Category Archives: News

THE U.S. MEDICAL SYSTEM IS THE NATION’S NUMBER ONE KILLER

 

 

By Rob Pell
March 11, 2013
NewsWithViews.com

Ideas for reducing unnecessary, preventable deaths in this country have been in the news a lot lately. Where shall we begin? Annual gun related homicides total about 11,000 and automobile fatalities are about 35,000 per year.

Would you be surprised to learn that the leading cause of death in the US appears to be the medical system itself. This is the startling conclusion reached in a report published by medical researchers: Gary Null, PhD; Carolyn Dean MD, ND; Martin Feldman, MD; Debora Rasio, MD; and Dorothy Smith, PhD.

Deaths resulting from inadvertent, adverse effects or complications from medical treatment or diagnostic proceedures are known as Iatrogenisis, meaning: Brought forth by a healer (from the Greek iatros, healer).Their report places the number of annnual iatrgenic (brought forth by a healer) deaths in the US at 783,936.

Hippocrates is often regarded as the father of western medicine and 98% of American medical students swear to some form of the Hippocratic Oath before practicing medicine. One of the underlying principals of the Oath is: “first, do no harm.” I’m not sure if that’s sad or ironic.

The largest single contributor to iatrogenic deaths are prescription drugs, being used as directed. According to a report issued by Medical News Today, over 4 billion prescriptions were written for drugs in America in 2011 . That’s an average of over 13 for each man, woman and child. The average number of prescriptions written annually for a senior citizen is 28 per year. That doesn’t include over- the-counter medications or vaccines. If these drugs could successfully treat and cure disease, the United States would have the healthiest inhabitants on the planet.

The possible adverse reaction warnings on TV drug commercials have become a punch line for comedian’s routines, but, life-threatening side-effects are no laughing matter. Common side-effects of individual drugs are well publicized but it’s impossible for physicians or pharmacists to reliably predict what possible side-effects will occur when combining three, four, 13 or 28 different drugs.

I was recently saddened to read the obituary of one of my customers, a strongly-built Military Veteran in his mid-seventies, who appeared to me to be in excellent health five years ago. His son told me that he had reviewed his Dad’s prescriptions with him and was shocked to discover that 9 of the 12 drugs his father was taking had been prescribed to treat side-effects from one of the other drugs. His father was found dead, lying on the floor of his residence. No autopsy was performed.

The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) published a study by Dr. Barbara Starfield, an MD with a Master’s degree in Public Health, revealing the extremely poor performance of the United States health care system in a number of areas.

One of Starfield’s main concerns is the lack of systematic recording and studying of adverse events stemming from prescription drugs. If a patient dies, there is no routine procedure to notify their physician, even if the patient is autopsied. Therefore, there is almost no way for the average doctor to link a patient’s death to a possible adverse reaction to a prescribed medication.

This is especially troubling because another article published in JAMA concluded prescription drugs, being used as directed, cause about 106,000 deaths a year and over two million serious injuries annually in the U.S. This makes prescription drugs the single largest factor in deaths induced by the medical establishment.

Nationally, only about 20% of all deaths are subject to investigation by a coronor or medical examiner. If the cause of death was made certain in all cases by autopsy, I’m quite sure that the number of deaths actually caused by prescription drugs, being used as directed, would dwarf the 106,000 per year the JAMA report acknowleged.

I’ve seen enough to believe that in many cases Big-Pharma is far more concerned with creating repeat, lifetime customers rather than finding cures. Joining the drug companies, the FDA and insurance companies are the kingpins behind this profit-driven business model. Some call doctors well-meaning, unsuspecting pawns of Big-Pharma. Others call them street level pushers for FDA sanctioned drug cartels. Either way, the kingpins couldn’t do it without medical doctors helping them complete the drug delivery system.

Due to concerns about dangerous side-effects from long-term use, many prescription drugs were, at one time, specifically prescribed only for short-term use Now, just a few years later, many of the same drugs are routinely prescribed, indefinitely, for the rest of your life.

Further, the Null-Dean report showed that the number of people exposed to unnecessary hospitalization annually is 8.9 million per year. This is cause for concern because a 2008 study issued by the Office of Inspector General for the Department of Health and Human Services, reported that one in seven Medicare beneficiaries who is hospitalized will be harmed as a result of the medical care they receive in the hospital.

Prescription drugs and hospital visits are very risky business. Unlike with other more well publicized causes of death, simply taking greater personal responsibility for our own health and well-being could save hundreds of thousands of lives every year. Unfortunately, more gun or traffic laws will do nothing to save us from what is actually the Nation’s number one killer, the U.S.medical system.

Homoeopathy in the News.

 

Alert

A Letter From Fran Sheffield

Today I will be in court – the Federal Court of Australia.

By the end of today I may no longer be allowed to speak or write on the homeopathic treatment and prevention of whooping cough. Why would this be?

On the 18th February 2013, I received two emails with letters attached from Lauren White, Assistant Director of the Enforcement Operations of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC). One was to the company Homeopathy Plus Australia Pty Ltd of which I am a Director and the other was to me personally as a registrant of the Homeopathy Plus website domain name.

We were advised by Ms White that two pages on our website that referred to whooping cough, the whooping cough vaccine, and the homeopathic treatment and prevention of whooping cough contained potentially misleading and deceptive statements. One of those pages was not in the public domain but in a private members’ area.

The letters also referred to prior concerns about a third page that was no longer on the website. That page also spoke about homeopathy and whooping cough but had been removed in April 2012 to allay the concerns of the ACCC. At the time we believed the matter to be resolved, but this was apparently not so as it too was resurrected as a basis for action; Ms White’s letter advised that the ACCC would seek orders regarding these three pages for:

  1. Declarations;
  2. Injunctions (including an interlocutory injunction);
  3. Pecuniary penalties; and
  4. Costs.

We were told the ACCC would consider settling this matter by consent if we did not contest liability and agreed to the orders sought by the ACCC. This was something Homeopathy Plus and I could not do because we fundamentally still believe the information we supplied to be correct.

Two days later we received another email advising that a date had been set for a fast-tracked Directions Hearing at the Federal Court of Australia (Sydney) in which the above “relief” points would be sought.

So, today, I find myself in court.

What was so shocking and misleading in those pages that led the ACCC to take such action? The following paragraphs are those identified by the ACCC as responsible:


Page 1
“Most developed countries are currently in the grip of the whooping cough epidemic. To stop its spread, health officials are calling for the vaccination of adults as well as children. But is large-scale vaccination the best solution? Not only is protection from the current vaccine short-lived and unreliable, but side-effects are common. Recent research also suggests that the bacterium has mutated to a strain against which the vaccine is no longer effective. The homeopathic approach to this problem offers a safe and sensible solution. Homeopathy has a 200 year history of treating and preventing whooping cough without the risk of dangerous side-effects. It can also be used as a 2nd line of defence should vaccine from whooping cough already have been given.” (This page has not been on the website since April 2012).


Page 2
“Many of those affected by whooping cough have already been vaccinated. Recent studies show that the vaccine has limited effect. To stop the spread of the current epidemic, health officials are calling for the vaccination of adults as well as children. But is large-scale vaccination the best solution when protection from the current vaccine appears unreliable at best and side-effects are common? Perhaps it is time to revisit Homeopathy – Homeopaths certainly think so. Homeopathy offers an alternative or ancillary approach to whooping cough management. It is been used by medical and non-medical Homeopaths during the past 200 years for that purpose and has an excellent safety record.”
(This page is not in the public domain but in the private members area.)


Page 3
Government Data Shows Whooping Cough Vaccine a Failure.

Australia, along with other countries, has seen a meteoric rise in the number of notified cases of whooping cough in the past few years. Lack of vaccination is often blamed but now information from the Australian government shows that the whooping cough vaccine has been largely ineffective. Between 2008 and 2010, of children aged 0-4 years whose vaccination status was known and who had contracted whooping cough, 75% were fully vaccinated and a further 14% were partly vaccinated. Only 11% were un-vaccinated. Why was the Australian government so slow to release this information? Do records from other countries show this vaccine has been equally unsuccessful? What is the future recommendation from government about whooping cough prevention? In the absence of an effective vaccine for this dangerous disease, it is also wise to know about homeopathy and whooping cough.

(This article was in the public area and linked to the following material: http://vaccinationdilemma.com/whooping-cough-australian-children-how-many-were-vaccinated – It is now in the private members area)


What do you think? Are these paragraphs misleading and deceptive? Do they warrant fast-tracking in the Federal Court? What does it mean when a government body breaches the terms and conditions of a private members’ area? How does material, no longer on a website, mislead and deceive people today? Should people have the right to freely access alternative health information?

