Truthspace’s Research

In a world of universal deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act

The Hidden Bailout Of $1.4 Trillion In Fannie / Freddie Credit-Default Swaps by Daniel Amerman

September 10, 2008

The Hidden Bailout Of $1.4 Trillion In Fannie / Freddie Credit-Default Swaps
by Daniel Amerman

Overview

Something extraordinary happened on Monday, September the 8th, 2008. The government takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac triggered the pending settlement of $1.4 trillion in credit-default swaps. This single event could have led to a cascading series of failures that might have bankrupted Wall Street – and much of the rest of the financial world – by the end of the week. That isn’t happening, and indeed, the media is treating this as something close to a non-event. However, a very real $1.4 trillion event happened – whose resolution effectively constitutes one of the largest government bailouts in history. Nobody noticed, for even though this is occurring in “plain sight”, the simple fact is that few people outside of the financial industry understand the $600 trillion derivative securities market. In this article, written the day after the event, we will briefly explain why this hidden, massive bailout – not of Fannie and Freddie but of the financial derivatives industry – is hugely significant, with potentially profound – and arbitragable – implications for the dollar, the markets and your personal financial future.

What Did NOT Happen

(These first several paragraphs in italics do not describe what did happen, but rather what could have happened in an alternate universe in which we actually had a free market that functioned without massive government interventions.)

The financial news of the day was that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were both unable to make debt payments and had defaulted on $5 trillion in bonds and mortgage-backed securities. With the US real estate market having fallen $4 trillion in the previous two years (non inflation-adjusted), it should have been no surprise that these two highly leveraged companies were not able to absorb the staggering losses. As this became clear to the markets, Fannie and Freddie lost the ability to borrow – which their survival was based upon – and actual default followed soon after. This default immediately triggered settlements on $1.4 trillion in credit-default swaps (credit derivatives), which had been entered into by major financial firms who had promised – in exchange for lucrative fee income – that if Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac were to default, these guarantor firms would make good on the defaulted bonds.

As the value of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac debt plunged to 30 cents on the dollar, this meant that there was a 70% loss on the bonds (if one could find a buyer at all). This then triggered a call for settlement on the $1.4 trillion in credit-default swaps outstanding. Because the debt of the two former titans of the financial world was trading at a 70% discount compared to par value, this meant that total credit losses were $1 trillion ($1.4 trillion X 70% = $1 trillion). This meant $1 trillion worth of payments was due from the companies that had guaranteed the value of this debt, through their entering into credit-default swaps.

Settlement was triggered, but as the credit-default swap beneficiaries soon found out, collecting their settlements was an entirely different matter. The financial institutions around the world who had guaranteed Fannie and Freddie in exchange for lucrative corporate fee income (and multi-million dollar individual bonuses) were all highly leveraged themselves (indeed, weaker than the companies they were guaranteeing), and absolutely reliant on the day to day availability of large lines of credit and general borrowing capacity. As the creditors of these financial giants realized that a trillion dollar hit was barreling straight at them, they pulled their financing. Having to repay or replace these loans, without being able to sell massive portfolios of illiquid assets in a market suddenly devoid of buyers, left nearly every major investment bank and commercial bank in the United States and Europe unable to meet their obligations – even before settlement of their trillion dollar credit-default swap losses.

The failure of the major financial firms triggered another massive round of credit-default swap events, with amounts well over $10 trillion by Thursday, and over $20 trillion by Friday. By that time, however, no one was naïve enough to expect actual payment on those swaps, as Wall Street and the rest of the world’s financial hubs had all been insolvent since Wednesday. When the markets eventually opened for business again more than two months later, the official drop in the Dow Jones Industrial Average was over 10,000 points, meaning the index was trading at a level in the 1,000 – 1,500 range.

What Did Happen

“They say there are no atheists in a foxhole. Well, there are no libertarians in a financial crisis, either.”

Jeffrey Frankel, Harvard economist

The above scenario is what might have happened if we took the naïve perspective that markets actually function on their own without government intervention, and that corporations take the consequences for their own bad decisions, in exchange for the profits that come from their good decisions. That is of course a hypothetical world that has little to do with current global financial markets.

If you want a glimpse of the real world future, and what is happening as the same flawed business model that destroyed the $1.2 trillion subprime mortgage derivative securities market now threatens the over $60 trillion credit derivatives market, then we need to look no further than what actually happened with the $1.4 trillion worth of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac credit default swaps. The companies were taken into conservatorship on September 6th. They have effectively failed even if legally there are some different ways of phrasing it. As reported by Bloomberg on September 8th, that led to a unanimous agreement by 13 Wall Street firms on Monday, September 7, 2008, that settlement of $1.4 trillion in credit default swaps had been triggered.

If Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had actually failed to make payments on their debt – the consequences would have quite likely destroyed Wall Street right there. As illustrated in the scenario above, there simply isn’t a big enough capital base on Wall Street to absorb a trillion dollars in losses in a week, particularly once your creditors catch on to what is happening. Much smaller losses from subprime mortgage derivatives incrementally dribbling out over the course of the year, still might have taken down Wall Street, had it not been for the ability to hide losses in Tier Three assets (with the full complicity of the government), as well as the reassurances that the Federal Reserve provided by so swiftly bailing out Bear Stearns via JP Morgan, when a creditor driven bankruptcy (as described above) threatened to take down a major player.

Of course, the hypothetical collapse did not happen. The meltdown was averted because the federal government proactively and aggressively intervened to keep a financial disaster from taking down Wall Street (just as it did with Bear Stearns, and Long Term Capital Management the decade before). When the situation started to get bad, the federal government stepped in and – even if they still are hedging a bit legally – effectively guaranteed the debt of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Which means that they also – and this is crucial – bailed out the firms who had guaranteed the $1.4 trillion in credit derivatives. There may very well be losses, perhaps significant losses, but there would be no catastrophic loss there, that would threaten the viability of the financial system. Because what has really happened is that you have replaced a credit default swap on a quasi-governmental agency, that being Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, with a credit default swap on the full faith and credit of the United States government. If the US guarantee had not been substituted then it would be a catastrophic failure. But because the US guarantee was substituted, it’s seemingly not a big deal, though much remains to be worked out.

In other words, the biggest beneficiaries of the $1.4 trillion Fannie and Freddie bailout were not Fannie or Freddie at all, but the Wall Street firms whose senior officers just happen to be major political contributors to both political parties – with some of those senior officers also running the Treasury Department on a revolving door basis.

How the ending valuation of the credit default swaps for settlement purposes will work out is a fascinating question. Arguably you could say that the value of Fannie and Freddie debt just rose, not only in comparison to prices during the recent financial turmoil, but also compared to par value. After all, we have just gone from quasi-governmental debt to something that is much closer to being explicitly a full faith and credit obligation of the United States Government, which means we should be losing part of the small spread that Fannie and Freddie traded at as quasi-governmental debt over direct governmental debt yields. From this perspective, one could say that the United States stepping in and taking over actually improves credit quality and the value of the bonds, so there is no loss at all – but a gain.

However there still remains a level of uncertainty, as the debt has not explicitly been made full faith and credit of the United States government. There’s a taint involved, and there could be liquidity issues – as investors typically are not too fond of even small uncertainties. So there’s a good chance the ending value will end up somewhere in the 90s – perhaps very close to par or perhaps a little bit further away. Wherever the ultimate settlement prices, however, it will not be a massive loss, because what has really happened is that a swap has indeed taken place, and the United States government bailed Wall Street out of self-inflicted credit swap-driven destruction, through preemptively swapping its guarantee for the guarantees by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The real implication of this then is that there is no danger from credit default swaps directly taking down Wall Street, so long as the federal government is willing to aggressively intervene every time there is a potential failure. I think we can see a clear path to the future here.

Where Did That Trillion Come From?

Before going any further, let’s stop and ask a simple question.

Where did the money for the bailout come from?

How did a strapped federal government come up with the trillions (if need be) to make good on all of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s obligations?

How did a government that is already running over a $400 billion deficit so smoothly and easily come up with an extra trillion dollars or two, if needed? (With the $400 billion being based upon government accounting standards whose usage would get an individual or private firm thrown in prison. The deficit is far, far higher when unfunded retirement obligations are taken into account.)

And, for that matter, now that we’re on the subject – where did the government come up with the money for the $170 billion “tax rebate”?

How about that $59 trillion number for unfunded retirement related government obligations that keeps being bandied around? (The real number is a good bit higher as I cover in my article “The $2 Million Opportunity.”)

Where does the government come up with all that money, anyway?

The answer is simple – there is an unlimited supply of dollars. When you issue your own currency, and you are sufficiently determined, then there is an infinite supply of money available. Which could be a very good thing(?), for the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac credit-default swaps are only one small part of a much larger market – and much larger risk. As we will discuss later in the article, however, while the supply of money is infinite, the value of that money is a different matter.

Taking Full Advantage Of Implicit Government Guarantees

Click Here To Learn About A Free Mini Course That Will Teach You How To Turn Inflation Into Wealth.

Once you understand that the supplyof money is effectively infinite for a sufficiently grave emergency, then you are ready for the next step in understanding some recent events which might otherwise seem indecipherable. From some perspectives, this near catastrophe which could have so easily taken down all of Wall Street (had the federal government not intervened), was not a catastrophe at all. It was instead a highly successful experiment. For the many firms which purportedly took on the risk in creating $1.4 trillion of credit-default swaps for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac did not do so for the fun of it or out of the goodness of their hearts. They did so because they got paid enormous sums of money for purportedly taking on all those risks. With much of that money quite directly passing through to the already wealthy individuals involved.

If Fannie and Freddie had not run into problems then the guarantor financial firms would have just pocketed all of their fees, ultimately as pure profit. Instead of that, a worst case scenario occurred that arguably should have destroyed every one of the firms involved in this business – and would have likely done so if there had genuinely been a free market involved.

