for you, only we know what is good for you." If that approach worked then "The Doctors" would be trouncing Oprah in the ratings.
Fourth, while they are pushing the treatment of symptoms, Oprah is giving air time to people that are exploring correcting the metabolic problems that caused the symptoms so that they can be prevented and won't come back. THAT should be their job. She is scooping MM because they are so married to their pharmaceuticals.
Lastly, their best arguement is disingenuous and quite obviously so. It is the same one that "THEY" are making to discourage biomedical treatment for kids with autism. It is the arguement that "these interventions have not been adequately tested".
In many cases, if not most, natural remedies have not been tested to the same rigors as some pharmaceuticals. But the reason that this arguement does not resonate with those beginning to implement wellness practices is that doctors making these complaints are not running out and testing vitamin D and Fish Oil. They are not calling for good studies into who is helped by a gluten free diet and why.
Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks, and if Oprah's critics truly cared about the safety and efficacy of these treatments, they would be calling for increasing the budgets for CAM (Complementary and Alternative Medicine) research, and partnering with CAM practitioners to do it. I mean theoretically they would want people to be healthier and medical care to be cheaper, right?
But then again, Big Cinnamon doesn't throw lavish dinners for doctors and the Tumeric industry does not give away diamond earrings. (See how cynical I can get about disingenuous doctors? It is not like I am the only one who was all rah rah mainstream medicine, got royally screwed by them, and then started taking into consideration all that has corrupted it... I might have been the exception five years ago, but I might be becoming the rule.)
The other problem with your "not enough research" arguement, is that some of these "crazy cures" have been used by cultures for thousands of years before anyone put the scientific method down on paper. If they believe that doctors are earnest and want people to get better, then that must have been true before the industrial revolution, and while not as refined as research today, they had to have had some basis for treatments that lasted hundreds and even thousands of years.
Health crazes come and go, but garlic is forever.
So advice to the Oprah haters, consider that she is not the cause of your problems, she is the result. Oprah is listing to American women, you are not.
Mocking your opponent does not add to your credibility or make people trust you. It makes people suspicious that you are out of arguments and have turned to bullying to keep people in your corner.
ADDENDUIM: Heard from a doc tonight who took exception with my post, a doctor whom I consider one of the ones who IS listening and not one who is stuck in rusty paradigms. I wrote this post quickly and wanted to go back and make sure I was clear on exactly to whom my criticisms are directed.
They are directed to those in mainstream medicine who OPENLY MOCK complementary and alternative medicine.
I do not include in this doctors who are listening and open and respectfully disagree with one CAM treatment or another. On the contrary, they are an important part of the fruitful debate from which good treatment emerges. I don't think physicians in that position need to make fun of others because if they have thoughtfully considered and rejected any given approach, then they have a cogent arguement to make and there is no need to belittle others.
I sense that he also may have been concerned that I may have been promoting Suzanne Summers treatments in some way. Frankly, I don't know a single thing about what she is practicing, and didn't know that she had anything to do with health and wellness until the Newsweek article came out. In my ignorance I will leave others to debate the merits and pitfalls of whatever it is she is espousing.
UPDATE: Jake Crosby takes the failing Newsweek Magazine to task.
UPDATE: Newsweek fails. Sold for one dollar.
Health care has become expensive, it is not able to address many of the complaints that patients have, when it can, side effects can be serious. Most importantly, mainstream medicine can't explain why everyone in this country is so sick.
But the wellness movement can.
It has said that we are overfed and undernourished, over medicated and in poor health, and that we are toxic. That we don't need another pharmaceutical to fix the problem, we need to go back to the symbiotic relationship we had with the planet we grew up on, and only introduce hard core chemicals into our bodies when absolutely necessary.
And guess what... people everywhere are finding out that they are right! When they stop eating processed foods and drinking diet soda, when they go organic and non GMO, when they get rid of gluten and artificial sweeteners, and start taking vitamins, they feel better and can often go off pharmaceuticals on which they have been dependent.
And really, this is what Allopathic medicine has been telling us to do for years. To exercise and eat right and take responsibility for our own health.
But now that we are doing it, they are not so happy.
Because many of them don't like the conclusions that we come to when we really and truly take responsibility for our own health.
So unfortunately, instead of being excited that Americans are doing what they have always told us to do, and partnering with them to learn from the masses what the masses are learning and experiencing and thinking and believing and implementing in regards to keeping themselves out of doctors offices, they have chosen to actually mock them.
