Flaws in the
or here: http://tinyurl.com/283dpa
|The Autism Calendar
DO SOMETHING ABOUT AUTISM NOW
SUBSCRIBE. . . !
. . . Read, then Forward the Schafer Autism Report.
$35 for 1 year -
200 issues, or
No Cost Review Sub.
100% Reader Supported through subscription donations
|Political Discussion Forum Heats Up As Vaccine
Link To Autism Question Spreads
An email discussion list has been created in response to the growing
interest in the environmental causes of autism -- now more than 2,000
subscribers. Here is where to join:
Today's SAR is provided through the support of paid subscription
THANK YOU -
By Michael A. Gruttadauria, DC, DACAN
kind of flawed reasoning is that? Do they think we are
stupid? Despite the mercury (thimerosal) being removed from
vaccines, the rate of autism continues to increase. Therefore,
via deductive reasoning, since mercury was removed from vaccines, and
the autism numbers continue to grow, it can’t be the vaccines causing
autism! Here is where the flaw in the argument shows
up: Because of the incredibly neuron-toxic nature of mercury, it
was always assumed that mercury in the vaccines was the culprit in
vaccine causing autism. (That may not be accurate)
No one can deny the concomitant rise in
autism and the increase in the vaccination schedule in the early
1980s. The assumption that mercury was to blame may be a fatal
assumption. Mercury can play a role in the incidence of autism
being up, but with this new study, the CDC now has ammunition against
the vaccine-autism link. What if it was not the mercury in the
vaccine, but the overwhelming impact that 36 vaccines have on a
developing child’s brain?
Fundamentally, I tend to think that
autistic children have a problem of their immune system, which is the
“faulty immune regulation.” Hence they have abnormal immune reactions
to measles virus and/or MMR vaccine” Vijendra K. Singh, Ph.D., Research
Associate Professor of Neuroimmunology, Utah State University, an
international expert in the autoimmune causes of autism:
Here are some real vaccine facts:
Studies have shown that as families improve their living conditions,
hygiene, nutrition, literacy and education, the risk of
life-threatening acute infectious, inflammatory diseases very much
decreases. Families with poor living conditions, hygiene, nutrition and
literacy would generally be most likely to benefit from vaccinations.
Families with good living conditions, hygiene, nutrition and education
probably would benefit from vaccinations very little or not at all.
Individuals with a tendency to allergic or auto-immune diseases are
likely to be harmed by vaccinations. (1,2,3)
Side effects of vaccination are usually
allergic or auto-immune inflammatory reactions caused by the shift of
the immune system’s reactivity from the Th1 side to the Th2 side.
Modern medicine is just beginning to recognize this. (4)
Modern medicine has not scientifically
measured the risk/benefit ratio of any vaccine. Research into the risks
of vaccines is very inadequate, according to two comprehensive reports
on vaccines by the U.S. Institute of Medicine in 1991 and 1994. (5)
The CDC has never proposed, designed,
funded or carried out a single clinical study on autism. (6)
For the thirty years after autism was
identified, it grew at the constant rate of 1-in-10,000 babies born.
The number of autistic infants only grew if the population did. So when
my generation had one or two vaccines in the 1960's, the rate of
children having autism stayed the same. That would change, however, not
from an increase in population, but due to the growing number of
vaccines given to babies, most of which contained thimerosal.
In 1978, the CDC added the triple shot
MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) to the growing baby immunization program,
starting a frightening, irreversible, and detrimental trend: Doctors
began giving more vaccines, at younger ages, for many diseases to which
babies wouldn't be exposed until later in life (hepatitis B), with the
new vaccination protocols all blessed and sanctioned by the CDC. None
of the new baby vaccines was backed by a single study on its individual
safety; nor was a single study done on the safety of the multiple
vaccinations now given.
By 1978, the rate of autism had
increased four times, going from the previous rate of 1-in-10,000 to
1-in-2,500. Over the next ten years, the autism rate would climb again
to 1-in-1,000 in 1991, when the DTP triple shot and hepatitis B were
added to the vaccine chart, both of which contained thimerosal.
By the end of 2000, the rate mushroomed
yet again to 1-in-250. Not only did the population of ASD children
grow, so did the total number of vaccines given to babies, from about
ten in 1983 to 22 vaccines or more today. The result of this
ill-advised, force-fed mandate has been catastrophic. The rate of
children born with ASD has increased again to
In short, the occurrence of autism has
increased at a rate of 1,700% over the past twenty years or more than
6,000% over the past thirty years. Meanwhile, the U.S. population
during the past twenty years has grown from 236 to 300 million people,
or at the rate of 21%. (7)
Are we making a huge mistake and
ignoring what seems to be common sense? Vaccinating our children
right now amidst an epidemic of Autistic Spectrum Disorders is like
playing Russian Roulette.
When my daughter was born, my wife and I
discussed vaccinations. All of our nieces and nephews had them
with no apparent problems. We went ahead and allowed her to
receive the vaccines; she was diagnosed with PDD-nos at 18
months. Our son was born two years later, and we were determined
not to make any mistakes. We delayed the vaccination schedule and
split up the dosages. He too was diagnosed with PDD-nos at 18
months. Our newest addition has had NO VACCINATIONS and, at 13
months, he is by far our most neurologically advanced child. He
was walking and babbling at 10 months with great eye contact, connected
to us, no sensory issues and is really in tune. Now, can you tell
me that the vaccinations play no role in the etiology of Autistic
1 McKeown, T. The Modern Rise of
Population. New York: Academic Press, 1976.
2 McKeown, T. The Role Of Medicine:
Dream, Mirage, or Nemesis? New Jersey: Princeton University Press 1979.