What the experiment proved was that as long as the risk that you take is big enough, then the federal government and your former coworkers down at the Treasury Department can be absolutely relied upon to bail you out. Now, Wall Street felt this was likely already the case. It was kind of a shame to lose a firm like Bear Stearns, but the good part about it was it proved that a major derivatives market failure wouldn’t be allowed to occur, as was remarked upon in the article from last month quoted below:

“Government intervention has saved the $62 trillion credit derivatives market from facing the nightmare of counterparty failure during the credit crisis of the past year…

After the government backed rescue of Bear Stearns, the market views other major derivative counterparties as also “too big to fail”, and this implicit support… means the credit derivatives market will likely be spared the ultimate test.”

Reuters (Karen Brettell), August 7, 2008

With the takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the markets have been shown to be correct, and the reliability of the government bailout occurring has now been proven on a much larger scale. If the dollar amount is great enough, then no individual firm has to go down. Instead the United States Treasury and/or Federal Reserve will preemptively step in, and effectively make every one whole (or close thereto), perhaps without even affecting Wall Street bonuses.

The principle is very simple. Take huge risks that you know cannot possibly pay out if you lose. In fact – that’s the key to the whole transaction. The risks have to be so large that you cannot afford to lose, and the economy and markets cannot afford for you to lose. Then one of two things happens. Either the risk event does not come about and you make an extraordinary amount of money as an individual and as a firm for having taken on this huge amount of risk. Or the risk happens and you have to pay out. Except you really don’t, because you can’t afford to pay out and you have effectively blackmailed the rest of the population through being too big to fail. Then the government steps in and bails you out. Except it’s not really the government, because the government can’t truly do that, it is the rest of the population which bails you out.

Situations like this are sometimes referred to as “moral hazard” – a weak and theoretical sounding term for an insider’s game of global economic blackmail that is growing at a rate much faster than the overall global economy. The cozy relationship between Wall Street and regulators is crucial, and much of the massive, hidden derivatives bailout that just occurred can be explained by looking at just who the chief “cop” is. US Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson built his half billion dollar personal fortune as the former head of Goldman Sachs, meaning he was chief executive of one of the world’s leading derivatives players.

Making Sense Of The Irrational

It is only when you understand the game that is being played, that the actions of Wall Street and much of the rest of the financial world after the subprime mortgage crisis becomes clear.

The subprime mortgage derivates experiment failed spectacularly. The firms that were creating these derivative securities and the rating firms who were rating them were making numerous and obvious mistakes. Yet once the fundamentally flawed business model was disproven – the world did not move away from derivative securities. Oh, they stopped creating new subprime mortgage derivatives, but when we look at the arguably much riskier credit derivatives market (this greater risk is explored in my article “Credit Derivatives Dangers In 2008 & Beyond – A Primer”), the market grew from $35 trillion in outstanding credit derivatives in July 2007 — the same time it was becoming clear that something was going very badly wrong in the subprime mortgage derivatives market — to a current level of about $62 trillion. In other words the market reacted to the real world proof that these things don’t actually work, by almost doubling the amount in existence in one year. Indeed, the amount of credit derivatives outstanding grew at an annual rate that was about twice the size of the entire United States economy.

Now if you are an academic modeling a hypothetical world of free markets and rational behavior by sophisticated investors keeping the markets safe and fairly valued for all involved, this would make no sense whatsoever. Rational investment firms ought to be fleeing markets like credit derivatives – not doubling up on an already failed experiment.

The reason? It’s the best game in town. Take a huge amount of risk, be paid exceedingly well for it and if you screw up — you have absolute proof that the government will come in and bail you out at the expense of the rest of the population (who did not share in your profits in the first place).

Investing For The Bailout, Not The Crisis

Once we recognize that what is happening here is not a massive credit default, but a monetization by the US government of those losses on a potentially multi-trillion dollar scale, then our investment strategy changes dramatically. We are no longer investing for the crisis – but for the bailout. The combination of this bailout and the Federal Reserves unprecedented actions in forcing interest rates so far below the rate of inflation creates a “target-rich environment” for the execution of arbitrage strategies by both corporate and individual investors.

The federal government is not going to let the financial system fail. It will create however much money needs to be created to bail out the institutions and attempt to bailout the economy, as it has already shown in real world test after test, from the so-called “tax rebate”, to Bear Stearns, to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Which means that the government is prepared to destroy the dollar, and is not just prepared to, but is currently actively destroying the value of the dollar rather than let those firms fail. So the way you invest for the failure of an out of control derivatives market is to invest for the destruction of the dollar. Which means taking on new tools for a new time.

Four Steps To Creating Wealth From Catastrophe

The first step in creating wealth in an unfair world – is to avoid getting cheated. If you are investing money at short term rates of 1%, 2% or even 5%, while the value of your money is eroding at 9% a year, then you are being deliberately played for a sucker, and cheated out of the value of your money by the Federal Reserve.

Not that secret meetings are being held and an explicit agreement is being made to “get the little guys”. It’s just that sacrifices have to be made for the greater good to try to avert a catastrophic market meltdown, and that means that trusting individual investors get paid a negative interest rate on their money (after adjusting for inflation), while paying taxes on (economically) non-existent income for the privilege. Keep in mind as well that one of the purposes in destroying the value of your money is to keep the prices on financial assets propped above where they would otherwise be, if genuine market forces were setting short term interest rates. Which means that you are systematically overpaying for financial assets compared to actual fundamental values, and are getting played for a sucker there as well, to the extent that you are not being subsidized with below (real) market rates like the banks, investment banks and hedge funds. (See my article “Fed Manipulations Subsidize Wall Street & Cheat Investors” for more on this.)

The second step to turning financial catastrophe into personal wealth requires understanding one simple thing – which most investors do not. Inflation does not destroy real wealth, at least not directly. Inflation redistributes real wealth. Indeed, inflation can be used by individuals to quite directly take real wealth from both financial institutions and other individuals, as I illustrate in my (slightly twisted) morality tale “Inflation Pickpocket”. (To add insult to injury, those doing the pocket picking can often do so tax-free, even while their victims pay real taxes on illusory income.)

The third step is to understand that wealth redistribution on a massive scale creates personal opportunity on a massive scale. John Paulson (no relation to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson) saw the crisis that was coming in subprime mortgages, researched and educated himself on this area (which had not been his field of expertise), and he turned the crisis into a $3-$4 billion personal payday in 2007. If you’re not a hedge fund manager like John Paulson, you may not have the tools that he used to turn a market crisis into personal billions. That’s OK, because Paulson didn’t start with the tools either. He started with educating himself and learning about a new area, until he came up with a novel way to profit from disaster. A method that wasn’t in the financial textbooks, and that he didn’t find by reading a financial columnist in the paper.

Next you need to understand that you personally may have more tools than you may think, some of which may surprise you. Tools which can give you the opportunity to turn financial disaster into personal net worth. There are ways you can use those tools to turn the destruction of the currency into perhaps the greatest real wealth-building opportunity of your life, on a long-term and tax-advantaged basis. But, if you want this to happen –you will need to start with learning. That is the irreplaceable fourth step. You are going to have to educate yourself, and work to not just understand, but to master some of the financial forces and methods in play here. You will have to learn how to turn the destruction of paper wealth into real wealth. With Turning Inflation Into Wealth being the key to this next step. My best wishes to you for turning this challenge into an extraordinary personal opportunity.

September 10, 2008 Posted by | Banking | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

The Next Big Autism Bomb: Are 1 in 50 Kids Potentially At Risk?

The Next Big Autism Bomb: Are 1 in 50 Kids Potentially At Risk?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/the-next-big-autism-bomb_b_93627.html

Posted March 26, 2008 | 09:30 PM (EST)
Read More: Autism, Autism Mitochondria, Autism Thimerosal, Autism Vaccine Mercury, Autism Vaccines, Breaking Living News

stumbleupon :The Next Big Autism Bomb: Are 1 in 50 Kids Potentially At Risk? digg: The Next Big Autism Bomb: Are 1 in 50 Kids Potentially At Risk? reddit: The Next Big Autism Bomb: Are 1 in 50 Kids Potentially At Risk? del.icio.us: The Next Big Autism Bomb: Are 1 in 50 Kids Potentially At Risk? Review it on NewsTrust Yahoo Buzz: The Next Big Autism Bomb: Are 1 in 50 Kids Potentially At Risk?

On Tuesday, March 11, a conference call was held between vaccine safety officials at the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, several leading experts in vaccine safety research, and executives from America’s Health Insurance Plans, (the HMO trade association) to discuss childhood mitochondrial dysfunction and its potential link to autism and vaccines.

It was a sobering event for all concerned, and it could soon become known as the Conference Call heard ’round the world.

The teleconference was scheduled by a little known CDC agency called the Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment (CISA) Network, a consortium of six research centers working on “immunization-associated health risks,” in conjunction with the CDC’s Immunization Safety Office and the health insurance lobby — whose companies cover some 200 million Americans.

The hot topic of the day was mitochondria – the little powerhouses within each cell that convert food and oxygen into energy for use by the body. Recent news events have implicated mitochondria in at least one case of regressive autism, following normal development.

Some researchers on the call reported that mitochondrial dysfunction is probably much more common than the current estimate of 1-in-4,000 people. The potential implications for autism, then, are staggering.

“We need to find out if there is credible evidence, theoretically, to support the idea that childhood mitochondrial dysfunction might regress into autism,” one of the callers reportedly told participants.

“THE CLOCK IS TICKING”

One person on the call (those interviewed for this article asked to remain anonymous) told me that, “the CDC people were informed, in no uncertain terms, that they need to look into this issue immediately, and do something about it.” The clock is ticking, they were told, and if they don’t respond, the information will be made public.

Still, the doctor said, he was enormously impressed by the “seriousness” with which CDC officials treated the possibility of a link between mitochondria, autism and possibly vaccines as well.