These and many more questions are waiting to be answered.

In the meantime I would like to send a very warm “thank you” to all who have offered support. The week has been extraordinarily hectic and I have been unable to reply to many of you, something I hope to rectify during the next few days. Please know that your words of encouragement and well-wishes have meant a lot.

I will keep you informed about this affair as it progresses.

Fran Sheffield
Homeopath and Director of Homeopathy Plus

Flu shot not even 50% effective

 

by The Canadian Press – Story: 87723
Feb 21, 2013 / 11:38 am

 

Photo: The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.
Carlos Maisonet, 73, reacts as Dr. Eva Berrios-Colon, a professor at Touro College of Pharmacy, injects him with flu vaccine during a visit to the faculty practice center at Brooklyn Hospital in New York, Jan.15, 2013. THE CANADIAN PRESS/AP/Bebeto Matthews

This year’s flu vaccine provided little protection to people 65 and older who got a shot, new data released by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control reveal.

The study estimates how well the vaccine did at preventing people from becoming sick enough to need to see a doctor, preventing “medically attended flu” in influenza science parlance. And the data suggest this year the vaccine didn’t perform very well for older adults.

It found that a flu shot cut an older adult’s risk of contracting a case of influenza A H3N2 that needed medical care by only nine per cent.

When the scientists calculated the overall effectiveness, the vaccine’s ability to prevent medically attended flu caused by both flu A and B viruses, the estimate was 27 per cent for older adults.

The findings are disappointing given the H3N2 component in this year’s vaccine is well matched to the viruses circulating. Paradoxically, the B component of the vaccine isn’t as closely matched to circulating viruses, yet it is performing better, according to the study.

Dr. Joe Bresee, a flu expert with the CDC, said older adults need to know that if they got a flu shot and they develop flu-like illness, they may have influenza and should see a doctor to determine if they should take antiviral drugs.

“We wanted to make sure that people knew that, especially if you’re elderly to know that, because we still want to communicate the fact that if you do get sick, get antivirals. And don’t assume just because you got the vaccine, that that flu-like illness you’ve got can’t be flu,” said Bresee, who heads the CDC flu division’s epidemiology team.

For Canada the H3N2 effectiveness rate was 45 per cent, she noted, while European investigators pegged the effectiveness against that component at 42 per cent.

Moving up

data-farm-537x399We are upgrading our server to facilitate all material we have. So over the next week, we will be moving our blog and main site. All our links will reflect this and maybe one or two of you will have to change your direct links to the blogs… but the main site address will remain the same.

Its a good thing.

 

As it is.

blind_leading_blindSo, from the pages of this blog, you can see all the wonderful stuff going on the world of conventional medicine. You will never hear, “we are sorry” or”We dont know what we are doing”. No, you will just see deception, and lies and self promotion. I am sickened in spirit reading of the deliberate choices made by pharmacies for profit, in the knowledge that the medicines they release into the marketplace (sic) are not good for cure.

And what about Homoeopathy? Does the therapy offer better choices for healthcare?

Sadly for Homoeopathy, the therapy is being reduced to a worthless and ineffective form of treatment, that is of no use to anyone. For the most part, and mainly in the Western world, the tenets and usage of homoeopathy is so far removed from how it should be practiced, that I am surprised when a person gets benefit from treatment at all.

The modern gurus of homoeopathy, have propounded theories,with their own fanciful spiritual leanings and incorporated into the framework of teaching, so much so that Hahnemannian homeopathy, the Therapy, no longer is taught. It is virtually impossible to pass any college exam without knowing the practice methodology of Sankaran and Scholten.

This, in itself, and by itself, has removed any vestige or usefulness of the medical practice. Homoeopathy proper, is not known to the advocates of the methods. People seeking urgent medical aid will need to go elsewhere for treatment. Sankaran has turned a medical practice into a quasi psychological evaluation based on supposition and speculative theories, that are not even very good models to use in any therapy. It has complicated a very sound scientific principle with defined parameters into a search for something that cannot be observed clinically, and is totally dependent upon the practitioners own spiritual belief, comprehension ability, emotional involvement, and speculative diagnosis. No two Sankaran practitioners would come to the same conclusion for a prescription in general.

Homoeopathy was designed to match observable symptoms of disease. The search for the ‘inner’ cause, was addressed by Hahnemann in great detail throughout his writings, and is the very first thing mentioned in his Organon of Medicine.

§ 1
The physician’s high and only mission is to restore the sick to health, to cure, as it is termed. 1

1 His mission is not, however, to construct so-called systems, by interweaving empty speculations and hypotheses concerning the internal essential nature of the vital processes and the mode in which diseases originate in the interior of the organism, (whereon so many physicians have hitherto ambitiously wasted their talents and their time); nor is it to attempt to give countless explanations regarding the phenomena in diseases and their proximate cause (which must ever remain concealed), wrapped in unintelligible words and an inflated abstract mode of expression, which should sound very learned in order to astonish the ignorant – whilst sick humanity sighs in vain for aid. Of such learned reveries (to which the name of theoretic medicine is given, and for which special professorships are instituted) we have had quite enough, and it is now high time that all who call themselves physicians should at length cease to deceive suffering mankind with mere talk, and begin now, instead, for once to act, that is, really to help and to cure.

 Im sure that for those that practice in the manner described above, exception and issue will be taken with these comments. Sadly for them, and for the patients they see, confirmation of Hahnemanns words are evident in the paucity of cures effected. Practitioners of the Sankaran method are NOT effective in treating medical problems of either an acute or deeper illness conditions. There comes a time when success has to be measured by a majority of cured cases in your clinic, not the occasional ‘amazing’ cure, no.. it has to be the coughs colds, traumas, fevers etc etc that leave the clinic with a curative response in evidence. It has to be done QUICKLY both in the evaluation of the disease symptoms and the choice of prescription based on sound reasoning and reality. This is real world medicine, as practiced by Hahnemann and others and there is NO room for anything but sound medical training and analysis. Anything other is Quackery.

Without strict adherence to the methodology of the application of the medicines, Homoeopathy cannot and will not stand up to scrutiny in the public arena. It fails every time simply because the people practicing under the banner of homoeopathy, are misleading themselves and the public. I have watched the decline of the reputation and of the therapy of homoeopathy in the last few years with a sense of acceptance simply because the therapy cannot and will not survive in the absence of clear principles, and in the presence of so much erroneous teaching.

Much of the homoeopathic literature written in modern times, is less than useful. Most of the prominent names in homoeopathy today, have nothing of value or use to offer to the therapy. Whilst enriching themselves, for cult status has its benefits, the progress of homoeopathy proper has been stunted, if not destroyed. Can the blame for the present state of the therapy be placed solely at their feet? No. It takes supporters to elevate an individual to guru like status. People who are too invested in hearing what they want to hear, listening to things that satisfy their spiritual leanings, and who are too indolent to open the writings of Hahnemann and check whether or not the teachers are teaching truth.

How many times has P & W heard from a person giving up the practice of homoeopathy because its is “too difficult”. One person who practiced Sankaranism, recently told Vladimir Polony that she was quitting because she was not getting any results.. he commented that perhaps her methodology was at fault to which he was told ” Oh No! the methodology is fine.. it must be me!” It has reached the point where if success is not achieved by following a fallacious protocol… its the practitioners fault because they must have done something wrong!  Now that is good brainwashing.

The Hahnemann Institute in Sydney, and the P & W Institute have independently studied myriads of original documents in various Institutions from around the world who hold them. It has involved P & W staff traversing the USA from Library to Library, Medical faculties and Museums. The Hahnemann Institute staff has traveled thousands of miles from Australia to Europe in their search for original literature. All this to ascertain truth and certainty as to what Homoeopathy really is and how to practice the therapy as devised by Samuel Hahnemann. Out of this research, has come very clear and precise knowledge with comprehension of WHY homoeopathy (the therapy) has to be practiced in a certain way to achieve success.  If the proper methodology is employed in case taking and case analysis, and adherence to the protocols of giving the medicines, then indeed, the therapy of homoeopathy could replace at least 70% of therapeutic treatments in mainstream medicine today.

The modern homoeopathic self appointed leaders, dont know that they dont know, and furthermore, they dont really care to know. They could know, if they bothered to read the literature. However, that would cramp their style, their status, and their income producing ability. It is better to reach out to peoples emotional and spiritual nature to encourage the belief that medicine can be practiced by anyone on non medical grounds and by a form of interpretive analysis…. sorry people, it doesnt work like that. As a physician, you would last only 5 minutes if you didnt produce results.