3 Sagan, L.A. The Health of Nations. New
York: Basic Books, Inc., 1987.
4 Rook, G.A.W., Zumla, A. "Gulf War
Syndrome: Is It Due to a Systemic Shift in Cytokine Balance Towards a
Th2 Profile?" The Lancet 349 (1997): 1831-1833.
5 Robin, Eugene, M.D. "Some Hidden
Dimensions of the Risk/Benefit Value of Vaccine" from the First
International Public Conference on Vaccination. Alexandria, Virginia
6 F. Edward Yazbak, MD, FAAP - Studies
that Count, Studies that Don’t
7 James Ottar Grundvig - The Sting of
Thimerosal in Autism -The Epoch Times
Michael A. Gruttadauria, DC, DACAN is a
Board Certified Chiropractic Neurologist with a practice focused on
Autistic Spectrum Disorders in Plainview NY. He is also the
father of two children diagnosed on the spectrum. www.lispectrum.com
• • •
Some Flaws in the Paper that
By Dr. Paul G. King
research paper mentioned in the news reports falsely states that flu
shots were recommended in 2004 when the first "recommendation" was in
"Bridges CB, Fukuda K, Uyeki TM, Cox NJ,
Singleton JA. Prevention and Control of Influenza Recommendations of
the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).
MMWR 2002 Apr 12; 51(RR03): 1-31 with
underlining added for emphasis, 'The 2002 recommendations include five
principal changes or updates, as follows: . . ., influenza vaccination
of healthy children aged 6-23 months is encouraged when feasible . . .'"
Second, the paper also ignores/does not
address the indirect mercury poisoning by Thimerosal in flu shots
recommended for pregnant women in 2nd & 3rd trimesters in 2002 (see
previous reference) and in all trimesters from 2003 onwards.
This would increase MAX exposure by
about 25 micrograms of mercury from Thimerosal or, if the 2004 number
of "40.2" quoted in article is correct, to about 65 micrograms.
Third, since the developing fetus weighs
much less than the post-natal child, the mercury-poisoning effect is
magnified by anywhere from about 2 to 100 depending upon when in the
gestation of the child the mother is injected - so that, in effect, the
maximum "effective" dose a child conceived in 2002 or later may receive
(when a Thimerosal-preserved flu-shot given to the mother "during
pregnancy" is factored in) "could" have the same effect as a as
post-natal child's receiving a "200+ microgram" bolus dose at birth --
thus reducing the mercury exposure while increasing the risk of
damaging mercury poisoning by a factor of 10 times or more by dosing
the fetus under the guise of protecting the mother & the fetus from
influenza by using vaccines thet are not effective & have been
shown to increase the risk of birth defects in the children -- a
win-win situation for the mercury poisoners but a lose-lose situation
for the American public deceived by such practices.!
Based on all of the above, any prudent
person should realize that this article is intentionally under- stating
the "effective" maximum exposure from the pre-natal flu shot to the
mother and mistating the date at which the CDC/ACIP first recommended
that children 6 months to 23 months should be given a flu shot.
In additon, by continually widening the
age range for the children and adding a second dose in at 6 months
initially and then changing that recom- mmendation to a second dose the
first time vaccinated, so that now (for the 2006-2007 flu season)
children from 6 months up to 9 years of age are now covered, the
maximum total dose exposure to Thimerosal from 6 month to age 9 for a
fully vaccinated child has been increased to about 225+ micrograms and,
if the child's mother is inoculated with a Thimerosal- preserved flu
shot, 250+ micrograms of mercury from the influenza vaccines alone plus
the mercury from the other Thimerosal-preserved lots of the other
vaccines and/or Thimerosal-containing lots of pther vaccines vaccines
that the child received.
So much for eliminating mercury from
childhood vaccines and the reductions claimed!
With respect to the knowing addition of
a harmful vaccine, the Thimerosal-preserved influenza vaccine, to the
vaccination schedule for 2002, please look into a 1960s study that
found statistically significant increased rates for birth defects in
children born to mothers given this vaccine (this study is discussed in
the 1982 edition of Heinonen et al.'s Birth Defects and Drugs in
Pregnancy [from the Geiers' posting & attached]).
Hopefully, this information, when
verified, will help set the record straight for the KNOWING mercury
poisoning of children by Thimerosal- containing vaccines and the
duplicity involved in reducing the Thimerosal exposure in some vaccines
while knowingly adding another Thimerosal- preserved vaccine, the
Thimerosal-preserved flu shot, to the vaccination recommendations for
pregnant women and the childhood vaccination schedule without proof of
safety to the required standard, "sufficiently nontoxic" (21 CFR Sec
610.15) -- required for all vaccines in 1973 if not before.
RE: Rick Rollens Response
1. His date for an expected decline
persumes no pregnant woman and no child under 3 years of age born after
December 2006 received a Thimerosal-preserved flu shot -- even though a
"temporary" waiver was granted in 2006 that permitted the
Thimerosal-preserved vaccine to be given.
2. The start of decline date also
depends upon a rigorous enforcement of the law so that no
Thimerosal-preserved influenza vaccine is permitted to be used on
pregnant women and children under 3 and the State of California elects
to purchase ONLY "no Thimerosal" vaccines for pregnant women and
children under 3 years of ang and only "no Thimerosal" or "trace
Thimerosal" vaccines will be given to children 3 years of age and over.
Also, the actual case data and
population numbers USED for each birth cohort should be secured from
the contact author so that their findings could be checked and their
validity, or lack thereof, could be independently confirmed.
- Dr. King
SAR is provided through the support of paid subscription
- THANK YOU -