Lets look at some of the highlights of that article!
Dr. Andrew Wakefield is a hero of families everywhere, of we the people all of whom have somehow been touched by Autism. He is being singled out by a tyrants for speaking the truth against a vicious Medical Hegemony committed to lying & cheating in order to sustain its lucrative Industry of death.
Nothing is more important than our health. We have to protect rebels who fight for our right to safeguard that sacred trust. The only way we will expose Big Pharma is by learning & spreading the truth. When Professionals risk their livelihood to help humanity we owe it to them to defend their honor once they are crucified for sticking their necks out.
Because if we allow this to continue others will think twice before risking it all to save a few lives. What price liberty?
UPDATE: New independent research presented at the 2010 Pediatric Academic Societies Annual Meeting in Vancouver, Canada confirms unequivocally the findings of Dr Andrew Wakefield’s 1998 Lancet paper of an association between autism and serious gastrointestinal disease in children.
The new study was conducted by the Autism Speaks Autism Treatment Network and covered data from 15 treatment and research centers in the United States and Canada. Of 1185 children aged 2 to18 years with an autistic condition 45% were reported to have GI symptoms. Abdominal pain was most common (59%) followed by constipation (51%), diarrhea (43%), other (40%), nausea (31%) and bloating (26%). Reports of GI symptoms increased with age. Sleep problems occurred in 70% of children with than those without GI symptoms (30%).
The problems affected all children regardless of gender, ethnic background or intelligence. Wakefield’s Lancet Paper Vindicated – [Yet Again] http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2010/05/06/wakefield%E2%80%99s-lancet%C2%A0paper%C2%A0vindicated/
BREAKING NEWS: Conflict Of Interest Reveals The Real Reason Behind Attacks On Dr. Wakefield – The British Medical Journal ‘The Lancet’ Is In League With Glaxo-Smythe Kline (MMR Vaccine Manufacturer In UK Guilty Of Distributing Contaminated MMR Vaccine During The 1980’s):
Sir Crispin Davis was appointed Chief Executive Officer of Reed Elsevier Group (which owns The Lancet) in September 1999. He is also: Non-executive director of GlaxoSmithKline.
MMR VACCINE TIMELINE: The measles-mumps-rubella vaccination was introduced to Britain in 1988. Its original introduction was seriously marred by adverse reaction to the Urabi mumps strain in the vaccination. It was not until 1992 that the Department of Health, downplaying the serious adverse events that had occurred using this particular strain, took two of the MMR vaccines off the market while making low-key and somewhat mumbled explanations to the public.
NOTE: High Court Judge Sir Nigel Davis, who led the GMC panel targeting Wakefield, is brother to Sir Crispin Davis; a shocking conflict of interest which was covered up during Sir Davis’s tenure at GSK.
COVER-UP: Following this major problem, the Department of Health and the successive governments were determined not to admit to any other problems in relation to this vaccination. http://www.whale.to/vaccine/walker13.html
The British government continued to vaccinate with the two Urabi strain mumps MMR brands between 1988 and 1992, when they stopped using it, even though it had been rescinded by the Canadian government and found to be unsafe. However, the adverse reactions from Urabi were related to meningitis and not inflammatory bowel disease and regressive autism. http://www.ageofautism.com/2010/04/gmc-hearing-update.html
The whole weight of the case against Dr. Wakefield is built on discrediting his research. But now we know that Glaxo-Smythe Kline were in major damage control after their MMR vaccine , rejected by the Canadian Government for its bad track record yet approved for use by the British Health Authorities turned out to be tainted with Mumps. This resulted in an outbreak of Meningitis in the UK. They were determined to cover up the potential fallout from the scandal.
Ultimately the government would take the blame for its negligence in allowing a toxic vaccine to be knowingly distributed. According to their official contract GSK who be immune from prosecution in the event of adverse effects resulting from the shots.
Meanwhile Wakefield & his fellow researchers identified a major link between the Gut problems in children who had gotten the MMR shot with an upsurge in cases of Autism. This cast a huge spotlight on GSK & the British Government.