In the recent landmark Hannah Poling case, filed in Federal “Vaccine Court,” officials conceded that Hannah’s underlying mitochondrial dysfunction was aggravated by her vaccines, leading to fever and an “immune stimulation that exceeded metabolic reserves.”

But on March 6, CDC Director Dr. Julie Gerberding claimed that Hannah’s case was a rare, virtually one-of-a-kind incident with little, if any relevance to the other 4,900 autism claims currently pending in the court — or to any other case of autism for that matter.(There were conflicting accounts about whether Gerberding was on the call or not).

Since then, however, Dr. Gerberding and other CDC officials were made aware of a Portuguese study, published last October, which reported that 7.2% of children with autism had confirmed mitochondrial disorders. The authors also noted that, “a diversity of associated medical conditions was documented in 20%, with an unexpectedly high rate of mitochondrial respiratory chain disorders.”

“Apparently, the Portuguese study really got their attention,” one of the participants said. “It’s a highly significant finding. And it’s worrisome enough to definitely look into. I think the CDC people know that.”

They also know that some reports estimate the rate of mitochondrial dysfunction in autism to be 20% or more. And the rate among children with the regressive sub-type of autism is likely higher still.

Vaccine safety officials on the March 11 call may have been open to discussing mitochondria and autism, but they were probably highly unprepared for what was to come next.

One doctor reported his findings from a five-year study of children with autism, who also showed clinical markers for impaired cellular energy, due to mild dysfunction of their mitochondria.

The biochemistry of 30 children was studied intensively, and in each case, the results showed the same abnormalities as those found in Hannah Poling, participants said. Each child had moderate elevations or imbalances in the exact same amino acids and liver enzymes as Hannah Poling.

All thirty children also displayed normal, healthy development until about 18-24 months of age, when they quickly regressed into clinically diagnosed autism (and not merely “features of autism”), following some type of unusual trigger, or stress, placed on their immune system.

Researchers explained on the call that some data show that mitochondrial dysfunction can convert into autism “in numbers that make it not a rare occurrence,” one participant told me. They explained this as “a distinct syndrome; not a mixed bag at all. Every kid had mild mitochondria dysfunction and autistic regression.”

Another surprise came when one researcher announced an “inheritance pattern” that linked each case through the genetics of the father: In families where two cousins had autism, the genetic link was always through the father.

This unexpected discovery would clearly implicate nuclear DNA inheritance, and not mitochondrial DNA, which is inherited only through the mother.

Gerberding and others had previously insisted that Hannah and her mother, Teri Poling, both had the same single point mutation in their mitochondrial DNA. CDC officials asserted that Hannah had a pre-existing disease, a rare genetic glitch in her mitochondria, that may well have manifested as “features of autism” on its own, perhaps even without an environmental trigger.

“It’s not in the mitochondrial DNA, and it’s not rare,” one participant confirmed. In fact, he said, many people probably carry the nuclear DNA mutation that confers susceptibility to mitochondrial dysfunction, they just don’t know it.

1-in-50 GENETIC RISK?

On the call, speculation on the prevalence of a genetic mutation that could confer mild mitochondrial dysfunction in the general population ranged from about 1-in-400, to a staggering 1-in-50, or 2% of all Americans.

There was talk about the urgent need to do mapping studies, and find the locus of this gene. Some of the researchers said they want to test all 30 children for the actual DNA mutation. There was some expectation that they might discover that the mutation goes back generations, so parents and grandparents might be tested as well.

One belief is that a particular mutated gene may have become prevalent over the centuries, because of selective advantage. Mild mitochondrial dysfunction reportedly has been associated with intelligence, because it can increase activity of the brain’s NMDA receptors. A large number of receptors can produce increased intelligence, but it can also increase risk of brain disease, one doctor explained to me. It’s possible that increased receptor activity acts in same way.

But not everyone agrees that mitochondrial dysfunction is a purely inherited affair. Some researchers believe that, while a susceptibility gene for mitochondrial problems certainly exists, some type of environmental trigger, or “adversity,” as one doctor put it, is needed to turn the mutation into a dysfunction.

The medical literature is replete with studies on mitochondrial health and the adverse impact of mercury, aluminum and other toxins. Even AIDS drugs like AZT and prenatal alcohol consumption can damage mitochondria and impact cellular energy.

The mercury-containing vaccine preservative, thimerosal, for example, “can definitely kill cells in vitro through the mitochondria,” one teleconference participant told me. “And some people are beginning to suspect that the dose of hepatitis B vaccine given at birth might be interfering with proper mitochondrial function in certain children.”

While the cause of mitochondrial dysfunction is up for the debate, so too is its potential effect on regressive autism.

All the researchers I spoke with agreed that, in many cases, there was an underlying, asymptomatic mitochondrial dysfunction, aggravated by some other stressful event imposed on the child’s immune system, resulting in autism.

Such “metabolic decomposition” occurs when a child’s system simply “cannot meet the energy demand needed to fight the stress of illness,” one doctor explained.

But what causes the stress? That is a very big question.

Apparently, in only two of the 30 cases, or 6%, could the regression be traced directly and temporally to immunizations, and one of them was Hannah Poling. In the other cases, there was reportedly some type of documented, fever-inducing viral infection that occurred within seven days of the onset of brain injury symptoms.

All 30 of the regressions occurred between one and two years of age, at a time when the still-developing brain is particularly vulnerable to injury.

But if a significant minority of autism cases was caused by mitochondrial dysfunction aggravated by common childhood illnesses, then shouldn’t we see fewer cases today than, say, at the beginning of the 20th Century? And wouldn’t developing countries likewise show far more prevalence of autism than the United States?

Not necessarily, some experts said. They noted that many viral infections are still quite prevalent in modern-day America, and many children still get these types of viral infections about once a month, on average.

If that is the case, then why doesn’t every child with “mito” dysfunction regress into autism? Surely, they must encounter viral infections during their yearlong window of neurological peril.

Again, not necessarily: Some doctors said it would depend on the severity of the dysfunction, the type of virus encountered, and perhaps other factors that are still not understood.

But at least two of the 30 kids with mito deficiencies were pushed over the edge into autism by their vaccines, and some researchers feel the number is probably much higher than that in the larger population.

“Vaccines, in some cases, can cause an unusually heightened immune reaction, fever, and even mild illness,” one participant said. “A normal vaccine reaction in most kids would be very different in a kid with a metabolic disorder. We know it happened to at least two kids in this study, and I’m certain there are many more Hannahs out there.”

One theory currently in circulation about what happened to Hannah and other children like her, is an apparent “triple domino effect.” According to this hypothesis, it takes three steps and two triggers to get to some types of autism, and it goes like this:

STEP ONE: Child is conceived and born healthy, but with an underlying nuclear DNA genetic susceptibility to mitochondrial dysfunction, inherited from dad.

TRIGGER ONE: An early environmental “adversity” occurs in the womb or during the neonatal period, perhaps caused by prenatal exposure to heavy metals, pollutants, pesticides and medicines. Or, it occurs in early infancy, through environmental toxins, thimerosal exposure, or even the Hepatitis B vaccine “birth dose.” This trigger results in:

STEP TWO: Child develops mild, usually asymptomatic mitochondrial dysfunction (though I wonder if the ear infections and eczema so common in these cases might also be symptoms of mito problems).

TRIGGER TWO: Child, now with an underlying mitochondrial dysfunction, suffers over-stimulation of the immune system beyond the capacity of his or her metabolic reserves. This stress is either via a viral febrile infection, or from multiple vaccinations, as in the Poling case. This trigger results in:

STEP THREE: Acute illness, seizures, encephalopathy, developmental regression, autism.

Such a scenario might help explain why autism has increased right along with the addition of more vaccines to the national schedule.

And it might help explain why autism rates are not plummeting now that thimerosal levels have been significantly reduced in most childhood vaccines.

It’s possible that exposures from the flu shot, and residual mercury left over in other vaccines — perhaps in synergistic effect with aluminum used as an “adjuvant” to boost the immune response – might “contribute to the toxic mix that causes childhood mitochondrial dysfunction in the first place,” one of the doctors said.

But like many hypotheses, this one has competition. Some researchers believe that the modern American diet is largely to blame for an increase in the number of children whose underlying mitochondrial dysfunction is “triggered” into autism by febrile infections.

The answer, they hypothesize, is corn.

The American diet has become extraordinarily dependent on corn oil and corn syrup used in processing, these experts contend. They say that corn oil and syrup are inflammatory, whereas fish oil is anti-inflammatory. Could our diet be a factor in making this mutated gene become more pathogenic? It’s a biochemical defect that leads to biochemical disease, supporters of this theory say: The gene itself becomes more of a problem.

WHAT NOW?

This information raises so many questions it makes your head swim.

First and foremost among them: What to do about vaccinating children with known mitochondrial dysfunction?

In many respects, these kids should be first in line for vaccination, to prevent some illnesses that might trigger an autistic regression during the window of vulnerability. On the other hand, with multiple vaccinations, such as the case with Hannah, there is also a risk of overtaxing the immune system, and likewise triggering regression into autism.

What’s needed most urgently, if possible, is a quick, affordable and efficient method of testing children for low cellular energy, perhaps before vaccination even begins.

There was some discussion on the conference call about altering the vaccine schedule in some way, to lower the risk of immune over-stimulation in susceptible children. Certainly, pressure will grow for a change in the schedule – the question is how, when, and if such changes will be made.

Some of the suggestions may not be popular among public health officials. They include:

1) Establishing a maximum number of vaccine antigens to which any child could be exposed on any given day.

2) Permitting the option of separating out the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) live virus combination vaccines into three distinct “monovalent” shots.

3) Not giving the varicella vaccine (chicken pox) on the same day as the MMR injection – the CDC recently withdrew is recommendation for the Pro-Quad MMR+Varicella vaccine because it doubled the risk of seizures.