Oprah, who is the bell weather of what is going on in the mind of the American Housewife as much as she is an influence on said demographic, is being attacked on the cover of Newsweek for allowing guests to present health opinions that are alternative or complementary to allopathic medicine.
They actually entitled the piece, "Crazy Talk: Oprah, Wacky Cures & You."
Have those who have decided to mock not noticed that "wacky cures" are going mainstream? Have they not noticed that the reason that they are going mainstream is because they work, and work quite sensibly? Do they not realize that they are making fun of a good section of their clientele who is now going to the health food store to try to correct problems before going to the Doc?
This fascinating article today out of Baltimore about the voodoo that is going on in hospitals like the shock trauma center at the University of Maryland Medical Center.
I have already told you about the Maine CDC autism conference for the states medical professionals introducing them to GI distress, dietary intervention and toxic and vaccine triggers for autism.
Clearly, a growing number in mainstream medicine are willing to go where the evidence is leading them and like their layman counterparts, embrace what is working despite the fact that it goes against their traditional sensibilities.
But too many are just making fun of the entire movement, and trying to prevent the slide away from their practices by body checking Oprah.
Those that choose that course are going to run into a few problems.
First off, Big Beef already went after Oprah, guns blazing, and lost big time. So the woman has already proven that she is up for a fight and won't be bullied into altering her course if she believes it is the right one.
Second, they underestimate Oprah's audience's loyalty to Oprah. They know her and have known her for decades. They have gotten a lot of good things from her, and even those who are not Oprah worshipers, don't think she is a nut. Those who watch her, and who hasn't during some portion of their lives, are not going to be convinced by Newsweek that she is dangerous.
Third, their attack just comes across as elitist. "You are not smart enough to know what is good for you, only we know what is good for you." If that approach worked then "The Doctors" would be trouncing Oprah in the ratings.
Fourth, while they are pushing the treatment of symptoms, Oprah is giving air time to people that are exploring correcting the metabolic problems that caused the symptoms so that they can be prevented and won't come back. THAT should be their job. She is scooping MM because they are so married to their pharmaceuticals.
Lastly, their best arguement is disingenuous and quite obviously so. It is the same one that "THEY" are making to discourage biomedical treatment for kids with autism. It is the arguement that "these interventions have not been adequately tested".
In many cases, if not most, natural remedies have not been tested to the same rigors as some pharmaceuticals. But the reason that this arguement does not resonate with those beginning to implement wellness practices is that doctors making these complaints are not running out and testing vitamin D and Fish Oil. They are not calling for good studies into who is helped by a gluten free diet and why.
Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks, and if Oprah's critics truly cared about the safety and efficacy of these treatments, they would be calling for increasing the budgets for CAM (Complementary and Alternative Medicine) research, and partnering with CAM practitioners to do it. I mean theoretically they would want people to be healthier and medical care to be cheaper, right?
But then again, Big Cinnamon doesn't throw lavish dinners for doctors and the Tumeric industry does not give away diamond earrings. (See how cynical I can get about disingenuous doctors? It is not like I am the only one who was all rah rah mainstream medicine, got royally screwed by them, and then started taking into consideration all that has corrupted it... I might have been the exception five years ago, but I might be becoming the rule.)
The other problem with your "not enough research" arguement, is that some of these "crazy cures" have been used by cultures for thousands of years before anyone put the scientific method down on paper. If they believe that doctors are earnest and want people to get better, then that must have been true before the industrial revolution, and while not as refined as research today, they had to have had some basis for treatments that lasted hundreds and even thousands of years.
Health crazes come and go, but garlic is forever.
So advice to the Oprah haters, consider that she is not the cause of your problems, she is the result. Oprah is listing to American women, you are not.
Mocking your opponent does not add to your credibility or make people trust you. It makes people suspicious that you are out of arguments and have turned to bullying to keep people in your corner.
ADDENDUIM: Heard from a doc tonight who took exception with my post, a doctor whom I consider one of the ones who IS listening and not one who is stuck in rusty paradigms. I wrote this post quickly and wanted to go back and make sure I was clear on exactly to whom my criticisms are directed.
They are directed to those in mainstream medicine who OPENLY MOCK complementary and alternative medicine.