Initially the Lancet was quick to support Dr. Wakefield’s work in 1998. However that was before their Chief Executive Officer stepped down. Enter Sir Crispin Davis who was appointed Chief Executive Officer of Reed Elsevier Group (which owns The Lancet) in September 1999.
Co-incidentally he is also: Non-executive director of GlaxoSmithKline. As managing director he now had the power to simultaneously regulate Lancet policy & GSK strategy from behind the scenes.
As Autism rates continue to skyrocket the Government seems increasingly determined to shut the door on the whole Vaccine-Autism argument once and for all. They will offer instead another direction; and with it enough rabbit holes to keep the Medical Industry profits pouring in for generations to come. Leaving our children the burden of shame for our not having done enough now to reverse the tide and take back our sovereignty.
NOTE: If anyone should be on trial here it’s Sir Crispin Davis. Another Big Pharma cover-up.
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST AMONGST REGULATORY AGENCIES COMMONPLACE: 4 out of 12 senior managers at the Irish Medicines Board (IMB) have a pharma background, including a former CEO who worked for a pharma company immediately before and after his time with the IMB. In total, 26% of IMB senior employees have pharma connections.
Conflicts of interest (COIs) appear to be a significant problem within the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), where not only are 28% of recent senior MHRA personnel found to have had a relationship with pharma companies, but of the agency’s 63 expert advisors, 48 have personal interests, 32 have non-personal interests, and only 15 had no interests at all. There was a similar pattern amongst the chairs of their various Working Groups, Panels and Experts Advisory Groups.
Dr. Halvorsen has been telling the truth, fearlessly, for quite some time.
In October, 2009, the Telegraph in the UK ran the story, "I'm not opposed to jabs but there are serious worries" by Dr. Halvorsen. (Here)
He talked about the pressure put on parents not to question vaccines and the harsh tactics employed by the government. Furthermore, he said, “This climate of fear is ruthlessly exploited by the big pharmaceutical companies, which see vast profits in exaggerated health concerns.”
Halvorsen cited the sudden death of a young schoolgirl after receiving the cervical cancer vaccine as an example of a vaccine program gone wrong. While he said he’s not opposed to vaccinations, he does believe that vaccine efficacy claims are overdone and side effects are not being recognized. He referred to the plan to mass vaccinate for the swine flu as “madness.”
“As a doctor, I have been concerned for some time about this issue. I should stress that I am not in any way opposed to vaccinations.
“Indeed I run an immunisation clinic which offers a wide range of vaccines as a protection against various diseases. But I am increasingly disturbed by the lack of any debate either about long-term vaccine safety or about the excessive influence of commercial interests.
“[Far from there being solid evidence of the vaccine's safety, Dr Halvorsen found that the safety trials on MMR followed up children for only three weeks so could not possibly detect side effects that appeared later.
“Crucially, the MMR was the first ever vaccination to use three live viruses.
“Experts including Dr Halvorsen believe that in children with an impaired immune system (which may not be apparent), this could cause an abnormal immune reaction, damaging the gut and allowing harmful chemicals to penetrate the gut wall into the bloodstream.
“From there, they may attack the brain. Giving the vaccines singly, with a significant time period between (Dr Halvorsen recommends six months) is thought to reduce the risk in these susceptible children.
“So there is no evidence of harm, but neither is there evidence of safety. Both Dr Wakefield and Dr Halvorsen are among a group of doctors who, for several years, have called in vain for a large-scale prospective trial over several years, following similar groups of children, who have been immunised either with the triple vaccine or with single vaccines.
“Last year, Dr Peter Fletcher, formerly Chief Scientific Officer at the Department of Health, accused the government of 'utterly inexplicable complacency' over MMR. (HERE) “As an expert witness for parents who believe their children were vaccine-damaged, Dr Fletcher studied thousands of documents.
Former science chief: 'MMR fears coming true' [Read the highlights of that article on this page, below the baby jabs info.] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-376203/Former-science-chief-MMR-fears-coming-true.html
“He has seen 'a steady accumulation of evidence' from scientists worldwide that the triple jab is causing brain damage in certain children.