Another option is to create new “recommendations for administering multiple vaccines to children who have fallen behind in the recommended childhood immunization schedule,” according to the website of the Institute for Vaccine Safety at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

Hannah had missed some shots and her doctor decided to “catch up” with the schedule by administering five shots, containing nine vaccine antigens, at once. But some autism activists have pointed out that giving five shots in one day is not that uncommon.

Moreover, they claim, many children regressed into autism following normal vaccination, when the parents religiously adhered to the official schedule.

According to the Johns Hopkins site, “Additional research is needed to determine if other children with autism, especially those with ‘the regressive form’ of autism, have the same or similar underlying mitochondrial dysfunction disorders.”

It adds that, “the advisory groups who make recommendations regarding vaccines will undoubtedly examine this case carefully and make decisions regarding the potential need for changes.”

That day may come sooner than you think. It was just announced that, on April 11 in Washington, DC, the National Vaccine Program Office at HHS will convene a meeting of the National Vaccine Advisory Committee’s Vaccine Safety Working Group. The Working Group was established to go over the CDC’s Immunization Safety Office draft research agenda, and to, “review the current vaccine safety system.”

The meeting is open to the public, and I have my seat reserved. But I honestly don’t envy the Working Group’s very tricky task at hand.

It remains to be seen how all this plays out. And many important questions still lie ahead.

For example, if mitochondrial dysfunction turns out to be as common as 200-per-10,000, and autism is now at 66 per 10,000, did anything bad happen to any of the other 134-per-10,000 children, apart from autism (i.e., ADD, ADHD, speech delay, etc.)?

Moreover, if 10-20% of autism cases can actually be traced to an underlying mitochondrial dysfunction, then what about the majority of autism cases where this did not come into play?

And, if 20% of autism cases are mito related, and 6% of those cases regressed because of vaccines, that would mean that at least 1% of all autism cases were vaccine related. Some estimates of autism go as high as a million Americans – that would mean 10,000 people with vaccine-triggered autism, and billions of dollars in the cost of lifetime care.

(While we are on the subject, isn’t it time to fund a study of vaccinated and unvaccinated children, to settle this debate once and for all?)

Finally, the goals of the CISA Network, (which convened the teleconference) are rather progressive and far reaching. It remains to be seen how well the Network fulfills its stated mission, which includes:

Conduct research into “the role of individual variation” on vaccine injury;

“Empower individuals to make informed immunization decisions;”

Help policy makers “in the recommendation of exclusion criteria for at-risk individuals,” and;

“Enhance public confidence in sustaining immunization benefits for all populations”

Let’s see how long it takes before Network members hang out the proverbial banner: “Mission Accomplished.”

April 2, 2008 Posted by | Autism | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Vaccines: Pure Profit Up Front…then Customers for Life

Vaccines: Pure Profit Up Front…then Customers for Life

Dr. Sherri

http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=207506724&blogID=359870914

Vaccines are the biggest deception and biggest lie ever perpetrated against man kind. Injecting filth — viruses and chemicals — is not about health; it is a guise for profit. The billion dollar profits on sale of vaccines (see below) is a drop in the bucket compared to the multiple billions in profits made on the drugs used to treat the diseases that vaccines cause.

My new book, “Saying No To Vaccines: A Resource Guide for All Ages” will be out soon…my hope is that the book will help save many children and adults from disaster. We MUST just learn to say NO and stand up against the ever growing medical tyranny in this country.

Parents: You’ve been brainwashed into believing in the “need” for a pediatrician. Learn to care of fevers and colds at home. You Can Do It!

Parents: Learn how to keep children healthy with great food, homeopathics, simple supplements and support groups to share ideas about keeping their kids healthy. There are really great books available to help you!!

Parents: Be strong and say “no” to vaccines. Don’t allow yourself to be bullied into submission (if you have a story about being bullied, please let me know at DrTenpenny.com

Parents: Talk to your parents, your grandparents, your aunts. They have a wealth of information to share. Home remedies have been around for centuries for a reason. Don’t let your child become dollars for pharma.

See the article below for why you should refuse vaccines….And know I’m on your side!

Dr Sherri

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
February 11, 2008

Time To End Profit Driven Mandatory Vaccination Racket
By Evelyn Pringle

The push to keep adding more vaccines to the mandatory schedules comes directly from a purely profit motivated industry and a recent investor report estimates that the world-wide market will quadruple from about $4.3 billion in 2006 to more than $16 billion in 2016, with the biggest boost coming from kids in the US.

A November 2007 report entitled, “Pipeline and Commercial Insight: Pediatric and Adolescent Vaccines,” authored by vaccine analyst, Hedwig Kresse, for the independent market analyst Datamonitor discusses the future outlook for vaccine profits.

The report provides an assessment of products and a patient-based forecast of market size and coverage rates to the year 2016, and predicts that the introduction of high price vaccines will induce rapid growth in the pediatric and adolescent vaccines market.

The report predicts that due to the “promising commercial potential” of new, high-price vaccines, the pediatric and adolescent market will quadruple from approximately $4.3 billion in 2006, to over $16 billion by 2016, across the US, the EU-five including France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the UK, and Japan.

The crucial factor for success in the pediatric market, the report notes, is the introduction of a product into national vaccination schedules. “Along with reimbursement, this virtually guarantees the rapid uptake and continuously high coverage rates in the target population,” Ms Kresse states. As an example, she cites Wyeth’s Prevnar, as the first premium price vaccine launched in the US in 2000 for vaccinating infants against pneumonia and meningitis.

Since then, Prevnar has been added to the childhood vaccination schedules in the US and EU-five despite its high price of nearly $320 for the 4-dose regimen. In 2006, Global sales reached almost $2 billion, making Prevnar the first vaccine to attain blockbuster status, according to the report. By 2016, Datamonitor expects the total value of the infant market for pneumococcal vaccines to increase to $2.3 billion.

In June 2006, Merck’s Gardasil was approved for cervical cancer. Because it was the first vaccine offered as a preventive measure for a form of cancer, its approval generated tremendous public attention along with pressure for healthcare authorities to make the vaccine available to teenage girls at a cost of $360 for 3 doses.

“Although most cases of cervical cancer in the developed world can be prevented through the existing pap smear screening programs, the expensive HPV vaccination has been recommended and is reimbursed for teenage girls across the US and Europe,” Ms Kresse reports.

She notes that this decision about the HPV vaccine is driven more by public pressure and excitement about the opportunity to vaccinate against cancer rather than by real need. The widespread publicity has led to a good uptake in the target group of adolescent girls, which is usually hard to reach for vaccination, Ms Kresse points out to investors.

Datamonitor sees a huge commercial opportunity in HPV vaccines, with annual sales of $1.4 billion in teenage girls for the seven major markets by 2016 and a cumulative catch-up opportunity in women aged 13-26 that could add up to over $17 billion until 2016.

But Ms Kresse warns investors that the “lack of medical need” for rotavirus vaccines such as RotaTeq will limit their uptake in most markets. RotaTeq is advertised to combat diarrhea that usually affects infants under the age of two, and was introduced by Merck in the US in 2006, at a price of $200 for the three-dose regimen. According to Ms Kresse, many countries, but not the US, have refused to add the vaccine to their schedules due to cost-benefit reasons. “In the developed world, rotavirus diarrhea is rarely severe for small infants and quick and efficacious treatment is already available,” she writes. “Consequently, healthcare authorities see no need to widely introduce a very expensive vaccine.”

Datamonitor estimates that annual sales will remain limited to approximately $1 billion across the 7 major markets by 2016 and predicts that the US will account for the majority of sales, being the only country to have recommended the rotavirus vaccine for all infants.

Wyeth’s Prevnar vaccine came on the market in 2000 and is recommended for children under 2. The vaccine was hailed as a breakthrough and had sales of more than $1.5 billion in 2006. Prevnar is given as four shots to children between 2 and 15 months.

On September 18, 2007, NewsMax reported that the vaccine has dramatically curbed pneumonia and other serious illnesses in children but is also having an unfortunate effect: “promoting new superbugs that cause ear infections.” According to NewsMax, doctors reported finding the first such germ that is resistant to all drugs approved to treat childhood ear infections and 9 toddlers in Rochester, N.Y., have had the bug and that it also may be turning up elsewhere.

It is a strain of strep bacteria not included in the pneumococcal vaccine. Prevnar prevents seven strains responsible for most cases of pneumonia, meningitis and bloodstream infections. But dozens more strains exist and some have become resistant to antibiotics since the vaccine combats the more common strains.

If the new strains continue to spread, “it tells us the vaccine is becoming less effective” and needs to be revised, Dr Dennis Maki, infectious diseases chief at the University of Wisconsin-Madison Hospitals and Clinics, told NewsMax. A new study in the November 8, 2007 New England Journal of Medicine by researchers at Oregon Health & Science University, supported by the United States Public Health Service, suggests that the schedule for vaccinating and revaccinating against diseases should be reevaluated and adjusted.

The study found that in many cases, the established duration of immunity for vaccines is greatly underestimated, which means that people are getting booster shots when their immunity levels do not require it and those antibody responses caused by viruses such as measles mumps, and rubella remained at protective levels for several decades and in most cases, for life.

The research also reconfirmed a previous finding by Slifka and his colleagues: that the duration of immunity after smallpox vaccination is much longer than previously thought. In that earlier study published in the journal Nature Medicine in 2003, these OHSU researchers observed surprisingly long-lived antiviral antibody responses but they were unable to measure the slow rate of decline.

The study indicates that the duration of immunity after smallpox vaccination is maintained with a calculated half-life of 92 years and that a person who has received the primary series of tetanus vaccine is likely to be protected for 3 decades.

Experts say we have allowed ourselves and our children to be overdosed through a culture dominated by industry marketing influence which has now become dangerously out of control and detrimental to our children’s health. “In the 21st century, it is unacceptable to be marketing medication to infants and children that may not work,” Dr Steven Czinn, chair of the department of pediatrics at the University of Maryland School of Medicine, told Reuters on October 11, 2007.