I do not include in this doctors who are listening and open and respectfully disagree with one CAM treatment or another. On the contrary, they are an important part of the fruitful debate from which good treatment emerges. I don't think physicians in that position need to make fun of others because if they have thoughtfully considered and rejected any given approach, then they have a cogent arguement to make and there is no need to belittle others.
I sense that he also may have been concerned that I may have been promoting Suzanne Summers treatments in some way. Frankly, I don't know a single thing about what she is practicing, and didn't know that she had anything to do with health and wellness until the Newsweek article came out. In my ignorance I will leave others to debate the merits and pitfalls of whatever it is she is espousing.
UPDATE: Jake Crosby takes the failing Newsweek Magazine to task.
UPDATE: Newsweek fails. Sold for one dollar.
May 28, 2009
May 27, 2009
Contradictory Rulings in the Vaccine Court
[An alternate version of this piece was written in response to an article in Utah Stories.]
Many have cited three cases in which The Health and Human Service's vaccine court ruled out vaccines as a cause of a child's autism, but don't mention the 10 cases (discovered by CBS News) that were won in that court by children with autism.
Three of those 10 families have gone public, The Polings, The Banks and The Hiatts.
The Poling case is the only one that received mainstream media coverage.
Only ten days after we heard that the court said MMR doesn't cause autism, we heard that the same court said that MMR caused Baily Banks autism.
Shouldn't we be shouting a collective, "WHAT?!" to The Department of Health and Human Services for their contradictory positions?
Here is the thing, when the Department of Health and Human Services puts the Department of Health and Human Services on trial, and the Department of Health and Human Services wins, that is not news. When they put themselves on trial and loose, as in the Poling, Banks and Hiatt cases THAT IS NEWS!
THOSE are the cases we should be demanding answers from the government on.
The Poling family has requested that their daughters case files can be made public so everyone can know the reasoning behind HHS's decision, but HHS isn't sharing any of their insight into WHY Hanna deservesa million 20 million bucks for her vaccine injury.
So let's not boil this debate down to scientist v. tv stars. There are MANY in the scientific and public health community who believe that vaccines are involved in the autism epidemic.
And apparently HHS itself does too because it keeps paying claims for autistic kids.
Please take a moment and check out the VICP's vaccine injury table for yourself. You will note that "encephalopathy" is listed as a compensated injury for DTaP and MMR.
Then scroll down to the middle of the page and look at the symptoms of encephalopathy for 18 month olds:
1. Loss of eye contact
2. Unresponsive to stimuli except for loud shouts
3. Seems disconnected from the world around him
THAT is a description of a child with "autism".
THAT was a description of MY son after his DTaP shot for which he was diagnosed with "autism".
The government has ruled that vaccines do and do not cause autism. Are You ok with that solid, definitive, case closed argument?
I REALLY hope not.
It is time for HHS to make the Poling documents public, and to answer to the public for their untenable, illogical position.
Many have cited three cases in which The Health and Human Service's vaccine court ruled out vaccines as a cause of a child's autism, but don't mention the 10 cases (discovered by CBS News) that were won in that court by children with autism.
Three of those 10 families have gone public, The Polings, The Banks and The Hiatts.
The Poling case is the only one that received mainstream media coverage.
Only ten days after we heard that the court said MMR doesn't cause autism, we heard that the same court said that MMR caused Baily Banks autism.
"In his conclusion, Special Master Abell wrote:
The Court found that Bailey's ADEM was both caused-in-fact and proximately caused by his vaccination. It is well-understood that the vaccination at issue can cause ADEM, and the Court found, based upon a full reading and hearing of the pertinent facts in this case, that it did actually cause the ADEM. Furthermore, Bailey's ADEM was severe enough to cause lasting, residual damage, and retarded his developmental progress, which fits under the generalized heading of Pervasive Developmental Delay, or PDD. The Court found that Bailey would not have suffered this delay but for the administration of the MMR vaccine, and that this chain of causation was not too remote, but was rather a proximate sequence of cause and effect leading inexorably from vaccination to Pervasive Developmental Delay.
And he added this:
Petitioner's theory of PDD caused by vaccine-related ADEM causally connects the vaccination and the ultimate injury, and does so by explaining a logical sequence of cause and effect showing that the vaccination was the ultimate reason for the injury.
Shouldn't we be shouting a collective, "WHAT?!" to The Department of Health and Human Services for their contradictory positions?