“Questioning the government's stance has become 'heretical', according to Dr Halvorsen.”
All of this makes it clear that Richard Halvorsen shares many of the same concerns that Dr. Wakefield has when it comes to vaccine safety, specifically the safety of the MMR.
[It] is admittedly rather controversial and was chosen by my publisher. Nevertheless, it accurately describes how vaccines are, with increasing frequency, being introduced on a mass scale with insufficient testing to ensure their safety. The introduction of the meningitis C vaccine into the UK in 1999 comes particularly to mind. This vaccine was introduced in a great rush with appallingly little safety testing and no proof whatsoever that it actually worked.
The lack of research meant that a booster dose soon had to be added when it became clear that the effectiveness of three doses given in infancy wore off within a year. The MMR was also introduced with totally insufficient safety testing as described in Andrew Wakefield's and Scott Montgomery's paper Through a Glass Darkly.”
When I interviewed him last summer, he described the reaction of the British medical establishment and the Dept of Health to his book as “antagonistic.” He did say, “I regularly come across doctors and other health professionals who share my concerns and are supportive of my stance. Indeed, I regularly see doctors and other health professionals with their babies in my children's immunisation clinic, BabyJabs.” (http://www.babyjabs.com/)
1 Jefferson T, Price D, et al. Unintended events following immunization with the MMR: a systematic review. Vaccine 2003; 21: 3954-3960.
2 Wakefield AJ, Montgomery SM. Measles, mumps, rubella vaccine: through a glass darkly. Adverse Drug Reactions and Toxicological Reviews 2000; 19: 265-83.
3 Hilleman MR et al. Live attenuated mumps-virus vaccine. 4. Protective Efficacy as Measured in a Field Evaluation. New England Journal of Medicine 1967; 252-7.
4 Lewis JE et al. Epidemic of mumps in a partially immune population. Canadian Medical Association Journal 1979; 121: 751-4.
5 Wakefield AJ et al. Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. The Lancet 1998; 351:637-41.
6 Pearce A, Law C, Elliman D, Cole TJ, Bedford H, the Millennium Cohort Study Child Health Group. Factors associated with uptake of measles, mumps and rubella vaccine (MMR) and use of single antigen vaccines in a contemporary UK cohort: prospective cohort study. BMJ 2008; 336: 754-757.
7 Madsen KM et al. A population-based study of measles, mumps and rubella vaccination and autism. The New England Journal of Medicine 2002; 347: 1477-1482.
8 Kaye JA et al. Mumps, measles, and rubella vaccine and the incidence of autism recorded by general practitioners: a time trend analysis. British Medical Journal 2001; 322: 460-463.
9 Davis RL et al. Measles-Mumps-Rubella and Other Measles-Containing Vaccines do not increase the risk for Inflammatory Bowel Disease. A Case-control Study from the Vaccine Safety Datalink Project. Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine 2001; 155: 354-359.
10 Smeeth L. Cook C. Fombonne E. Heavey L. Rodrigues LC. Smith PG. Hall AJ. MMR vaccination and pervasive developmental disorders: a case-control study. Lancet 2004; 364(9438): 963-9.
11 Uhlmann V, Martin CM et al. Potential viral pathogenic mechanism for a new variant inflammatory bowel disease. Molecular Pathology 2002; 55: 84-90.
12 Bradstreet JJ et al. Detection of Measles Virus Genome RNA in Cerebrospinal Fluid of Children with Regressive Autism: a Report of Three Cases. Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons 2004; 9: 38-45.
13 LeBaron CW, Bi D, Sullivan BJ, Beck C, Gargiullo P. Evaluation of Potentially Common Adverse Events Associated With the First and Second Doses of Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccine. Pediatrics 2006; 118 (4): 1422-1430.
14 Vestergaard M et al. MMR Vaccination and Febrile Seizures. Evaluation of Susceptible Subgroups and Long-term Prognosis. Journal of the American Medical Association 2004; 292: 351-357.