I would urge each person in practice, or in training, or indeed contemplating a career in homoeopathic medicine, to just READ the Organon of medicine (Dudgeons edition) without the overlay or interpretation of anyone. Do NOT read it as a Bible. Read it as a medical text book without a spiritual tone. Read it with the knowledge that it is a man searching for a better medical practice based on pathology and understanding of a disease process and how to use more defined signs and symptoms to elicit the problem and effect a cure using medicines.

I have no hopes for the therapy in the West. Governments seemed determined to stamp out all practices that are at odds with allopathy. Sadly homoeopathy cannot put up a defence scientifically as it is practiced today. Sadly, Sankaran et al, have destroyed homoeopathy as a useful mainstream therapy for this generation. It is down to individuals who have taken the time time to study and learn what the real practice is, that will be of localised usefulness to their patients. Sankaran and Scholten et al will merely shake their heads and lament its passing claiming that they enriched the world with their brilliance and comprehension of disease and treatment thereof, and be content.

History will record the story of the demise of the most effective therapy in the world, as being diluted to uselessness for the sake of greed and ego.

It could be solved so easily just by reading the literature. But then, Most people dont let the facts stand in the way of their prejudices.

Piers Morgan Falls Ill Days After Public Flu Shot with Dr. Oz

Anthony Gucciardiby
January 24th, 2013 | Updated 01/24/2013 at 1:28 pm

piersmorgan 265x167 Piers Morgan Falls Ill Days After Public Flu Shot with Dr. OzJust two days after it was reported that GlaxoSmithKline’s Pandemrix H1N1 swine flu vaccine has actually caused a whopping 800 cases of narcolepsy in children according to Reuters, a major publicity stunt for the efficacy of the flu shot as presented by CNN has crashed and burned. After receiving his very first flu shot live on air from vaccine advocate Dr. Oz in attempt to showcase the ‘safety and effectiveness of the shot’, Piers Morgan has now developed flu-like symptoms that even he and his guest have attributed to the reception of the shot.

In the January 23 interview with country music celebrity Dwight Yoakam, Piers and Dwight discuss the connection between the recent shot and his new sickness. In the interview, which can be seen below, Piers asks “…As you can tell, things are deteriorating. Is there any advice you can give me?”

Yoakam replies with a simple “Don’t ever take a flu shot again,” sparking further discussion surrounding the public injection that ultimately turned into a PR nightmare for Big Pharma. In a surprising reply, Piers says ““We’re both doing the math, so I mean, we both saw him put that thing in my arm and within 10 days I’m struck down.” It was Piers’ first flu shot in his life, according to his own testimony.

You can watch this segment below:

YouTube Preview Image

As pointed out by Adan Salazar, the sickness is also highly ironic as Piers actually questioned Dr. Oz about the so-called ‘myths’ surrounding the shot before it was administered. One such ‘myth’ was whether or not the shot could actually lead to the flu. In dialogue with Dr. Oz, Piers nervously asked:

“So the myth about these, and I’m told it’s a myth, is that you can actually get flu or flu-like symptoms simply by having the shot. Is that true?”

Dr. Oz, of course, regurgitated information provided by the CDC in stating that such an event is impossible due to the fact that the flu shot contains the dead flu virus. Dr. Oz also fails to mention that even the FDA’s own website admits that vaccines contain toxic additives like:

Antibiotics: Linked to the development of mental illness, obesity, and serious gut imbalance due to the depletion of beneficial bacteria in the gut, superbug-spawning antibiotics are used in vaccinations as an ‘additive’ as admitted by the FDA.

Formaldehyde: This of course is the known carcinogen used in the preservation of corpses by funeral homes and elsewhere. Even Cancer.gov admits that formaldehyde is a serious cancer-causing chemical, stating “Formaldehyde has been classified as a known human carcinogen (cancer-causing substance) by the International Agency for Research on Cancer…” So why is this cancer-causing substance being used an additive for vaccinations?

Aluminum: Popularly associated with Alzheimer’s disease and a bunch of other brain disorders, aluminum is used as a vaccine additive to ‘stimulate a response’ from the body.

Thimerosal: One of the most widely known additives, thimerosal is a mercury-containing substance that is unsafe at any dose. Your doctor is likely entirely misinformed on this additive, stating there is no mercury-containing thimerosal in a vaccine when even the FDA and CDC plainly state this. As stated by Dr. David Wallinga from the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, mercury is ‘toxic in all its forms.”

Instead of giving Piers a vaccination full of these toxic additives, Dr. Oz could have simply recommended that Piers begin supplementing with high quality, inexpensive vitamin D3 — or simply take a walk around outside in a warmer climate. Even in considerably low doses, vitamin D3 has been found to flash the risk of flu development by nearly half – a much great success rate than the flu shot.

Read more: http://naturalsociety.com/piers-morgan-falls-ill-days-after-public-flu-shot-with-dr-oz/#ixzz2JJiTe27A

Regulators Discover a Hidden Viral Gene in Commercial GMO Crops

January 21, 2013 Biotechnology, Commentaries 8 Comments

by Jonathan Latham and Allison Wilson

How should a regulatory agency announce they have discovered something potentially very important about the safety of products they have been approving for over twenty years?

In the course of analysis to identify potential allergens in GMO crops, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has belatedly discovered that the most common genetic regulatory sequence in commercial GMOs also encodes a significant fragment of a viral gene (Podevin and du Jardin 2012). This finding has serious ramifications for crop biotechnology and its regulation, but possibly even greater ones for consumers and farmers. This is because there are clear indications that this viral gene (called Gene VI) might not be safe for human consumption. It also may disturb the normal functioning of crops, including their natural pest resistance.

Cauliflower Mosaic Virus

Cauliflower Mosaic Virus

What Podevin and du Jardin discovered is that of the 86 different transgenic events (unique insertions of foreign DNA) commercialized to-date in the United States 54 contain portions of Gene VI within them. They include any with a widely used gene regulatory sequence called the CaMV 35S promoter (from the cauliflower mosaic virus; CaMV). Among the affected transgenic events are some of the most widely grown GMOs, including Roundup Ready soybeans (40-3-2) and MON810 maize. They include the controversial NK603 maize recently reported as causing tumors in rats (Seralini et al. 2012).

The researchers themselves concluded that the presence of segments of Gene VI “might result in unintended phenotypic changes”. They reached this conclusion because similar fragments of Gene VI have already been shown to be active on their own (e.g. De Tapia et al. 1993). In other words, the EFSA researchers were unable to rule out a hazard to public health or the environment.

In general, viral genes expressed in plants raise both agronomic and human health concerns (reviewed in Latham and Wilson 2008). This is because many viral genes function to disable their host in order to facilitate pathogen invasion. Often, this is achieved by incapacitating specific anti-pathogen defenses. Incorporating such genes could clearly lead to undesirable and unexpected outcomes in agriculture. Furthermore, viruses that infect plants are often not that different from viruses that infect humans. For example, sometimes the genes of human and plant viruses are interchangeable, while on other occasions inserting plant viral fragments as transgenes has caused the genetically altered plant to become susceptible to an animal virus (Dasgupta et al. 2001). Thus, in various ways, inserting viral genes accidentally into crop plants and the food supply confers a significant potential for harm.

The Choices for Regulators
The original discovery by Podevin and du Jardin (at EFSA) of Gene VI in commercial GMO crops must have presented regulators with sharply divergent procedural alternatives. They could 1) recall all CaMV Gene VI-containing crops (in Europe that would mean revoking importation and planting approvals) or, 2) undertake a retrospective risk assessment of the CaMV promoter and its Gene VI sequences and hope to give it a clean bill of health.

It is easy to see the attraction for EFSA of option two. Recall would be a massive political and financial decision and would also be a huge embarrassment to the regulators themselves. It would leave very few GMO crops on the market and might even mean the end of crop biotechnology.

Regulators, in principle at least, also have a third option to gauge the seriousness of any potential GMO hazard. GMO monitoring, which is required by EU regulations, ought to allow them to find out if deaths, illnesses, or crop failures have been reported by farmers or health officials and can be correlated with the Gene VI sequence. Unfortunately, this particular avenue of enquiry is a scientific dead end. Not one country has carried through on promises to officially and scientifically monitor any hazardous consequences of GMOs (1).

Unsurprisingly, EFSA chose option two. However, their investigation resulted only in the vague and unreassuring conclusion that Gene VI “might result in unintended phenotypic changes” (Podevin and du Jardin 2012). This means literally, that changes of an unknown number, nature, or magnitude may (or may not) occur. It falls well short of the solid scientific reassurance of public safety needed to explain why EFSA has not ordered a recall.