In the November 19, 2007 Huffington Post article, “Over Medicated and Over-Vaccinated: The Unintended Consequence of Medicines Meant to Protect,” Deirdre Imus asks, “Where are the conflict-free studies that prove giving infants and children 49 immunizations – most of them by age 5, are safe and effective?”

She points out that studies have provided evidence that the over-vaccination of dogs and cats can result in numerous maladies including cancer, skin and ear conditions, arthritis, allergies, diabetes, aggression, behavior problems and other immune system dysfunctions. “There is even a name for the conditions caused by animal over-vaccination, vaccinosis,” she notes.

Ms Imus also points out that the mercury-containing preservative, thimerosal, used in vaccines for over 50 years was removed from animal vaccines in 1992. “Unfortunately for the kids,” she writes, “it remained in children’s vaccines for another decade and remains in some vaccines like the influenza (25 micrograms) and tetanus vaccine (25 micrograms) today and in trace amounts (3 micrograms) in some immunizations.”

She says most people do not realize is that any liquid waste containing more than 200 parts per billion (ppb) mercury must be deposited at a hazardous waste site and that drinking water cannot exceed 2 ppb mercury. “But when the influenza vaccines arrive and are injected into pregnant woman and infants as young as six months, those vaccines contain 50,000 ppb mercury,” Ms Imus notes.

This amount of mercury is 250 times higher than hazardous waste, she notes, and according to EPA guidelines, this amount can only be considered safe if a person weighs 550 pounds. “Even trace amounts of mercury in vaccines can be anywhere from 600 to 2000 ppb,” she warns.

On November 13, 2006, PutChildrenFirst.org, a parent-led organization advocating vaccine safety, issued a press release to announce the results of a survey conducted October 27-30, 2006, by Zogby International of over 9,000 Americans to learn their plans for getting flu shots, their knowledge of its ingredients, and who they hold responsible for making sure vaccines are safe. The survey showed that an overwhelming majority of Americans were unaware that most flu shots contain mercury and that they would refuse a shot with mercury. After learning that mercury is an ingredient, 74% of those polled said they were less likely to get a flu shot and 86% of parents said they were less likely to allow their child to get a shot.

Lisa Handley is a founding parent of PutChildrenFirst.org, whose son Jamison had an adverse reaction to a flu shot with mercury in 2003. “I know firsthand how life-changing a flu shot with mercury can be, since our son began his regression into autism after his flu shot,” she states. “With everything we know about the dangers of mercury and the havoc it can wreak on young, developing brains, there is no excuse for any vaccine to contain mercury,” says Lyn Redwood, RN, MSN, President of SafeMinds, a nonprofit organization committed to ending mercury-induced neurological disorders. “The survey reveals that Americans are overwhelmingly in the dark about what is in most flu shots,” Ms Redwood stated in the press release.

“They do not want a known neurotoxin injected into their children, and they believe Congress and medical professionals must be more vigilant about keeping vaccines safe and mercury-free,” she added.

PutChildrenFirst also advises that two recent studies in leading medical journals admitted that limited data exists to support the effectiveness of flu vaccines. One study, in the Journal of the American Medical Association, noted that, “there is scant data on the efficacy and effectiveness of influenza vaccine in young children,” the release notes.

According to Ms Imus, we are beginning to see prescribed vaccines, like the whole cell DPT and Rotovirus, which are later found to be unsafe. “While physicians warn the public about the over use of antibiotics,” she points out, “it is the physicians themselves that over-prescribed these antibiotics for every ailment under the sun.”

“And like antibiotics,” she writes, “every time a new vaccine was developed, it quickly found its way onto the immunization schedule along with the recommended booster shots. We are now reaping the unintended consequences of the overuse of these medical interventions,” she states. “Instead of being healthier, we have a nation of very sick children.”

Forcing parents to inject poisonous concoctions into innocent, helpless children against their will is a gross violation of their most basic parental rights.

Evelyn Pringle
evelyn-pringle@sbcglobal.net

Authors Bio: Evelyn Pringle is a columnist for OpEd News and investigative journalist focused on exposing corruption in government and corporate America.

February 21, 2008 Posted by | Vaccines | , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Why Doctors are Idiots: 150 Years of Disatrous Advice on Children’s Health (satire)

Why Doctors are Idiots: 150 Years of Disatrous Advice on Children’s Health (satire)

With mandatory vaccines suddenly being forced onto parents by doctors and so-called “health authorities” in places like Maryland, New Jersey and Texas, you might think that doctors being full of bunk is a new phenomenon. But no, it’s nothing new. Doctors have been full of bunk for more than a hundred years! What follows is a short timeline of the nonsense, junk science, negligence and harmful advice peddled by medical doctors over the last 150 years or so: (see the end of this article for serious follow-up comments describing the intent behind this satire piece)

1850’s

Ignaz Semmelweis, an Austrian-Hungarian obstetrician working in a clinic that delivers babies, is labeled “insane” by his fellow doctors for having the audacity to suggest that doctors should wash their hands between delivering babies. He’s fired from his job, ostracized by the medical community and later dies in an insane asylum and is only vindicated long after his death when it is realized that, indeed, infections are spread from one patient to another by physicians who are too lazy, stubborn or egoistic to simply wash their hands. (A lack of hand washing continues to be the primary reason why MRSA and other superbugs are spread in hospitals today…)

1920’s

Don’t breastfeed your babies! Use infant formula instead. It’s more “high-tech.” Cow’s milk is obviously healthier for your babies than mother’s milk, right? That’s what the doc says… Result: Tens of millions of mothers stopped breastfeeding their babies, resulting in widespread nutritional deficiencies that impacted those children for life. The pushing of infant formula onto mothers continues today in hospitals across the country which are paid by infant formula manufacturers to give free samples of infant formula to new mothers, hoping they will stop breastfeeding and start buying formula. (Saving grace: A few courageous pediatricians now speak out forcefully about the importance of breastfeeding…)

1930’s

Smoking while pregnant? No problem. Doctors recommend Camels more than any other cigarette! Result: Massive chemical toxicity of the bodies of newborns. Increased cancer risk, reduced brain development and a lifetime of immune system disorders. (Cigarette ads routinely appeared in the Journal of the American Medical Association for well over a decade.)

1940’s

Need a new pair of shoes for your kid? Go size ’em up with the fluoroscope X-ray machine at your local shoe store! Never mind the radiation exposure of 20 – 75 rems per minute! See wikipedia article here. Result: Massive increase in cancer among parents and children who visited the shoe stores. Doctors remained silent on this significant health risk for decades while millions were harmed — even after strong evidence pointed to the fact that X-ray radiation caused cancer.

1950’s

Hey pregnant women, take thalidomide for your cancer! Don’t worry about your unborn children. This chemical is perfectly safe! Result: 10,000 children born with physical deformities. Doctors continued to use infants and pregnant women in pharmaceutical experiments for the next fifty years. See Vaccines and Medical Experiments on Children, Minorities, Woman and Inmates (1845 – 2007).

1960’s

Feed your children processed foods! White bread is good for them, don’t you know? And monosodium glutamate is perfectly healthy for children, which is why food companies add it to baby food! So is saccharin, hydrogenated oils and sodium nitrite in processed meat. Result: Massive malnutrition, liver damage, and the beginnings of the diabetes and obesity epidemics that would sweep the nation over the next generation.

1970’s

Place mercury into the mouths of your little children by having their cavities filled with “silver” fillings (made with 40% mercury, a potent neurotoxin). Result: Widespread mercury toxicity in children, resulting in a sharp increase in neurological conditions, including behavioral disorders, infertility and autism. Ignorant, obstinate dentists continue to use mercury fillings today, and the American Dental Association remains in full support of this extremely dangerous heavy metal that results in the mass poisoning of children.

Your kid have a cold? It’s probably because their tonsils need to be removed! Tonsils have no biological function anyway, doctors claimed. Result: Over the last several decades, surgeons have removed tens of millions of tonsils, maiming children with a medically useless procedure that has now been proven virtually worthless. But it sure did raise funds to pay for the luxury German sedans driven by those surgeons!

1980’s

Microwave all the food you feed children. It’s quick, convenient and perfectly healthy! Result: A massive increase in the consumption of processed, artificially modified and dead foods. The introduction of the microwave correlates nearly perfectly with the explosion of obesity and diabetes in western nations. Most doctors still have nothing negative to say about the use of the microwave.

Does your child have an ear infection? Hammer them with antibiotics. Don’t worry about the fact that antibiotics are useless against ear infections, or that they wipe out your child’s friendly intestinal flora and cause nutritional deficiencies. It’s doctor-recommended, so it must be good, right? Result: Billions of doses of useless antibiotics helped breed a new generation of superbug viruses that have now escaped the hospitals and are infecting the public at large. Antibiotics are useless to stop them, and doctors still have not figured out that you can kill superbugs with colloidal silver or garlic. (A fact that ancient human civilizations knew thousands of years ago…)

1990’s

Coat your children with sunscreen. The sun is dangerous and has no health benefits whatsoever, didn’t you know? And besides, all those chemicals in sunscreen are perfectly safe. Result: Children are now living with severe vitamin D deficiencies (even rickets!) that greatly increase rates of breast cancer, prostate cancer, osteoporosis, depression, obesity and diabetes. Doctors still don’t recognize the important role of vitamin D in children’s health, and they prescribe drugs to treat the symptoms of disease rather than recommending vitamin D (which would correct the underlying problems and eliminate the need for pharmaceuticals).

Does your baby have a cough? Feed ’em sugared-up, chemically-contaminated cough syrup made by pharmaceutical companies. Don’t worry that it’s never been tested on infants or approved by the FDA. It works, right? It’s doctor-recommended! Result: Over a billion doses of useless, “quack” cough medicine swallowed by infants. The cough syrup hoax was finally blown wide open in 2007 when a few courageous pediatric physicians finally admitted the products have absolutely no medicinal effects and might, in fact, be dangerous for infants and children. The FDA continues to allow their sale, however, since they’re still quite profitable to Big Pharma (even though they don’t work).