15 Jonville-Bera AP et al. Thrombocytopenic purpura after measles, mumps and rubella vaccination: a retrospective survey by the French regional pharmacovigilance centres and pasteur-merieux serums et vaccines. Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal 1996; 15: 44-8.
16 Allerdist H. Neurological complications following measles vaccination. Developments in Biological Standardization 1979; 43: 259-64.
17 Miller C et al. Surveillance of symptoms following MMR vaccine in children. Practitioner 1989; 233: 69-74.
A few exerpted highlights from the above article .
A former Government medical officer responsible for deciding whether medicines are safe has accused the Government of "utterly inexplicable complacency" over the MMR triple vaccine for children.
Dr Peter Fletcher, who was Chief Scientific Officer at the Department of Health, said if it is proven that the jab causes autism, "the refusal by governments to evaluate the risks properly will make this one of the greatest scandals in medical history".
He added that after agreeing to be an expert witness on drug-safety trials for parents' lawyers, he had received and studied thousands of documents relating to the case which he believed the public had a right to see.
He said he has seen a "steady accumulation of evidence" from scientists worldwide that the measles, mumps and rubella jab is causing brain damage in certain children.
But he added: "There are very powerful people in positions of great authority in Britain and elsewhere who have staked their reputations and careers on the safety of MMR and they are willing to do almost anything to protect themselves."
His warning follows reports that the Government is this week planning to announce the addition of a jab against pneumococcal meningitis for babies, probably from next April. It is also considering flu jabs for under-twos - not to protect the children, but adults they may infect.
In the late Seventies, Dr Fletcher served as Chief Scientific Officer at the DoH and Medical Assessor to the Committee on Safety of Medicines, meaning he was responsible for deciding if new vaccines were safe.
He first expressed concerns about MMR in 2001, saying safety trials before the vaccine's introduction in Britain were inadequate.
Now he says the theoretical fears he raised appear to be becoming reality.
He said the rising tide of autism cases and growing scientific understanding of autism-related bowel disease have convinced him the MMR vaccine may be to blame.
"Clinical and scientific data is steadily accumulating that the live measles virus in MMR can cause brain, gut and immune system damage in a subset of vulnerable children," he said. "There's no one conclusive piece of scientific evidence, no 'smoking gun', because there very rarely is when adverse drug reactions are first suspected. When vaccine damage in very young children is involved, it is harder to prove the links.
"But it is the steady accumulation of evidence, from a number of respected universities, teaching hospitals and laboratories around the world, that matters here. There's far too much to ignore. Yet government health authorities are, it seems, more than happy to do so."
'Why isn't the Government taking this massive public health problem more seriously?' Dr Fletcher said he found "this official complacency utterly inexplicable" in the light of an explosive worldwide increase in regressive autism and inflammatory bowel disease in children, which was first linked to the live measles virus in the MMR jab by clinical researcher Dr Andrew Wakefield in 1998.
"When scientists first raised fears of a possible link between mad cow disease and an apparently new, variant form of CJD they had detected in just 20 or 30 patients, everybody panicked and millions of cows were slaughtered," said Dr Fletcher.
"Yet there has been a tenfold increase in autism and related forms of brain damage over the past 15 years, roughly coinciding with MMR's introduction, and an extremely worrying increase in childhood inflammatory bowel diseases and immune disorders such as diabetes, and no one in authority will even admit it's happening, let alone try to investigate the causes."
He said there was "no way" the tenfold leap in autistic children could be the result of better recognition and definitional changes, as claimed by health authorities.
"It is highly likely that at least part of this increase is a vaccinerelated problem." he said. "But whatever it is, why isn't the Government taking this massive public health problem more seriously?"
His outspokenness will infuriate health authorities, who have spent millions of pounds shoring up confidence in MMR since Dr Wakefield's 1998 statement.
But Dr Fletcher said the Government is undermining public confidence in vaccine safety by refusing to do in-depth clinical research to rule out fears of MMR damage to children.
He added that the risks of brain and gut damage from MMR injections seem to be much higher in children where a brother or sister has diabetes, an immune disorder.