Can the presence of a fragment of virus DNA really be that significant? Below is an independent analysis of Gene VI and its known properties and their safety implications. This analysis clearly illustrates the regulators’ dilemma.

The Many Functions of Gene VI
Gene VI, like most plant viral genes, produces a protein that is multifunctional. It has four (so far) known roles in the viral infection cycle. The first is to participate in the assembly of virus particles. There is no current data to suggest this function has any implications for biosafety. The second known function is to suppress anti-pathogen defenses by inhibiting a general cellular system called RNA silencing (Haas et al. 2008). Thirdly, Gene VI has the highly unusual function of transactivating (described below) the long RNA (the 35S RNA) produced by CaMV (Park et al. 2001). Fourthly, unconnected to these other mechanisms, Gene VI has very recently been shown to make plants highly susceptible to a bacterial pathogen (Love et al. 2012). Gene VI does this by interfering with a common anti-pathogen defense mechanism possessed by plants. These latter three functions of Gene VI (and their risk implications) are explained further below:

1) Gene VI Is an Inhibitor of RNA Silencing
RNA silencing is a mechanism for the control of gene expression at the level of RNA abundance (Bartel 2004). It is also an important antiviral defense mechanism in both plants and animals, and therefore most viruses have evolved genes (like Gene VI) that disable it (Dunoyer and Voinnet 2006).

Cauliflower mosaic virus genome

Gene VI (upper left) precedes the start of the 35S RNA

This attribute of Gene VI raises two obvious biosafety concerns: 1) Gene VI will lead to aberrant gene expression in GMO crop plants, with unknown consequences and, 2) Gene VI will interfere with the ability of plants to defend themselves against viral pathogens. There are numerous experiments showing that, in general, viral proteins that disable gene silencing enhance infection by a wide spectrum of viruses (Latham and Wilson 2008).

2) Gene VI Is a Unique Transactivator of Gene Expression
Multicellular organisms make proteins by a mechanism in which only one protein is produced by each passage of a ribosome along a messenger RNA (mRNA). Once that protein is completed the ribosome dissociates from the mRNA. However, in a CaMV-infected plant cell, or as a transgene, Gene VI intervenes in this process and directs the ribosome to get back on an mRNA (reinitiate) and produce the next protein in line on the mRNA, if there is one. This property of Gene VI enables Cauliflower Mosaic Virus to produce multiple proteins from a single long RNA (the 35S RNA). Importantly, this function of Gene VI (which is called transactivation) is not limited to the 35S RNA. Gene VI seems able to transactivate any cellular mRNA (Futterer and Hohn 1991; Ryabova et al. 2002). There are likely to be thousands of mRNA molecules having a short or long protein coding sequence following the primary one. These secondary coding sequences could be expressed in cells where Gene VI is expressed. The result will presumably be production of numerous random proteins within cells. The biosafety implications of this are difficult to assess. These proteins could be allergens, plant or human toxins, or they could be harmless. Moreover, the answer will differ for each commercial crop species into which Gene VI has been inserted.

3) Gene VI Interferes with Host Defenses
A very recent finding, not known by Podevin and du Jardin, is that Gene VI has a second mechanism by which it interferes with plant anti-pathogen defenses (Love et al. 2012). It is too early to be sure about the mechanistic details, but the result is to make plants carrying Gene VI more susceptible to certain pathogens, and less susceptible to others. Obviously, this could impact farmers, however the discovery of an entirely new function for gene VI while EFSA’s paper was in press, also makes clear that a full appraisal of all the likely effects of Gene VI is not currently achievable.

Is There a Direct Human Toxicity Issue?
When Gene VI is intentionally expressed in transgenic plants, it causes them to become chlorotic (yellow), to have growth deformities, and to have reduced fertility in a dose-dependent manner (Ziljstra et al 1996). Plants expressing Gene VI also show gene expression abnormalities. These results indicate that, not unexpectedly given its known functions, the protein produced by Gene VI is functioning as a toxin and is harmful to plants (Takahashi et al 1989). Since the known targets of Gene VI activity (ribosomes and gene silencing) are also found in human cells, a reasonable concern is that the protein produced by Gene VI might be a human toxin. This is a question that can only be answered by future experiments.

Is Gene VI Protein Produced in GMO Crops?
Given that expression of Gene VI is likely to cause harm, a crucial issue is whether the actual inserted transgene sequences found in commercial GMO crops will produce any functional protein from the fragment of Gene VI present within the CaMV sequence.

There are two aspects to this question. One is the length of Gene VI accidentally introduced by developers. This appears to vary but most of the 54 approved transgenes contain the same 528 base pairs of the CaMV 35S promoter sequence. This corresponds to approximately the final third of Gene VI. Deleted fragments of Gene VI are active when expressed in plant cells and functions of Gene VI are believed to reside in this final third. Therefore, there is clear potential for unintended effects if this fragment is expressed (e.g. De Tapia et al. 1993; Ryabova et al. 2002; Kobayashi and Hohn 2003).

The second aspect of this question is what quantity of Gene VI could be produced in GMO crops? Once again, this can ultimately only be resolved by direct quantitative experiments. Nevertheless, we can theorize that the amount of Gene VI produced will be specific to each independent insertion event. This is because significant Gene VI expression probably would require specific sequences (such as the presence of a gene promoter and an ATG [a protein start codon]) to precede it and so is likely to be heavily dependent on variables such as the details of the inserted transgenic DNA and where in the plant genome the transgene inserted.

Commercial transgenic crop varieties can also contain superfluous copies of the transgene, including those that are incomplete or rearranged (Wilson et al 2006). These could be important additional sources of Gene VI protein. The decision of regulators to allow such multiple and complex insertion events was always highly questionable, but the realization that the CaMV 35S promoter contains Gene VI sequences provides yet another reason to believe that complex insertion events increase the likelihood of a biosafety problem.

Even direct quantitative measurements of Gene VI protein in individual crop authorizations would not fully resolve the scientific questions, however. No-one knows, for example, what quantity, location or timing of protein production would be of significance for risk assessment, and so answers necessary to perform science-based risk assessment are unlikely to emerge soon.

Big Lessons for Biotechnology
It is perhaps the most basic assumption in all of risk assessment that the developer of a new product provides regulators with accurate information about what is being assessed. Perhaps the next most basic assumption is that regulators independently verify this information.  We now know, however, that for over twenty years neither of those simple expectations have been met. Major public universities, biotech multinationals, and government regulators everywhere, seemingly did not appreciate the relatively simple possibility that the DNA constructs they were responsible for encoded a viral gene.

This lapse occurred despite the fact that Gene VI was not truly hidden; the relevant information on the existence of Gene VI has been freely available in the scientific literature since well before the first biotech approval (Franck et al 1980). We ourselves have offered specific warnings that viral sequences could contain unsuspected genes (Latham and Wilson 2008). The inability of risk assessment processes to incorporate longstanding and repeated scientific findings is every bit as worrysome as the failure to intellectually anticipate the possibility of overlapping genes when manipulating viral sequences.

This sense of a generic failure is reinforced by the fact that this is not an isolated event. There exist other examples of commercially approved viral sequences having overlapping genes that were never subjected to risk assessment. These include numerous commercial GMOs containing promoter regions of the closely related virus figwort mosaic virus (FMV) which were not considered by Podevin and du Jardin. Inspection of commercial sequence data shows that the commonly used FMV promoter overlaps its own Gene VI (Richins et al 1987). A third example is the virus-resistant potato NewLeaf Plus (RBMT-22-82). This transgene contains approximately 90% of the P0 gene of potato leaf roll virus. The known function of this gene, whose existence was discovered only after US approval, is to inhibit the anti-pathogen defenses of its host (Pfeffer et al 2002). Fortunately, this potato variety was never actively marketed.

A further key point relates to the biotech industry and their campaign to secure public approval and a permissive regulatory environment. This has led them to repeatedly claim, firstly, that GMO technology is precise and predictable; and secondly, that their own competence and self-interest would prevent them from ever bringing potentially harmful products to the market; and thirdly, to assert that only well studied and fully understood transgenes are commercialized. It is hard to imagine a finding more damaging to these claims than the revelations surrounding Gene VI.

Biotechnology, it is often forgotten, is not just a technology. It is an experiment in the proposition that human institutions can perform adequate risk assessments on novel living organisms. Rather than treat that question as primarily a daunting scientific one, we should for now consider that the primary obstacle will be overcoming the much more mundane trap of human complacency and incompetence. We are not there yet, and therefore this incident will serve to reinforce the demands for GMO labeling in places where it is absent.