Here is the thing, when the Department of Health and Human Services puts the Department of Health and Human Services on trial, and the Department of Health and Human Services wins, that is not news. When they put themselves on trial and loose, as in the Poling, Banks and Hiatt cases THAT IS NEWS!
THOSE are the cases we should be demanding answers from the government on.
The Poling family has requested that their daughters case files can be made public so everyone can know the reasoning behind HHS's decision, but HHS isn't sharing any of their insight into WHY Hanna deserves
So let's not boil this debate down to scientist v. tv stars. There are MANY in the scientific and public health community who believe that vaccines are involved in the autism epidemic.
And apparently HHS itself does too because it keeps paying claims for autistic kids.
Please take a moment and check out the VICP's vaccine injury table for yourself. You will note that "encephalopathy" is listed as a compensated injury for DTaP and MMR.
Then scroll down to the middle of the page and look at the symptoms of encephalopathy for 18 month olds:
1. Loss of eye contact
2. Unresponsive to stimuli except for loud shouts
3. Seems disconnected from the world around him
THAT is a description of a child with "autism".
THAT was a description of MY son after his DTaP shot for which he was diagnosed with "autism".
The government has ruled that vaccines do and do not cause autism. Are You ok with that solid, definitive, case closed argument?
I REALLY hope not.
It is time for HHS to make the Poling documents public, and to answer to the public for their untenable, illogical position.
May 26, 2009
Low Dose Naltrexone and ALA Being Used For Cancer and MS
Mercola is highlighting interviews with Dr. Burton M. Berkson who has been successfully using LDN and ALA on terminal cancer patients, around half of which are surviving.
"However, more recently, researchers have discovered that at very low dosages (3 to 4.5 mg), naltrexone has immunomodulating properties that may be able to successfully treat cancer malignancies, and a wide range of autoimmune diseases like rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis (MS), Parkinson’s, fibromyalgia, and Crohn’s disease, just to name a few.
Added benefits include its low-cost, and few, if any, of the detrimental side effects you normally experience with pharmaceutical drugs.
[also being used for:]
* Hepatitis C
* Diabetic neuropathies
* Lupus
* Dermatomyositis (an inflammatory muscle disease)
* Ulcerative colitis
* Other autoimmune diseases"
May 25, 2009
Memorial Day: C. Chandler Perine
Marine Corps 1st Lt. C. Chandler Perine was my uncle and he loved me.
He died in the service of his country on November 15, 1970 at the age of 26 when the plane he was piloting suffered mechanical failure during take off from McGuire AFB, New Jersey
Chan, my father's younger brother, served as a helicopter pilot in Vietnam, a football player in college and "class flirt" in high school.
He is dearly missed.
My youngest son, Chandler Perine Taylor, is named in honor of him.
May 19, 2009
CDC Admits Autism is Environmental
I missed writing about many stories this year, but wanted to call this to your attention to this story from February, as it represents a paradigm shift in CDC's autism causation stance.
From Age of Autism:
From Age of Autism:
Las Vegas Sun Reports: CDC Admits Autism is Environmental
Las Vegas sun Managing Editor's Note: Thank you to Marshall Allen of the Las Vegas Sun for this article in which Dr. Catherine Rice, Director of the CDC's National Center for Birth Defects states that vaccines and other environmental insults are possible causes of autism. I think the genetics only crowd and vaccine deniers' luck is running out, don't you? Please click HERE to read the full article at the Las Vegas Sun. You can thank Mr. Allen for running this article HERE. Please do. Kim
So are there more autistic children, or is the broadening definition causing more children to be classified as autistic?
It’s impossible to say for sure, Rice said. Awareness of autism is increasing, which leads to more effective identification, but it’s also possible that it’s increasing. Even with the more inclusive definition, the number of autistic children seems to be on the rise, Rice said.
It’s not known what causes autism.
Researchers say environmental factors could contribute to the onset of the disorders. Studies have linked autism to air pollutants, pesticides, pet medications and even drugs used in the birthing process, such as Pitosin, Rice said.
“It could be anything from the exposures in our physical surroundings — chemicals around us in homes, clothes, products, medications we take and food we eat,” Rice said.
Rice said the recognition that environmental factors play a role in causing autism shows that there is common ground in the debate about whether vaccines play a role in the disorders.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)