"That is a very strong clinical signal that some children are immunologically at risk from MMR," he said. "Why is the Government not investigating it further - diverting some of the millions of pounds spent on advertising and PR campaigns to promote MMR uptake into detailed clinical research instead?"
Now retired after a distinguished 40-year career in science and medicine in Britain, Europe and the US, Dr. Fletcher said that without such research, health authorities could not possibly rule out fears about MMR.
The other example is almost identical. It took place at a Corpus Christi Texas high school where 14 students came down with measles after 99% of the student population had gotten the MMR shot. And that's from the New England Journal of Medicine. http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM198703263161303
Now here's the part that glib journalists with their AA degrees always leave out. Before 1978, measles was a minor self-limiting immune-building disease of childhood. You wanted your child to get it. Because then they would have lifetime immunity. Then in 1978, the MMR shot suddenly became part of the vaccine package for all kids. 3 doses. Even though the incidence was down by 90% by then.
After a decade or so, many incidents like the 2 cited above began occurring all over the country - groups of kids who obviously got measles from the shot itself. They got the exact disease the shot was pretending to prevent. Such examples continue to the present.
So what does this mean?
First it means the vaccine doesn't really work. It doesn't provide the supposed immunity from measles that they're advertising.
Second, we have the principle of the atypical disease. That's the term scientists use to describe a disease caused by vaccines. Remember, in all vaccines they never use the actual bug that is associated with the wild disease itself. Instead they use a laboratory mutation of the natural microbe which they make much more reactive, provoking a much stronger immune response. And that's what's in the vaccine. So through mass vaccination with mutated pathogens, we are creating brand new diseases that would have never evolved in nature. Atypical versions of the original disease.
So that's what we're seeing in these outbreaks. Manmade disease. The problem is, the atypical versions are much more dangerous than the original mild version, with far higher rates of death and complication. Everyone knows that adult onset measles is a potentially much more serious disease than the original childhood version.
Worse yet is that the adults who got the original mild childhood version of measles may not now be immune to the brand new Frankenstein version that has been created by our injudicious policy of mass vaccinating for a disease that had been part of building a child's normal immune system for decades. Get the picture?
All for marketing -- a billion$ a year for MMR shots.
With today's statistics, it's getting to where your child has a better chance of getting measles from the vaccine than going unvaccinated.
The last idea is this. The unvaccinated have signed exemption forms. That's the agreement that if a disease breaks out in school among the vaccinated population, you agree to keep your unvaccinated child at home. Why? So you won't sue them for your unvaccinated kid getting a disease from their vaccinated kids. See how confident they are in their vaccines? Exemptions are all about liability.
Now actually this works out good for the exempt unvaccinated kids. You want to keep kids out of school when these outbreaks occur. Because when the vaccinated kids get this atypical version of measles, it's a much more serious disease than the old fashioned version. You don't want your unvaccinated child to be around these diseased kids, who are true reservoirs for disease.
A little different from the way you usually hear that story, huh? Tired of only knowing half the story? See the new book Vaccination Is Not Immunization, also an e-book.
Here's a subject we cover in the Immunization Detox Seminar. Most of us have heard the recent tar and feather action on Andrew Wakefield. There was the flagrant attack this month by an irresponsible slander piece in the British Medical Journal. That rag is really deteriorating by the way, from its former status of legit medical journal to little more than a trade journal / tabloid - a mouthpiece for whatever the pharmaceutical industry wants to say.
Anyway the article that appeared on Wakefield was written by someone with no credentials, scientific or journalistic, and employed the cheapest of unsubstantiated innuendo in order to sell its thin story. Same old thing we've heard for the last 10 years - Andrew Wakefield's original work asking that a possible correlation between autism and MMR vaccines needs further study has now supposedly been discovered to be fraudulent because after 14 years this genius 'reporter' has just found out that Wakefield, a world class research expert 'faked' his original findings. No new studies, no new science, just new "evidence." Yeah, that sounds likely.