What Regulators Should Do Now
This summary of the scientific risk issues shows that a segment of a poorly characterized viral gene never subjected to any risk assessment (until now) was allowed onto the market. This gene is currently present in commercial crops and growing on a large scale. It is also widespread in the food supply.

Even now that EFSA’s own researchers have belatedly considered the risk issues, no one can say whether the public has been harmed, though harm appears a clear scientific possibility. Considered from the perspective of professional and scientific risk assessment, this situation represents a complete and catastrophic system failure.

But the saga of Gene VI is not yet over. There is no certainty that further scientific analysis will resolve the remaining uncertainties, or provide reassurance. Future research may in fact increase the level of concern or uncertainty, and this is a possibility that regulators should weigh heavily in their deliberations.

To return to the original choices before EFSA, these were either to recall all CaMV 35S promoter-containing GMOs, or to perform a retrospective risk assessment. This retrospective risk assessment has now been carried out and the data clearly indicate a potential for significant harm. The only course of action consistent with protecting the public and respecting the science is for EFSA, and other jurisdictions, to order a total recall. This recall should also include GMOs containing the FMV promoter and its own overlapping Gene VI.

Footnotes
1)  EFSA regulators might now be regretting their failure to implement meaningful GMO monitoring. It would be a good question for European politicians to ask EFSA and for the board of EFSA to ask the GMO panel, whose job it is to implement monitoring.

References
Bartel P (2004)  MicroRNAs: Genomics, Biogenesis, Mechanism, and Function. Cell: 116, 281-297.
Dasgupta R , Garcia BH,  Goodman RM (2001) Systemic spread of an RNA insect virus in plants expressing plant viral movement protein genes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 98: 4910-4915.

De Tapia M, Himmelbach A, and Hohn T (1993) Molecular dissection of the cauliflower mosaic virus translation transactivator. EMBO J 12: 3305-14.

Dunoyer P, and  O Voinnet (2006) The complex interplay between plant viruses and host RNA-silencing pathways.  Curr Opinion in Plant Biology 8: 415–423.

Franck A, H Guilley, G Jonard, K Richards and L Hirth (1980) Nucleotide sequence of cauliflower mosaic virus DNA. Cell 2: 285-294.
Futterer J, and T Hohn (1991) Translation of a polycistronic mRNA in presence of the cauliflower mosaic virus transactivator protein. EMBO J. 10: 3887-3896.

Haas G, Azevedo J, Moissiard G, Geldreich A, Himber C, Bureau M, et al. (2008) Nuclear import of CaMV P6 is required for infection and suppression of the RNA silencing factor DRB4. EMBO J 27: 2102-12.

Kobayashi K, and T Hohn (2003) Dissection of Cauliflower Mosaic Virus Transactivator/Viroplasmin Reveals Distinct Essential Functions in Basic Virus Replication. J. Virol. 77: 8577–8583.

Latham JR, and AK Wilson (2008) Transcomplementation and Synergism in Plants: Implications for Viral Transgenes? Molecular Plant Pathology 9: 85-103.

Park H-S, Himmelbach A, Browning KS, Hohn T, and Ryabova LA (2001). A plant viral ‘‘reinitiation’’ factor interacts with the host translational machinery. Cell 106: 723–733.

Pfeffer S, P Dunoyer, F Heim, KE Richards, G Jonard, V Ziegler-Graff (2002) P0 of Beet Western Yellows Virus Is a Suppressor of Posttranscriptional Gene Silencing. J. Virol. 76: 6815–6824.

Podevin N and  du Jardin P (2012) Possible consequences of the overlap between the CaMV 35S promoter regions in plant transformation vectors used and the viral gene VI in transgenic plants. GM Crops and Food 3: 1-5.

Love AJ , C Geri, J Laird, C Carr, BW Yun, GJ Loake et al (2012) Cauliflower mosaic virus Protein P6 Inhibits Signaling Responses to Salicylic Acid and Regulates Innate Immunity. PLoS One. 7(10): e47535.

Richins R, H Scholthof, RJ Shepherd (1987) Sequence of figwort mosaic virus DNA (caulimovirus group). NAR 15: 8451-8466.

Ryabova LA , Pooggin, MH and Hohn, T (2002) Viral strategies of translation initiation: Ribosomal shunt and reinitiation. Progress in Nucleic Acid Research and Molecular Biology 72: 1-39.

Séralini, G-E., E. Clair, R. Mesnage, S. Gress, N. Defarge, M. Malatesta, D. Hennequin, J. Spiroux de Vendômois. 2012. Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize. Food Chem. Toxicol.

Takahashi H, K Shimamoto, Y Ehara (1989) Cauliflower mosaic virus gene VI causes growth suppression, development of necrotic spots and expression of defence-related genes in transgenic tobacco plants. Molecular and General Genetics 216:188-194.

Wilson AK, JR Latham and RA Steinbrecher (2006) Transformation-induced mutations in transgenic plants: Analysis and biosafety implications. Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering Reviews 23: 209-234.

Zijlstra C, Schärer-Hernández N, Gal S, Hohn T. Arabidopsis thaliana expressing the cauliflower mosaic virus ORF VI transgene has a late flowering phenotype. Virus Genes 1996; 13:5-17.

There is no one left to trust with your health.

Pediatricians: Keep Thimerosal in Vaccines

article-2191181-149F3528000005DC-929_233x300By Todd Neale, Senior Staff Writer, MedPage Today

Published: December 17, 2012
Reviewed by Robert Jasmer, MD; Associate Clinical Professor of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco

 

The American Academy of Pediatrics has endorsed the World Health Organization’s stance that thimerosal — a mercury-based preservative — should be left in vaccines and should not be subject to a ban contained in a draft treaty from the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP).

In a brief statement published online inPediatrics, the academy supported the recommendations drafted by the WHO’s Strategic Advisory Group of Experts (SAGE) on immunization at an April meeting. An AAP spokesperson said that the endorsement was adopted unanimously by the academy’s infectious diseases committee.

The Pediatrics Infectious Diseases Society and the International Pediatric Association have also thrown their support behind the guidance.

In 2009, UNEP requested that an Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee develop a binding treaty to reduce the hazards of environmental mercury. Included in the draft treaty, which will be debated and possibly finalized next month, is a provision banning the use of thimerosal in vaccines.

The WHO has called for the removal of that provision, with SAGE concluding that although it supports efforts to reduce environmental mercury, “it is essential that access to thimerosal-containing vaccines is not restricted under this global initiative.”

An Evolving Position on Thimerosal

Thimerosal has been used to prevent the growth of bacteria and fungi in multidose vials of vaccines since the 1930s. In recent decades, concerns have been raised about the potential neurotoxic effects of the preservative and a possible association with autism because it contains mercury in the form of organic ethyl mercury.

The FDA tackled the issue in the late 1990s, and its review showed that the cumulative amount of mercury from vaccines included in the routine immunization schedule for infants could exceed the safety threshold set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency based on studies of inorganic methyl mercury. The amount did not, however, rise above the thresholds established by federal guidelines from the Agency for Toxic Substance Disease Registry and the FDA.

Based on those findings, and in addition to growing public pressure driven by congressional hearings and increasing media attention on potential adverse neurodevelopmental effects of thimerosal, the AAP and the U.S. Public Health Service (USPHS) in 1999 called for the removal of mercury from all vaccines.

“Once the FDA calculations revealed that even one federal guideline was exceeded, the AAP and USPHS were obligated to full public disclosure,” explained Louis Cooper, MD, of Columbia University in New York City, and Samuel Katz, MD, of Duke University in Durham, N.C., in a commentary accompanying the academy’s current endorsement.

“With that disclosure, it was important to demonstrate a response that could prevent exceeding the guideline levels and also to continue to protect infants by still ensuring full immunization,” wrote Cooper, a member of the AAP board of directors in 1999, and Katz, a former chair of the academy’s infectious diseases committee. “The joint statement met those obligations while demonstrating an abundance of caution: putting safety first.”

By 2001, thimerosal had been removed from most vaccines in the U.S. and other high-income countries; it can still be found in some seasonal influenza vaccines and other adult vaccines. In areas of the world with fewer resources, however, thimerosal is still widely used as a vaccine preservative.

At the time of the joint statement by the AAP and USPHS, there were no studies that had evaluated the potential harm of ethyl mercury — as opposed to its inorganic counterpart, methyl mercury — obtained through vaccines.

Since then, however, studies looking for harms from thimerosal-containing vaccines have failed to find such associations, whereas research has consistently demonstrated serious neurotoxic effects from methyl mercury.