Is little Johnny a bit too jazzed up for your comfort level? Don’t worry, psychiatrists have a solution: Street drugs for children! Illegal amphetamines are now legal thanks to the Big Pharma / FDA partnership, and your friendly psych doctor is ready to prescribe Ritalin and antidepressant drugs to your “hyperactive” kids. Result: Widespread school shootings in America. Tens of millions of children suffer stunted physical and mental development — a dangerous side effects that doesn’t emerge until 2007. See http://www.newstarget.com/021944.html

2000’s

Too posh to push? Don’t worry, your obstetrician will schedule a C-section childbirth appointment and deliver the baby on YOUR schedule instead of Mother Nature’s. It’s more convenient for him, too, because then he can still make his golf game. Don’t worry about the baby: There’s no benefit to vaginal childbirth anyway, right? What better way to welcome your child to the world than with a scalpel! Result: Millions of women subject their children to non-natural child birthing that results in an increased risk of lung disease afflictions as well as psychological birthing trauma lasting a lifetime.

Worried about your child getting an infectious disease? Inject your children with multiple vaccines. It will protect them from infectious disease and may, in fact, protect them from oral sex! (At least that’s what Merck claims.) Besides, there’s nothing wrong with a little mercury, right? Result: Unknown. It’s a great medical experiment now being conducted on the children of America. It’s backed by idiot doctors and gun-toting law enforcement personnel who are ready to arrest parents who resist the vaccination mandates.

Need some food for your baby? Buy Similac (or any other baby formula powder). It’s made with 42.6% corn syrup solids and 10.1% sugar, making it over 50% refined sugars! Marketed with a cuddly teddy bear on the front label and sporting the claim, “Balanced nutrition for older babies,” Similac and other infant formula products are little more than sugar water for babies. Doctors and pediatricians remain silent. There is no outcry. No national scandal. No action by the FDA to protect babies. Some doctors even recommend this stuff! (And stupid parents keep buying it!)

2007

A survey of 1,600 practicing physicians published in the Annals of Internal Medicine reveals that reveals that nearly half of all doctors failed to report an incompetent colleague who posed a risk to the health or safety of a patient. The same survey also revealed that a majority of doctors would send their patients to get expensive imaging work done at an imaging facility in which they held a financial interest, but only 24 percent of doctors said they would reveal that conflict of interest to patients.

Result: Yet more incompetent, dishonest doctors continue to scam customers and harm patients. The scourge of modern medicine continues as corrupt, ignorant and downright incompetent doctors continue to harm millions of expectant mothers, infants, babies and children with their deadly Big Pharma chemicals and disastrous health advice. The reputation of doctors plummets in the minds of the American public, and most patients now turn to the Internet to find answers that their doctors either don’t know or refuse to tell them. The mass exodus of patients away from conventional medicine is now well underway…

Why doctors are still idiots

When it comes to medical idiocy, these examples are just the tip of the iceberg. The same hopelessly outdated medical system that has given us cigarette-promoting doctors, breastfeeding-censoring doctors and superbug-breeding doctors is now claiming your children need yet more chemicals in their bodies in the form of vaccinations!

And, by the way, these doctors are the only people in the world who are right. They’ll tell you so themselves! They are the sole source of all knowledge on anything related to health and medicine, and they’ve now garnered enough political power that they’ve managed to criminalize parents who disagree with their medical dogma.

You know what the difference is between God and doctors?

God doesn’t think he’s a doctor.

These days, instead of doctors simply being full of nonsense, they are suddenly a very real danger to your personal freedom. Before, they were just peddling health nonsense. Now they hold the keys to your freedom and the custody of your children. Refuse to go along with new mandatory vaccination programs in New Jersey, for example, and you can be arrested, imprisoned, charged with a crime and have your children kidnapped by Child Protective Services. How dare you disagree with the High Priests of medical dogma!


Personally, I don’t necessarily mind doctors being full of crap. It’s amusing to watch, and hilarious to document_ But I do mind doctors being full of crap while invoking law enforcement authorities to pull out a Glock, slap a 10-round magazine in the grip, point the barrel to the head of a mother of three children and demand, “Take OUR medicine, or you’ll be arrested.” Which is, of course, essentially what’s happening in New Jersey and Maryland right now. It’s called Gunpoint Medicine, and if you don’t believe me, move to New Jersey, and refuse to have your children vaccinated. It won’t be long before armed men show up at your front door with Child Protective Services standing behind them, ready to grab your kid, toss him into an unmarked van, and have you arrested for “resisting vaccination.” This is not fiction. I couldn’t make this stuff up if I tried. It takes truly evil people to dream up this kind of medical terrorism — the very people who work for Big Pharma and the FDA.

Or maybe I’m wrong about all this. Maybe doctors and health authorities have been full of crap for a hundred years, and now all of a sudden in 2007, they’re instantly right! Maybe they’ve been visited by supernatural, omniscient beings who gave them perfect knowledge (along with a new Merck vaccine) and all they’re doing is running around the country saving little children’s lives for the good of humanity.

Perhaps 2007 is the new Golden Age of children’s health, to be initiated with a mass injection of kiddies with a dozen new toxic mercury injections to “protect” these kids from things that will probably never happen to them. Maybe now, in 2007, organized medicine has reversed all its years of bullsnot and finally found the light! And that light, we’re told, comes in the form of a pill… or a vaccine… or chemotherapy… or whatever they tell you to take next.

Yes, indeed! We’ve been saved by Big Pharma and a brigade of doctors! Hail the FDA! Praise the pharmaceutical giants! Give thanks for mandatory injections! Listen to the doctors and we’ll all be saved!

Quick Note: This satire piece does not mean to imply that ALL doctors are complete idiots when it comes to health. There are exceptions. Many of the outstanding people I know in natural health started as conventional medical doctors (M.D.s). The difference between complete idiot doctors and intelligent doctors is that idiots are not willing to abandon their existing dogmatic beliefs when faced with new, contradictory evidence. Intelligent people, on the other hand, adapt and evolve their ideas when faced with new information or evidence.

Conventional medicine, for the most part, does not want to learn anything new that might challenge its existing status quo dominance over the lives of parents and children. “Innovation is the enemy of the status quo,” and genuine health enhancement (and disease prevention) is the enemy of the entrenched medical industrial complex. Most doctors are complete idiots because they follow a dogmatic, religious-like belief in blatantly outdated junk medical science, even when real world observations and evidence demands the embracing of ideas that overthrow previously protected beliefs and career egos.

Until doctors can abandon their egos and admit they don’t know everything, they will continue to be full of crap.

The purpose behind this satire piece is not to engage in silly name-calling exercises, but rather to play an important role in social commentary on the huge failures of modern medicine today. Satire and humor have important functions in any free society: They reveal what’s wrong in a hilarious light, simultaneously entertaining us while encouraging us to challenge our own ideas and, perhaps, come up with new, better solutions for future generations. Political cartoons, stand-up comedians and satire pieces like this one all play a role in getting people to think more carefully about the issues at hand.

Consider this: If modern medicine really worked well, and if doctors were creating wonderful solutions that kept people healthy, then we wouldn’t have much of anything to make fun of! The fact that silly humor and examples of idiotic behavior are so easy to find in conventional medicine today is indicative of the failure of medicine to be effective. Satire “attack” humor carries a sub-text message that says, “We can do better.” We don’t have to suffer under an idiotic system of medicine. We can create a better future based on genuine health freedom, the promotion of disease prevention programs, and the embracing of plant-based medicines that are safe, affordable and highly effective.

Until we get there, poking fun at the hilarious (but sometimes quite harmful and disastrous) failures of conventional medicine is an important way to keep reminding us all how crazy we are to follow this entrenched system of failed medicine. After all, if conventional medicine really worked well, wouldn’t we all be healthy by now?

Finally, I must add that there is idiocy and humor in every industry. Even natural health has its own idiots, too. Every industry has some area that can be improved, and there are always idiots working alongside geniuses and compassionate leaders, no matter where you look (except, perhaps, in politics, where it seems to be almost entirely idiots…). It just seems that conventional medicine has more than its fair share of short-sighted individuals (which I am equating with the term “idiots”). It’s not just the doctors, of course, but the doctors have played a significant role in promoting the dogmatic beliefs that have helped deliver this disastrous failure of a health care system that we all suffer under in America today. Cuba actually has better health care results than America, and that country has virtually none of the technology, pharmaceuticals and insurance programs that we have.

That says a lot right there. To some, it’s downright hilarious. Personally, I can’t help but laugh at the whole system of western medicine. And I plan to keep making fun of it for as long as it continues to produce more health care follies.

by Mike Adams..News Target

http://www.newstarget.com/022389.html

 

on-the-take.jpg

December 15, 2007 Posted by | Government, Health | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

BLOOD LEVELS OF MERCURY ARE RELATED TO DIAGNOSIS OF AUTISM –FACT

symptomsautism.jpg

BLOOD LEVELS OF MERCURY ARE RELATED TO DIAGNOSIS OF AUTISM –

(House of Representatives – December 11, 2007)
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Madam Speaker, it’s late at night here in the Capitol, and most of my colleagues are in their offices or have gone home. But I want to talk about an issue that’s very, very important that we’ve been talking about now for the last 8 years.

I was chairman of the Government Reform Committee for 6 years, and during that time, my grandson became autistic; and we checked to find out what was the cause, trying to find out, because my daughter and her husband were just extremely upset about it, as we were as grandparents. And we found that he had received nine shots in one day, seven of which had a product called themarasol, a preservative, in it. And the themarasol was 50 percent ethylmercury. And so I decided to have hearings to try to find out if the ethylmercury in those vaccines had anything to do with the autistic problem my grandson had. And we found, by having many, many hearings over a 4-year period, we found that scientists from all over the world and leading doctors and educators here that work with autistic children, that the mercury in the vaccines did contribute to the autistic epidemic that we had.