The scapegoating continued with an interview on Good Morning America last week in which some rude clown named George Stephanopolous, another loudmouth with no credentials, but also no education and no manners, conducted a nonstop attack insulting Wakefield, then interrupting him when Wakefield tried to answer. Seeing media complicity in a smear campaign, you can see how Wakefield's face was out of focus and distorted, his microphone was turned way down, and also the words coming out of his mouth were deliberately out of sync, so he looked ridiculous.
Anyway, we now learn exactly why practically everything the BMJ said was unreliable, and why they're so afraid to give this guy any public forum whatsoever. It's simple. Mainstream medicine is frightened to death to repeat Wakefield's original work linking MMR vaccine with autism, because they know what they'd find. An unmistakable causal connection, which would mean multibillion dollar settlements for thousands of vaccine damaged children in the past 15 years. Just like what happened to big tobacco in the mid 1990s. So they won't spend a dime finding out scientifically if Wakefield was right or wrong. Easier to spend millions endlessly demonizing him in media. Because that's what vaccine sales are always predicated upon: the perception of safety and necessity, rather than anything proven by real science.
In response to all this concerted vitriol against him, Wakefield has come out with this very calm and unshaken response:
STATEMENT BY DR. ANDREW WAKEFIELD 20 Jan 2011
Uncovered Documents Prove There Was No Fraud in Lancet Case Series
British Medical Journal and Sunday Times author Brian Deer misrepresent facts in latest articles wrongly accusing Dr. Wakefield of altering clinical histories of autistic children
In a series of articles published in the UK Sunday Times and the British Medical Journal (BMJ), written by freelance journalist Brian Deer and BMJ editor Dr. Fiona Godlee (1), I am accused of altering the clinical histories and test results in autistic children in order to manufacture a novel disease – a disease described in The Lancet in 1998 that Brian Deer claims does not exist. I have documents that confirm beyond a shadow of a doubt that I did not falsify this data; that the finding of bowel disease in these children is real; and that these findings were accurately reported in The Lancet in 1998.
The first document (2) describes 7 of The Lancet children and was written by Professor John Walker-Smith in December 1996, 14 months before The Lancet paper was published. Professor Walker-Smith prepared this document in an exercise that, in his words, “was totally unrelated to Andy Wakefield” (3).
This independent analysis was conducted to a high level of scientific rigor, and are the precise findings reported in The Lancet.
These documents were available to Deer and the editors of the BMJ well in advance of their recent publication. (4) They knew... that their allegations against me were false. It is clear that the BMJ acted recklessly by failing to check these facts adequately before making their false allegations.
On the basis of this evidence, the British Medical Journal must retract these articles, or face the consequences.
You're invited to email BMJ editor Fiona Godlee's office asking the following questions. Word docx file version HERE. A respectful tone will encourage answers and be in the best interest of all of us. Thank you.
Dr. Godlee, I submit the following questions and would appreciate your response. Thank you.
1. Do the BMJ editors stand by their 6 Jan 2011 editorial "Wakefield’s article linking MMR vaccine and autism was fraudulent" alleging Andrew Wakefield alone and unassisted committed research fraud?
This relates to a 1998 Lancet medical journal "early report" calling for more research into a finding of a new bowel syndrome in children exhibiting autistic symptoms?
2. The editors claim "Wakefield altered numerous facts about the patients’ medical histories in order to support his claim to have identified a new syndrome" and base this substantially on a comparison between early general family doctor records and what was reported in The Lancet early report.
Do the BMJ editors dispute that:
*it was impossible for that to be done by anyone as they have alleged
*it could not have been done by Dr Wakefield
*none of the other 12 expert specialist medical professionals at The Royal Free Hospital London worked from or even saw those "patients’ medical histories"
*those experts carried out their own investigations afresh Dr Wakefield faithfully reported the data and results provided by his other 12 expert professional colleagues
3. If these matters are disputed, can the BMJ produce the data and results provided to Dr Wakefield by his 12 colleagues and demonstrate where The Lancet early report diverges?