The consistent lack of evidence of any harm from thimerosal in vaccines formed the basis of the AAP’s reversal of its 1999 stance, and Cooper and Katz suggested that the academy would not have issued the original statement with than knowledge in-hand.

Potential Fallout from a Thimerosal Ban

In another commentary, Walter Orenstein, MD, of Emory University in Atlanta, and colleagues explained the benefits of keeping thimerosal as an option for vaccines.

“Thimerosal allows the use of multiuse vials, which reduce vaccine cost and the demand on already constrained cold-chain systems,” they wrote.

They said banning use of the preservative could harm the world’s vaccine supply by increasing manufacturing costs, reducing manufacturing capacity because of the need to switch to single-dose vials, increase waste from single-dose packaging, and strain transportation and storage space.

“The resulting cold-chain requirements would be untenable in many areas of the world because of programmatic challenges and increased workload,” Orenstein and colleagues wrote.

“The continued benefits of thimerosal use in vaccine manufacturing clearly outweigh any perceived risks,” they added.

In its recommendations, the WHO’s SAGE noted that there are no viable alternatives to thimerosal.

“Replacement of thimerosal with an alternative preservative may affect the quality, safety, and efficacy of vaccines; re-registration would be required by the National Regulatory Authority in each jurisdiction where a reformulated product was intended to be used; currently available alternative preservatives interacted in unpredictable ways with existing vaccines, and there are no consensus alternative preservatives for the near- or mid-term,” according to the guidance.

Ultimately, it stated, a thimerosal ban could threaten access to certain vaccines — such as tetanus toxoid, diphtheria-tetanus-whole cell pertussis, and hepatitis B vaccines — around the world, particularly in developing countries.

“There would be a high risk of serious disruption to routine immunization programs and mass immunization campaigns if thimerosal-preserved multidose vials were not available for inactivated vaccines, with a predictable and sizable increase in mortality, for exceedingly limited environmental benefit,” the statement read.

In a third commentary, Katherine King, PhD, of St. Michael’s Hospital in Toronto, and colleagues noted that “some nongovernmental organizations oppose [removing the ban on thimerosal from vaccines from the draft treaty], arguing that it would be unjust to allow thimerosal to be used in low- and middle-income countries when its use has been all but phased out of wealthier nations.”

“This critique is misplaced,” they wrote, adding that there is no threat of injustice because of the lack of evidence of health risks.

“Rather,” they wrote, “the real threat of injustice comes from considering the removal of this currently necessary and irreplaceable compound from the global vaccine supply, and the avoidable increases in morbidity and mortality that would inevitably result from disruptions to vaccination programs targeting already marginalized populations in low- and middle-income countries.”

All authors of the AAP’s statement of endorsement have filed conflict of interest statements. Any conflicts have been resolved through a process approved by the academy’s board of directors. The AAP said it has neither solicited nor accepted any commercial involvement in the development of the content of the statement.

Cooper and Katz reported that they had no conflicts of interest.

King and colleagues reported that they had no conflicts of interest.

Orenstein and colleagues reported that they had no conflicts of interest.

 

Primary source: Pediatrics

Source reference:
Cooper L, Katz S. “Ban on thimerosal in draft treaty on mercury: why the AAP’s position in 2012 is so important”Pediatrics 2013;131:152-153.

Additional source: Pediatrics
Source reference:
AAP. “Statement of endorsement: recommendation of WHO Strategic Advisory Group of Experts (SAGE) on immunization” Pediatrics 2012.

Additional source: Pediatrics
Source reference:
King K, et al. “Global justice and the proposed ban on thimerosal-containing vaccines” Pediatrics 2013;131:154-156.

Video

Do you understand now?

YouTube Preview Image

Italian Court Reignites MMR Vaccine Debate After Award Over Child with Autism

Many parents don’t think twice about taking their children in for routine vaccinations, as they are an integral and heavily promoted part of the conventional medical system. But this decision has had life altering, and sometimes life-ending, ramifications for more children than you might expect.

Many hard core health activists are distressed that I do not promote the avoidance of all vaccines outright. Instead, I strongly urge you to invest the time to educate yourself about the potential benefits and risks of each vaccine prior to vaccination, and to make educated decisions based on what you conclude is likely to be the best course of action for your child.

While some vaccines appear to be safer than others, it’s important to realize that each vaccination carries a certain amount of risk and vaccine risks can be greater for some than others due to biological and environmental factors, and the timing and types of  vaccines given. The risks of vaccination may be exponentially increased when revaccination takes place after an individual has already had a previous vaccine reaction, or when multiple vaccines are administered at the same time.

There are vaccines that historically have been associated with more side effects than others, and the combination measles, mumps and rubella vaccine – MMR shot – is one of those.

The health risks associated with the MMR vaccine has been in the news for about 15 years, and we’re undoubtedly going to see a re-emergence of questions about this vaccine in the coming days and weeks because the Italian health ministry recently conceded that the MMR vaccine caused autism in a now nine-year-old boy, who suffered brain inflammation and permanent brain damage after he was vaccinated.

Italian Court Rules MMR Vaccine Caused Autism

Valentino Bocca was given an MMR shot in 2004, at the age of 15 months. According to his parents, the change in his behavior was immediate. That same night he refused to eat, and he developed diarrhea during the night. It quickly went downhill from there. Within days he was no longer able to put a spoon to his mouth, and he spent nights crying in pain. His parents immediately suspected the vaccination, but were told this was “impossible.” Valentino progressively regressed, and received the diagnosis of autism a year later.

In the final analysis, the Italian Health Ministry disagreed with the initial conclusion of the pediatrician, conceding that the vaccine was at fault.

As a result, a court in Rimini, Italy recently awarded the Bocca family a 15-year annuity totaling 174,000 Euros (just under $220,000), plus reimbursement for court costs, ruling that Valentino “has been damaged by irreversible complications due to vaccination (prophylaxis trivalent MMR)i.” According to a featured article in the UK newspaper, The Independentii, about 100 similar cases are now being examined by Italian lawyers, and more cases may be brought to court.

“Luca Ventaloro the family lawyer, said yesterday: “This is very significant for Britain which uses, and has used, an MMR vaccine with the same components as the one given to Valentino.

It is wrong for governments and their health authorities to exert strong pressure on parents to take children for the MMR jab while ignoring that this vaccine can cause autism and linked conditions.” The number of autism cases has risen sharply since the 1970s, with one in 64 British children affected,” The Independent reportsiii .

Why is US Media in Black-Out on this Story?

It’s well worth mentioning that this story has yet to be addressed in the US media… The Daily Mail was the first paper in the UK to talk about it on June 15ivThe Independent was the second to print an article, on June 17. The Daily Mail was the most substantive of the two. Their version included the following statements:

“Judge Lucio Ardigo, awarding compensation to the family… said it was ‘conclusively established’ that Valentino had suffered from an ‘autistic disorder associated with medium cognitive delay’ and his illness, as Dr Barboni stated, was linked to receiving the jab.   Lawyer Mr Ventaloro explained yesterday: ‘This is very significant for Britain which uses, and has used, an MMR vaccine with the same components as the one given to Valentino. ‘It is wrong for governments and their health authorities to exert strong pressure on parents to take children for the MMR jab while ignoring that this vaccine can cause autism and linked conditions.’

Claudio Simion, a leading member of the lobby group Association for Freedom of Choice in Vaccination (Comilva), adds: ‘The Rimini judgment is vitally important for children everywhere. The numbers with autism are growing. It is a terrible thing that the authorities turn a blind eye to the connection between the MMR vaccination and this illness.’”

The complete lack of coverage of this case in the US media is a potent example of how health information is flat out censored in the US. Is it any wonder so many Americans are still in the dark? Whether hearing about this case in the US media would sway you to believe vaccines may cause autism or not, the REAL story here is the fact that you’re not even being allowed to learn about it in the first place!

“Controversial” MMR Vaccine Research Replicated and Accurate

It’s virtually impossible to read an article about the MMR vaccine without coming across a reference to British gastroenterologist Dr. Andrew Wakefield’s 1998 research published in The Lancet, which suggested there may be a link between the MMR vaccine, chronic bowel disease, and autism. Ever since the article’s publication, it has remained one of the most cited yet controversial studies on the topic of vaccine safety.

Few public health officials or doctors speaking about vaccination in the media today fail to drive home the point that Wakefield’s research was subsequently “discredited” by the General Medical Council in Britain, while completely ignoring the facts about what his research actually showed, and the long list of studies done since then by other researchers that back up his initial findings.