We used to have one in 10,000 children that were diagnosed as being autistic. One in 10,000. Today the Centers for Disease Control will tell you it’s one out of 150. It’s an absolute epidemic in this country. And we have been fighting and fighting and fighting to make sure that those families who have been damaged and those children who have been damaged by autism get some kind of compensation. And that’s why, and I think in 1986 we passed what was called the Vaccine Injury Compensation Fund, and it took some of the money from the pharmaceutical companies when they sold their vaccine products to put into this fund to take care of people who are damaged by vaccines. And one of the reasons we did that was because of the issue of autism, although at that time I didn’t know much about it.

In any event, the Vaccine Injury Compensation Fund has about $3 billion in it, and the people who’s children have been adversely affected by mercury and have autism have not been able to get anything out of that. They have to go through a process and see a special master, and he has to judge whether or not the information that he has and the information they have lead them to believe that the mercury in the vaccines caused autism. And so far the special masters have not been able to ascertain, according to them, that the mercury in the vaccines does cause autism.

Well, last week, 2 years ago, let’s see, 4 years ago there was a report, 2004, that said that there was definitely no connection between the mercury and the vaccinations and the children getting autism. Well, this past November, just last month, two doctors, Dr. Catherine DeSoto and Dr. Robert T. Hitlan, both very renowned doctors across this country, they have Ph.D.s in medicine, they wrote an article in the Journal of Child Neurology. And you can’t discount this. What they’re saying is fact. I want to read to you the summary of what they said. They said: “The question of what is leading to the apparent increase in autism is of great importance. Like the link between aspirin and heart attack, even a small effect can have a major health implication. If there is any link between autism and mercury, it is absolutely crucial that the first reports of the question are not falsely stated and that no link occurs.”

Now, get this: “We have reanalyzed the data set forth originally reported in 2004 and have found that the original P value was in error and that a significant relation does exist between the blood levels of mercury and diagnosis of an autism spectrum disorder. Moreover, the hair sample analysis results offer some support for the idea that persons with autism may be less efficient and more variable at eliminating mercury from the blood.”

The fact of the matter is the mercury in the vaccines causes autism. It’s not the only cause of autism. But now we have scientific evidence by two leading doctors in the Journal of Child Neurology that says without doubt, the mercury in the vaccines does cause autism, is a major contributing factor.

Well, I’ve written, contacted Congressman Kucinich, who’s chairman of the subcommittee that deals with this in the Capitol, and I’ve also contacted the special masters that decide these cases and have urged them to re-evaluate all of these cases where people who have autistic children have found that the mercury in the vaccines may have been a major cause.

Now we know that it is a cause of autism, and those people who have suffered, and those kids who have suffered need to be compensated out of the Vaccine Injury Compensation Fund.

So I’d like to say to my colleagues, I hope you will join me in making sure that the information I just read gets out to everybody. These kids are going to live to be 50, 60, 70 years old, and unless there’s some help for them, they’re going to be a real burden on the taxpayers and on society. We have an obligation to make sure they’re taken care of.

I hope all of my colleagues will read this statement tonight and help us to change the attitude of our health agencies and the special masters dealing with this problem.

In November 2007, the well-respected scientific journal, the Journal of Child Neurology, published an article authored by Drs. M. Catherine DeSoto and Robert T. Hiltlan (PhDs), detailing their findings on the relationship between mercury and autism spectrum disorders. The article was entitled “Blood Levels of Mercury are Related to Diagnosis of Autism: A Reanalysis of an Important Data Set.”

To summarize the article, Drs. DeSoto and Hiltlan reanalyzed a data set the subject of a 2004 study that found no relationship between mercury and autism. By reexamining the data set, Drs. DeSoto and Hiltlan determined that the conclusions of the 2004 study were wrong,

and that a relation does exist between the blood levels of mercury and diagnosis of an autism spectrum disorder.
As Drs. DeSoto and Hiltlan noted in their article, there has been a marked increase in the diagnosis of autism in this country over the last 20 years. In fact we have gone from an autism rate of 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 150. So, answering the question of what is (and is not) a possible contributing cause of autism is crucial, not only to the millions of American families currently affected by autism but to future generations.

We simply cannot dismiss or downplay scientific research, which has the potential to unlock the mysteries surrounding what is causing our Nation’s autism crisis. We owe it

to the thousands of families living with autism to follow the science wherever it may lead.

That’s why in late November, I wrote to the Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Domestic Policy, Representative Dennis Kucinich; and the Special Masters assigned to the Congressionally-created Office of Vaccine Program within the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, alerting them to the findings in Drs. DeSoto and Hiltlan’s latest research.

Specifically, I asked the Special Masters to take Drs. DeSoto and Hiltlan’s latest findings into consideration as they carry out their mandate of managing and adjudicating childhood vaccine claims. I asked Chairman Kucinich to hold a hearing on the environmental risks of mercury in childhood vaccines before the 110th Congress ends.

Given the high stakes involved, scientific reports discussing a connection between blood mercury levels and autism deserve serious consideration and review by the medical and scientific community.

During my tenure as Chairman of the House Committee on Government and Reform, I spent 6 years researching and hearing testimony from the autism advocacy and scientific communities about the autism epidemic sweeping our country. Over and over again, questions of causation, namely the use of thimerosal–the mercury-based vaccine preservative–in childhood vaccines were raised.

Here’s what I learned:

A number of credible national and international scientists testified before the Committee that mercury in vaccines is a contributing factor in developing neurological disorders, including, but not limited to, modest declines in intelligent quotient, autism, and Alzheimer’s disease. And the body of evidence to support that conclusion gets larger everyday.

Experience tells us that, as with any other epidemic, while there may be underlying genetic susceptibilities, there usually is also some type of environmental trigger as well–be it exposure to a virus, fungus, heavy metal, or pollutant. There has never, to the best of my knowledge, been a purely genetic epidemic.

Genetics alone cannot explain how we went from 1 in 10,000 children with autism spectrum disorders 20 years ago to 1 in 150 today. The increase happened far too quickly for a genetic shift.

As mercury is a known bio-accumulative neurotoxin, it is biologically plausible that it is a contributing factor to our Nation’s autism epidemic.

Autism has no cure, and while it is a life-changing condition, it is not a life-threatening disease. This means that the autistic children of today will be the autistic adults and autistic seniors, 20, 30, 50, even 70 years from now. Our Nation is ill prepared to deal with the complex educational, financial, housing, and health care challenges posed by a generation of autistic individuals.

My only grandson is autistic, so this is an issue that is very close to my heart; and for the last several years I have fought hard to raise awareness of this disease, and increase research into the causes of autism, as well as new treatments for those suffering with autism.

As a Nation, I believe, we have a collective responsibility to do everything we can to not only stop the further spread of this disease but to help the millions of children, adults and families afflicted with it.

http://a-champ.org/index.html

banner.jpg

December 14, 2007 Posted by | Autism, Vaccines | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Autism:Overwhelming Evidence Vaccines Play a Role in Autism

Although a connection to Autism from Vaccines has been dismissed repeatedly in the current media(no surprise), scientific studies that are based on biological processes show a significant link. CDC epidemiological studies also show a strong link of Thimerosal to ADD, Learning Disabilities, Speech Delay and Autism.

It is apparent that critical medical decisions for an entire
generation of American children are being made by small committees
whose members have incestuous ties with agencies
that stand to gain power, or manufacturers that stand to
gain enormous profits, from the policy that is made.
Jane Orient, M.D.

Link to Video on Google

love_them.png

December 4, 2007 Posted by | Autism, Vaccines | , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Time For The CDC To Come Clean

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.   Robert F. Kennedy Jr.| BIO

 Time for CDC to Come Clean

Posted March 1, 2006 | 12:09 AM (EST)




Correspondence newly obtained under the Freedom of Information Act raises troubling new questions about CDC’s role in the Thimerosal scandal. Thimerosal is the mercury-based vaccine preservative that has been linked to epidemics of neurological disorders, including autism, in American children born after 1989.

Responding to scientific studies linking dangerous levels of mercury to a range of health disorders, the CDC in July 1999 recommended that the nation’s vaccine makers eliminate Thimerosal as a preservative, “as soon as possible.”

But the newly released documents show that behind the scenes CDC was quietly discouraging Thimerosal’s removal. In a July 1999 letter, vaccine producer SmithKline Beecham tells CDC that it is ready to produce non-Thimerosal DTP (Diptheria/Tetanus/Pertussis) vaccines immediately and has sufficient inventories to supply the entire U.S. market during the remainder of 1999 and the first half of 2000, by which time other vaccine manufacturers would have their Thimerosal-free DTP vaccines on line.

Thimerosal-laden DTP vaccines containing 25 micrograms of mercury apiece were then being administered to American infants at two months, four months and six months — far exceeding EPA’s recommended safe level for mercury. Had CDC accepted SmithKline’s offer, it could have immediately reduced the mercury exposures to vaccinated six-month-old children by 40%.

However, in November, CDC mysteriously sent a letter back rejecting SmithKline’s offer. Then, on July 14, 2000 CDC published a deceptive press release promising to require that all vaccines be Thimerosal-free as soon as “adequate supplies are available.” This was a full 12 months after the agency had denied SmithKline’s proposal.

“If CDC were basing its decision on safety alone, it would have taken SmithKline up on its offer. That’s a no-brainer,” said a federal health official who requested anonymity. “So there were other considerations beside safety that were guiding their decision making.”

Among these “other considerations” were CDC’s important concerns for the preservation of the vaccine program, a bureaucratic impulse for self-preservation, and protecting the economic interests of its vaccine industry friends.

“Immediate withdrawal would send a strong message; ‘We messed up!'” the health official told me. “And I don’t think they wanted to send that message to parents, the public or those considering legal action.”