4. If the editors cannot produce evidence, do they now retract their editorial and the paper by Mr Brian Deer upon which it is based and which they also published?
5. Can the editors confirm that neither they nor Mr Deer had sight of or access to the "prospective developmental records" of the 12 Lancet children [the "Red Books"].
These were used as part of the basis for detailed clinical histories investigating afresh early signs of disintegrative disorder.
6. Do the editors agree that family doctors would not have considered "disintegrative disorder" nor looked for early signs.
7. If the editors still stand by their story how do they account for the fact that those 12 specialist expert medical professionals read and reviewed the Lancet paper before submission for publication, approved Wakefield's report of their work and put their names to the paper?
8. Do the editors accept that by accusing Dr Wakefield of fraud they are accusing all the other 12 experts?
9. Do the editors also accuse the authors of the following papers of fraud for claiming to have found the same or a closely similar condition in autistic patients:-
Balzola F, Barbon V, Repici A, Rizzetto M. Panenteric IBD-like disease in a patient with regressive autism shown for the first time by the wireless capsule enteroscopy: another piece in the jigsaw of this gut-brain syndrome? Am J Gastro. 2005; 979-981. (Italian replication)
Balzola F, et al. Autistic enterocolitis: confirmation of a new inflammatory bowel disease in an Italian cohort of patients. Gastroenterology.2005;128:Suppl.2;A-303. . (Italian replication)
Balzola F, et al. Beneficial behavioural effects of IBD therapy and gluten/casein-free diet in an Italian cohort of patients with autistic enterocolitis followed over one year. Gastroenterology, 2006:30; suppl. 2 S1364 A-21. . (Italian replication)
Chen B, Girgis S, El-Matary W. Childhood autism and eosinophilic colitis. Digestion. 2010;81:127-9. (Canadian replication)
Galiatsatos P, et al. Autistic enterocolitis: fact or fiction? Can J Gastroenterol 2009;23:95-98. (Canadian replication)
Gonzalez L, Lopez K, Navarro D, Negron L, Flores L, Rodriguez R, Martinez M, Sabra A. Endoscopic and Histological Characteristics of the digestive mucosa in autistic children with gastrointestinal symptoms. Arch Venez Pueric Pediatr 69;1:19-25 (Venezuelan replication)
Horvath K et al. Gastrointestinal abnormalities in children with autistic disorder. J Pediatr. 1999;135:559-63. (US replication)
Krigsman A, Boris M, Goldblatt A et al. Clinical Presentation and Histologic Findings at Ileocolonoscopy in Children with Autistic Spectrum Disorder and Chronic Gastrointestinal Symptoms. Autism Insights 2010;2:1-11 (US replication)
February 4, 2011 8:44 PM
Vaccines: Get the Full Story
Doctors, Nurses and Scientists on Protecting Your Child and Yourself.
A VaccinationCouncil.org Special Report, released by NaturalNews.
1 in 4,875 diagnosed with autism. [Note: of the four in 19,500 children who have autism, one had been exposed to high levels of mercury from a power plant. The other three, including one child adopted from outside the Amish community, had received their vaccines.] (reference) http://www.whale.to/vaccine/quotes1.html
0 in 35,000 diagnosed with autism. [Note: It's not just lack of autism that stand out in this sample of 35,000 children (90% have had zero vaccines). Asthma rates are so low, insurance giant Blue Cross Blue Shield's systems flagged the "issue". BCBS actually contacted Homefirst inquiring on how this could be! Their patients are so healthy, a lawmaker proposed a law requiring that a study be done to determine why these unvaccinated patients are so much healthier than their vaccinated counterparts.] (references)
America Skips Out on Flu Vaccinations. William Campbell Douglass, Jr., MD
Excerpt: Researchers from The Cochrane Collaboration examined 50 studies — including 40 clinical trials — on flu vaccinations, and found only the most minimal of benefits: slightly fewer symptoms, and slightly fewer work days missed among those who get the shot. But they found zippo in just about every other measure — including no reduction in the rate of complications such as hospitalizations and pneumonia, and no evidence that flu shots slow the spread of the disease.