Dr. Wakefield’s 1998 study involved a retrospective case series analysis, which essentially reviews the clinical histories of a group of patients with a constellation of signs and symptoms that link them together and create a pattern. In this case, it was a group of autistic children with gastrointestinal problems, which led to the discovery of a novel bowel disease that Wakefield and his colleagues at the Royal Free Hospital in London first described.

But rather than celebrating the discovery of a tangible, treatable and potentially preventable serious health problem that could help those suffering with similar health issues, Wakefield’s discovery became a hotly debated controversy in which Dr. Wakefield’s personal and professional reputation was smeared.

Why?

Because the clinical story didn’t end with bowel disease; it also included symptoms of regressive autism after receiving the MMR vaccine…

In the years following his 1998 finding, which linked the MMR vaccine to inflammatory bowel disease and symptoms of autism, Dr. Wakefield published another 19 papers on the vaccine-induced bowel disorder. All were peer reviewed, and none have been retracted. However, none of these 19 papers are ever discussed in the media.

The only study that keeps seeing the light of day is the original Lancet article from 1998. Another interesting fact is that, since that study, a large number of replication studies have been performed around the world, by other researchers, that confirm  Wakefield’s initial findings. Yet you never hear a word about those either!

YouTube Preview Image

 

Download Interview Transcript

For a list of 28 studies from around the world that support Dr. Wakefield’s controversial 1998 findings, please see this previous article.

As one example of many, at the 2006 International Meeting for Autism Research,  Stephen J. Walker, Ph.D. shared preliminary research findings that confirmed Dr. Wakefield’s contested findings.

A research team from the Wake Forest University School of Medicine in North Carolina had examined children with regressive autism and bowel disease, and of the 82 tested at the time of his presentation, 70 were positive for the vaccine strain of the measles virus (as opposed to the wild strain of measles). What this proved was that a majority of children diagnosed with regressive autism had the vaccine strain of measles in their gastrointestinal tract, which is exactly what Dr. Wakefield had found back in 1998.

This doesn’t automatically prove the vaccine was the cause of the autism, but it does at the very least suggest a link between these three factors—the presence of MMR vaccine strain of measles in the digestive tract; chronic bowel inflammation; and symptoms of regressive autism. Which brings us to even more recent research into the ramifications of chronic bowel inflammation.

The Connection Between Your Gut and Your Brain

Is it really so unlikely that chronic bowel inflammation from a measles virus could lead to autistic behavior? After all, the gastrointestinal system is often referred to as your “second brain,” containing some 100 million neurons—more than in either your spinal cord or your peripheral nervous system!

The research of Dr. Natasha Campbell-McBride shows there’s a profound dynamic interaction between your gut, your brain, and your immune system, and she has developed what might be one of the most profoundly important treatment strategies for preventing autism, as well as a wide range of other neurological-, psychological-, and autoimmune disorders—all of which are heavily influenced by your gut health.

I believe her Gut and Psychology Syndrome, and Gut and Physiology Syndrome (GAPS) Nutritional program is vitally important for MOST people, as the majority of people have such poor gut health due to poor diet and toxic exposures, but it’s particularly crucial for pregnant women and young children.

According to Dr. Campbell-McBride, children who are born with severely damaged gut flora are at a significantly increased risk of vaccine damage, which may help explain why some children develop symptoms of autism after receiving one or more childhood vaccinations, such as the MMR vaccine, while others do not.

In a previous interview, she explained the chain of events that is typical for many, if not most, autistic children:

“What happens in these children [is that] they do not develop normal gut flora from birth… As a result, their digestive system—instead of being a source of nourishment for these children—becomes a major source of toxicity. These pathogenic microbes inside their digestive tract damage the integrity of the gut wall. So all sort of toxins and microbes flood into the bloodstream of the child, and get into the brain of the child.

That usually happens in the second year of life in children who were breast fed because breastfeeding provides a protection against this abnormal gut flora. In children who were not breastfed, I see the symptoms of autism developing in the first year of life. So breastfeeding is crucial to protect these children.”

If a child with abnormal gut flora and damaged digestive tract receives a vaccine, the added toxic burden may prove too great to bear. Keep in mind that this toxic burden is NOT necessarily limited to thimerosal (mercury-based preservative) or aluminum-based adjuvants found in some vaccines. The MMR vaccine for example does not contain thimerosal or aluminum. Instead, it appears the measles virus in the vaccine may contribute to chronic inflammation of the bowel, thereby unleashing a cascade of harmful effects on the brain.

“… If the child’s brain is clogged with toxicity, the child misses that window of opportunity of learning and starts developing autism depending on the mixture of toxins, depending on how severe the whole condition is, and how severely abnormal the gut flora is in the child,” Dr. Campbell-McBride explains.

It’s important to understand that the gut flora your child acquires during vaginal birth is dependent on your—the mother’s—gut flora. So if your microflora is abnormal, your child’s will be as well. Autism isn’t the only potential outcome in this case.

GAPS may manifest as a conglomerate of symptoms that can fit the diagnosis of either autism, or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), attention deficit disorder (ADD), dyslexia, dyspraxia, or obsessive-compulsive disorder, just to name a few possibilities. Digestive issues, asthma, allergies, skin problems and autoimmune disorders are also common outgrowths of GAPS, as it can present itself either psychologically or physiologically.

A Simple, Inexpensive Solution to Reduce Risks of Vaccine Damage

Dr. Campbell-McBride’s book Gut and Psychology Syndrome contains an entire chapter outlining what health care professionals need to do to improve the vaccination strategy, because the standard vaccination protocol is bound to damage GAPS babies. She explains:

“It’s a matter of the last straw breaking the camel’s back. If the child is damaged enough, the vaccine can provide that last straw. But if it doesn’t provide that last straw in a particular child, then it will get the child closer to the breaking point.”

Fortunately, it’s possible to rather inexpensively identify GAPS within the first weeks of your baby’s life, which can help you make better-informed decisions about vaccinations, and about how to proceed to set your child on the path to a healthy life.

The entire process for identifying children who would be at risk for developing autism from a vaccine is described in her book, but to sum it up, in her practice she starts out by collecting a complete health history of the parents, and their gut health is assessed.

Then, within the first few days of life, the stool of the child can be analyzed to determine the state of her gut flora, followed by a urine test to check for metabolites, which can give you a picture of the state of your child’s immune system.

These tests are available in most laboratories around the world and cost a very reasonable amount, about $80-100 per test — peanuts compared to the incredible expense of treating an autistic child once the damage is done.

In my view it is absolutely VITAL to perform this analysis BEFORE you consider vaccinating your child. As Dr. Campbell-McBride states, she has yet to find an autistic child with normal bowel flora. If you find that your baby has abnormal gut microflora, or begins to develop symptoms of autism a year or two later, the GAPS program should be started immediately, as the younger the child is when you start the treatment, the better the results.

You should seriously evaluate the potential increased risks of giving a child vaccines before  their microflora tests normal. For more information about the GAPS Nutritional Program, including the two types of GAPS diets, and the importance of fermented foods, please review this previous article.

MMR Vaccine Linked to Brain Inflammation

Whereas the research of Dr. Wakefield and others provide compelling evidence that MMR vaccine can cause chronic inflammatory bowel disease, other researchers have found links between the MMR and inflammation of the brain. Dr. Harold Buttram has written about the MMR vaccine’s potential link to autism, due to the vaccine’s potential to cause brain inflammation. He explains:

“First and perhaps foremost, MMR is incubated in chick embryo culture medium, which necessarily includes precursors of all the organ systems of the chick, including myelin basic protein. Merck Pharmaceuticals, which produces MMR vaccine, claims that all traces of the chick embryo are removed before the vaccine is released for use.

This may be true, but it is probably irrelevant as it does not take into account the process of mobile genetic elements, more commonly referred to as “jumping genes.” Viruses being made up entirely of genetic material, they are highly susceptible to this process.

It has been shown that viruses are genetically changed by accepting genetic material from cell cultures.’ The genetic imprint of the chick myelin basic protein, which is foreign to the human system because of its chick origin, may be programmed to induce antibodies against human myelin basic protein, once injected into the human system.

This in turn, potentially resulting in encephalitis.”

If you don’t want to take his word for it, take a look at the package insert for Merck’s MMR vaccinev , which, on page seven, lists encephalitis as a potential side effect. Type 2 diabetes (diabetes mellitus) is another, along with a number of other potentially life altering conditions. Rarely, if ever, will your pediatrician calmly inform you  of these reported side effects, which is why you’d be wise to read through the vaccine manufacturer product inserts as part of your own personal research, prior to vaccination.

Other Acknowledged Cases of MMR Vaccine Brain Damage

In 2009, the US District Court of Claims, also known as the “Vaccine Court,” ruled in favor of awarding federal vaccine injury compensation to a young boy, who developed Pervasive Developmental Delay (PDD), a constellation of symptoms of brain dysfunction  that includes autism and other learning disorders.

The parents of Bailey Banks argued that their son had a seizure 16 days after his first MMR vaccination. That, they said, led to a type of brain inflammation called Acute Disseminated Encephalomyelitis (ADEM), which, in turn, led to PDD.

The court agreed that the MMR vaccine had, indeed, caused him to suffer Acute Disseminated Encephalomyelitis leading to permanent brain damage. According to the court decision, there was, “a proximate sequence of cause and effect leading inexorably from vaccination to Pervasive Developmental Delay.”

As you can see, what we’re seeing in some cases is little more than semantics, really, because what’s the difference, in practical terms, between PDD and autism? Both words describe chronic brain dysfunction. They are essentially two ways to describe the same brain disorder at different points along a spectrum.

Essentially, this is how many people are misled and kept in the dark, because when the word “autism” is not used, everyone can keep insisting that “there’s no evidence linking vaccines to autism.” Still, for a parent and their affected child, the end result is the same

The case of Hannah Poling is another important case to ponder when discussing potential vaccine damage. In her case, it was found that vaccines “significantly aggravated an underlying mitochondrial disorder,” resulting in a brain disorder “with features of autism spectrum disorder.”

Mitochondria are the powerhouses in your body’s cells that produce energy. The US Court of Claims and government health agencies again stopped short of admitting a direct link between autism and vaccines, saying instead that vaccines may only be a danger for children who have a “rare” mitochondrial dysfunction.

The problem is that mitochondrial “dysfunction” may not be as rare as initially thought. According to some estimates, the prevalence may be as high as 1 in 50 children—which is pretty darn close to the current prevalence of autism.

But is it possible that what the government is calling a genetic predisposition for mitochondrial dysfunction is actually a biological or cellular response to numerous environmental assaults? You bet!

A brand new meta-analysis published in the March issue of Molecular Psychiatryvi discovered that, while five percent of children with autism spectrum disorders (ASDs) had mitochondrial dysfunction (MD)—far higher than that found in the general population—79 percent of them were NOT associated with any kind of genetic abnormality! Seventy-four percent of children with ASD were also found to have gastrointestinal abnormalities, again supporting the link between chronic bowel disorders and autistic symptoms.

According to the authors:

“Neuroimaging, in vitro and post-mortem brain studies were consistent with an elevated prevalence of mitochondrial dysfunction (MD) in ASD. Taken together, these findings suggest children with ASD have a spectrum of mitochondrial dysfunction of differing severity…

The prevalence of developmental regression (52%), seizures (41%), motor delay (51%), gastrointestinal abnormalities (74%), female gender (39%), and elevated lactate (78%) and pyruvate (45%) was significantly higher in ASD/MD compared with the general ASD population.

The prevalence of many of these abnormalities was similar to the general population of children with mitochondrial dysfunction, suggesting that ASD/MD represents a distinct subgroup of children with MD.

Most ASD/MD cases (79%) were not associated with genetic abnormalities, raising the possibility of secondary mitochondrial dysfunction. Treatment studies for ASD/MD were limited, although improvements were noted in some studies with carnitine, co-enzyme Q10 and B-vitamins.

… Overall, this evidence supports the notion that mitochondrial dysfunction is associated with ASD. Additional studies are needed to further define the role of mitochondrial dysfunction in ASD.” [Emphasis mine]

A Pediatrician Responds

In response to the Italian case, Dr. Lawrence Palevsky, MDvii, posted the following statement on his Facebook page:

“One of the reasons the measles vaccine was originally administered to children was to prevent against the unfortunate, but rare complication of a measles infection-SSPE (Subacute Sclerosing Panencephalitis). Before the measles vaccine was licensed for use in the US in 1963, the CDC reports that 400,000 cases of measles infections occurred each year in the US. Yet, the incidence rate of measles encephalitis (SSPE) was only .0061 %. Encephalitis is another term for brain inflammation, and it occurs rarely after a measles infection due to a slow viral infection of the brain weeks, months or even years after the resolution of a measles infection.

According to the CDCviii , there were 368 cases of SSPE in US citizens between 1969 and 1981. 55 % (202) of the cases had only a history of having had a measles infection. 14 % (51) had a history of only having received the measles vaccine, and 17% had a history of having had both the natural measles infection and the measles vaccine. 14% (52) gave no history of either having had the measles infection or the vaccine. These data clearly show that SSPE can occur after a subset of people have received the measles vaccine.

The development of encephalitis is not just limited to people, who experience a natural measles infection. According to the CDC, 1 in 88 US children have received the diagnosis of autismix. In children with autism, we are finding that they too have a considerable amount of brain inflammation. In other words, children with autism also suffer from encephalitis.

Since the CDC points out that encephalitis can occur in people who receive the measles vaccine, it is scientifically valid to say that in a subset of the 1 in 88 children who suffer from autism, i.e., brain inflammation, the measles vaccine they received may have contributed to the onset of their brain inflammation. So, here’s the tradeoff. We’ve gone from an encephalitis incidence rate post measles infection of .0061% to an encephalitis incidence rate post measles vaccination of 1.14% (1 in 88 children).

As a result of the use of the measles vaccine, we see fewer obvious cases of acute measles infections. Instead, however, we now have many more clinical cases of chronic brain inflammation, the very complication of a natural measles infection that the vaccine was supposed to protect against.

I’d say the measles vaccine program has failed to accomplish what it was meant to do, and now, as a result of our attempts to minimize the rare complication of a measles infection by stopping children from experiencing a measles infection, we have created the very problem of an inordinate amount of children with chronic brain inflammation. “

Why Don’t Health Agencies Look  At Risks of Excess Vaccinations?

Bear in mind that vaccine safety is not just about individual vaccines. Dr. Russell Blaylock has written an excellent paper that explains the connection between excessive vaccination and neurodevelopmental disorders like autism that is definitely worth reading.

Dr. Blaylock is suggesting that vaccines can over-stimulate your child’s immune system and, when several vaccines are administered together, or in close succession, their interaction may completely overwhelm your child’s developing immune system.

It’s your child, so it’s up to you to make an informed decision. For parents who are looking for the truth about vaccinations, I invite you to continue your journey by searching this site and other reliable resources like the National Vaccine Information Center for more information.

Why We Must Insist on Invoking the Precautionary Principle

If multiple toxic exposures and poor nutrition is to blame, then trying to tease out “the” primary culprit for autism will get us nowhere. I believe we must tackle the issue of ASD with a much wider aim, and that is to:

  1. Reduce ALL toxic exposures
  2. Improve nutrition for pregnant women and young children
  3. Improve digestive health of pregnant women and young children, and test all newborns to evaluate their digestive flora to help determine the safest time to vaccinate, for those who choose to do so

This tactic includes but is not limited to reducing the vaccine load, especially in the US where children receive the most vaccines of any country on the planet. I believe it’s imperative to invoke the precautionary principle with respects to vaccines, and, at the very least, allow people to opt out if they so choose.

While vaccine advocates tend to stress the importance of so-called “herd immunity,” saying the vaccine will not work unless the majority is vaccinated, there’s a great price to pay by forcing everyone into a one-size-fits-all mold.

Not only are some children at greater risk for vaccine damage than others, but we also eliminate the ability to evaluate the health risks of vaccinations if no one is allowed to opt out. We NEED to conduct comparison studies to evaluate the health outcomes of vaccinated versus unvaccinated children, yet such studies are not done.

An oft-cited reason for that is that it would be unethical to not vaccinate certain children… But this is not really a reasonable excuse today, as many parents want to opt out of one or more vaccines for their children.

Deciding whether or not to vaccinate your child is a VITAL decision with very high stakes. I implore you to avoid exclusively relying on the advice of public health officials and the media, which are clearly biased and influenced by vaccine industry money.  There is a revolving door between many federal regulatory, policymaking and research agencies, like the FDA, CDC and NIH. Former heads of several of these government health agencies are now executives in two of the largest pharmaceutical corporations marketing vaccines in the world.

There are major conflicts of interest between the vaccine industry and government health agencies, which virtually makes it impossible to receive objective advice from them. It is crucial to investigate the other side of the vaccine story and evaluate the risks of vaccines before you make your decision.

One good place to start is NVIC.org as they have been providing accurate and balanced vaccine information and insights to parents on this topic for the last 30 years.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/06/25/mmr-vaccine-caused-autism.aspx?e_cid=20120701_SNL_MV_
1