“There was also concern,” says the federal official, “that an immediate withdrawal might discredit the international vaccine programs for which CDC is an important partner.” The World Health Organization has urged CDC against the banning of Thimerosal in U.S. vaccines since that prohibition might discredit WHO’s third world inoculation programs. WHO, with U.S. funding, is now injecting children in developing countries with the same amounts of Thimerosal we were giving American kids at their highest exposures, but in a shorter time period. In May 2001, WHO committed to “develop a strong advocacy campaign to support the ongoing use of Thimerosal.”

But CDC insiders argue that CDC’s primary concern was the economic impacts on its pharmaceutical industry partners. “The big consideration was cost,” says the federal health official. “A lot of CDC’s friends in the vaccine industry had stockpiled Thimerosal-based vaccines. If they couldn’t sell them the costs would total in the tens of millions of dollars.”

On July 14, 2000 CDC promised to complete the transition to Thimerosal-free vaccines for children by first quarter 2001. But, probably for the reasons stated above, its commitment sometimes seems half-hearted. CDC continues to promote the use of Thimerosal in vaccines. The agency continues to send its top spokesman Roger Bernier around the country to testify before state legislatures to derail state efforts to ban Thimerosal in vaccines. Last week Bernier was testifying against a proposed Thimerosal ban in Maryland.

CDC continues to exert muscular efforts to derail studies of American cohorts — the Amish, Christian Scientists, and home-schooled children — who were not exposed to Thimerosal vaccines. Preliminary studies of these groups indicate very low levels of the neurological disorders, including autism, that have been associated with Thimerosal in vaccinated populations.

It’s time for the CDC to come clean with the American public. Its tactics of deception and obfuscation are jeopardizing the credibility of the entire vaccine program, and therefore posing an enormous danger to public health.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr/time-for-cdc-to-come-clea_b_16550.html

FAIR USE NOTICE: The above may be copyrighted material, and the use  may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available on a non-profit basis for educational and discussion purposes only. I believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 USC § 107. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. If your copyrighted material appears on this web site and you disagree with our assessment that it constitutes “fair use”, contact this web page owner and/or the site administrator to have it removed.

For educational purposes only This information has not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This information is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease

 

December 3, 2007 Posted by | Autism, Vaccines | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Autism-Vaccine Debate: Anything But Over

The Autism-Vaccine Debate: Anything But Over

Posted November 30, 2007 | 03:33 PM (EST)Memo to those who wanted the autism-vaccine contretemps to just go away: You lost.

 

 

Exactly five years ago, I began research for my book Evidence of Harm, which looked into the possible link between mercury, vaccines and the tsunami of autism that now overwhelms our education system.

Along the way, I have encountered many people — in the government, in medical circles, in the media, on the Internet – who are furious at my attempts to shed light on this controversy, and utterly contemptuous of parents, doctors and anyone else who supports research into the hypothesized link between autism and vaccines.

Many of these people, incredibly, still insist that autism is purely a genetic disorder with no known “cause” and probably no cure. They blithely claim that autism has always been with us, in the same epidemic numbers we see today, (If you’re the parent of a young boy in New Jersey, by the way, you now face 1-in-60 odds of a diagnosis), we just never noticed, or else counted those kids as “quirky,” or possibly retarded.

Even officials at the CDC, who traced an e-coli outbreak to a single patch of California spinach within months, cannot say if autism is actually on the increase or not.

Some experts, however, are beginning to understand that autism is clearly on the rise and, thus, must have an environmental component, coupled with a genetic underpinning. But they insist that vaccines or their ingredients (ie, mercury, live measles virus, aluminum) have nothing to do with the epidemic.

They really, really want this vexing vaccine chatter to cease. But it won’t.

Buried beneath the usual tumultuous headlines of recent days were three tidbits of news that clearly underscore why this raging, sometimes vitriolic debate is not ending any time soon. In fact, all three reveal significant cracks in the federal government’s hitherto impenetrable fortress of denial of any vaccine-autism link whatsoever:

1) The CDC granted nearly $6 million for investigators at five major research centers to study 2,700 children over the next five years, in what the Contra Costa Times called “the largest-ever U.S. study aimed at solving one of the most perplexing mysteries of modern times: the cause of autism.”

Lisa Croen, the study’s principal investigator in California, told the paper that, “What’s become very clear is that autism results from a combination of having a genetic predisposition or genetic susceptibility, plus the added extra exposures from environmental factors or other kinds of lifestyle factors.”

Among the “factors” to be studied are family history, events during pregnancy, maternal medications, parental occupation, ambient pollution around the house, and “a child’s vaccination history,” the paper reported.

Oddly, the study will not look at the mercury-based preservative thimerosal. According to the FDA and the Institute of Medicine, the last batches of thimerosal containing vaccines for infants and immune-globulin given to pregnant women expired in late 2003 (except for the flu shot, which is still given to infants and pregnant women).

The new study will only study children born from September 2003 to August, 2005.
But the question remains, and I think it’s legitimate: If an association between vaccines and autism has been completely “ruled out,” then why are we spending taxpayer dollars to study autistic children’s vaccination history?

2) The Department of Health and Human Services announced the formation of a new federal panel, the “Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee,” which will help set public and private research priorities into the cause and treatment of autism, as mandated by the recently passed Combating Autism Act.

Among those named to the panel by HHS Secretary Mike Leavitt were Lyn Redwood, president of the Coalition for Safe Minds (and chief protagonist in my book), and a leading advocate of the mercury-vaccine-autism connection, and Lee Grossman, president and CEO of the Autism Society of America, another staunch supporter of the hypothesis.

Which again begs the question: If the debate over vaccines and autism is over, then why did the Feds appoint two people to this important new panel who will relentlessly push for more taxpayer dollars going into research of vaccines and autism?

3) Lawyers for the US Justice Department and HHS are conceding an autism case that was to be tried in the so-called federal “Vaccine Court,” (officially known as the Autism Omnibus Proceedings of the US Court of Federal Claims), according to papers filed on the court’s on-line docket.

Nearly 5,000 autism cases are pending in Vaccine Court, though a small number of “test cases” are being tried, in which attorneys for the families attempt to link the symptoms of autism to thimerosal and/or the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine (or MMR, which never contained mercury). It was a pending test case that the government conceded.

According to my source, however, the government is NOT conceding that mercury or vaccines cause autism. “In this case, the DOJ conceded that vaccines significantly aggravated a child’s pre-existing autistic symptoms,” my source said, “but the autism itself was caused by a congenital mitochondrial disorder that is entirely genetic.”

And, the source noted, “By conceding ‘significant aggravation,’ I think DOJ is trying to avoid ever having this case go to hearing on the underlying causation issue.”

In other words, this was likely going to be a slam-dunk, and the Feds knew it. Rather than risk having the case become a “test” for thousands of other claims, it looks like the DOJ opted to fold and pay out damages to the family, without actually admitting that vaccines can cause autism.

This entirely unreported event raises several interesting questions, I think. To begin with, if the federal government has conceded that vaccines can cause “significant aggravation” to the (even preexisting) autism symptoms of even just one child, shouldn’t the public be notified?

And if the government has conceded that this child would be better off today had he or she not been vaccinated — in other words, that vaccines made the symptoms of autism go from bad to worse – couldn’t it be possible that vaccines might also, say, make symptoms go from mild to bad?

And if the government concedes that vaccines aggravated the symptoms of autism in at least one child, shouldn’t parents of children with the disorder be informed of this, and shouldn’t they be allowed to opt out of future vaccinations, on medical grounds, if they wish?

And if the government concedes that vaccines can aggravate the symptoms of autism, then shouldn’t that same government also earmark funds to research how and why that occurs?

And of course, why on earth would parents concede that there is “no evidence of an association between vaccines and autism,” when the government has just conceded that there was an (albeit not causal) association?

Finally, to all those who are going to post comments about the autism rates in California not coming down, following the removal of thimerosal from most vaccines: You are right. The most likely explanation is that thimerosal was not responsible for the autism epidemic. But that does not mean that it never harmed a single child.

And keep in mind that, of the record 1000+ additional autism cases recorded in California last quarter, some 75% of them were children who were six years of age or older, and thus born well within the “thimerosal generation.” There is evidence that many factors could conceivably be keeping the California numbers higher than the national average, including aggressive early intervention and outreach to low-income families, increased immigration from countries that still use thimerosal (and immigrant children who are routinely re-immunized upon arrival) and migration of families from less progressive U.S. states eager for California’s relative public largesse.

And remember that the CDC, wisely, does not conduct autism prevalence studies on children until they reach the age of 8, to account for any late stragglers entering the database. If thimerosal did not come out of vaccines entirely until 2003, then it won’t be until 2011 before kids in that birth cohort are studied by the CDC, so vindicating thimerosal entirely might still be a tad premature.

All that said, thimerosal may well not be a factor in a single case of autism. But what if one day, we discovered it had caused, say, one percent of all cases? With estimates of autism as high as 1.5 million in the country, that would mean 15,000 Americans who were ravaged by thimerosal (not to mention everyone overseas).

But if thimerosal is vindicated, or shown to be a very minor player, then what about other vaccine ingredients? And what about the rather crowded vaccine schedule we now impose upon families of young children? And what about reports of unvaccinated children in Illinois, California and Oregon who appear to have significantly lower rates of autism? Shouldn’t we throw some research dollars into studying them?

You can answer that, no, we shouldn’t, because the vaccine-autism debate is over.

But I am willing to wager that it has only just begun.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/the-autismvaccine-debate_b_74853.html

FAIR USE NOTICE: The above may be copyrighted material, and the use may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available on a non-profit basis for educational and discussion purposes only. I believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 USC § 107. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. If your copyrighted material appears on this web site and you disagree with our assessment that it constitutes “fair use”, contact this web page owner and/or the site administrator to have it removed.

For educational purposes only This information has not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This information is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease

Below is a MSNBC Interview with Robert Kennedy on the Vaccine Autism Coverup

December 3, 2007 Posted by | Vaccines | , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment