The curious case of the Amish has been batted around online lately.
Doctors caring for Amish communities report only a tiny incidence of autism, according to Dan Olmsted, an investigative reporter writing for “The Age of Autism.” (No one is willing to actually fund a study of this phenomenon, so there aren’t any hard numbers.)
So the question for me becomes: why the lower incidence? Is it the raw milk? The homegrown food? Or less-than-normal rates of compliance with the aggressive U.S. vaccine schedule? Or all of the above?
I think the vaccine question requires more examination, especially since another study reports less autism in a population that is under-vaccinated (and thus has less exposure to aluminum, a toxin).
A government of, by, and for the people should not be blocking these questions, but funding investigation of them. Do we have a government of, by, and for the special interests, namely those who stand to lose huge profits if the more-and-more-required-vaccines steamroller is derailed?
A year ago I reported on a Canadian study from the University of British Columbia that found strong correlation between autism rates and vaccination with vaccines containing aluminum, which is most childhood vaccines. I predicted that vaccine advocates would ignore it.
That certainly seems to have been the case, as articles continue to be written smearing vaccine questioners. But I was glad to see a recent Internet article by Chris D. Meletis, N.D., a naturopathic doctor, continuing to question aluminum in vaccines. In The Whole Health Insider this month, she (he?) continued the argument about toxins like aluminum contributing to or causing autism, and added another twist: they seem to cause Alzheimer’s, too.
So, how do adults get aluminum exposure?
Daily, we’re exposed to aluminum from additives in commercially prepared foods, drinking water, sunscreens and deodorants. Like those for children, vaccines for adults can also expose us to aluminum. The amount of aluminum in vaccines can vary depending on the storage container. Storing vaccines in glass containers can up the aluminum content by 200 times compared to storing vaccines in plastic containers. (Aluminum leeches from the glass into the solution during autoclaving or storage.)
Small amounts of aluminum are absorbed into the circulation, crossing into the blood-brain barrier and accumulating in neurons of the brain regions vulnerable to Alzheimer’s damage. In this way, with advancing age, aluminum builds up in the brain and in the neurons.
There’s a lot of discussion among researchers these days about why so many people with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) have mitochondrial issues.
What are mitochondria? They are energy-producing organs inside each cell of our body. They take inputs from the blood stream and from previous mitochondrial processes and create outputs that keep the body going in a number of ways. Most importantly, the Yasko protocol that has so helped my Asperger’s son addresses malfunctions in these mitochondrial processes using a variety of supplements.
Anyway, Dr. Amy Yasko, the researcher whose protocol many autistics have benefited from, has authored a paper with an MD, Nancy Mullan, looking at why these mitochondrial processes are disrupted in so many people with ASD, those with genetic markers for this, and those without.
In brief, what could be causing the autism epidemic? Take a look.
In this 2008 video, the head of the CDC admits that people with genetic mitochondrial dysfunction can become autistic after vaccination. But she then dances around the subject, and we wonder whether we heard her right.
Dan Olmsted is an investigative reporter who has put a lot of time into investigating theories about the causes of autism. He writes and edits a blog, Age of Autism, which is respected in the autism community.
Of course he is vilified by vaccine proponents, who are echoing what Big Pharma is saying about vaccines: more is better! More is better! Better for whom? Not for most people, when testing has been so limited and so skewed. Carefully compare what both sides are saying in this, focusing on those who are weighing the facts.
Take a look at Olmsted’s recent post where he is summarizing what he sees as the causes of the epidemic: vaccines and environmental toxin exposure, particularly to mercury. Did you know that the first eleven children ever diagnosed with autism (in the 1940s) had been exposed to mercury, or their parents had?
We’re all getting very weary of distortions of the truth in the media these days, with the election and all. Maybe we’re all getting a little more skeptical of what we’re told.
And so it’s not too surprising to me to find out that a whooping cough-tetanus-diphtheria vaccine used for 10 years until 2011 had a little clause in its product insert informing those who bothered to read it that the vaccine might cause autism. This FDA-approved vaccine listed not only autism but SIDS as a possible side effect of using the vaccine. This product insert is apparently no longer available on the Internet, except from the guy who photographed it in 2005 and put it up at the link below.
The Tripedia vaccine was approved in 2001 as a thimerosal-free version of the TDaP vaccine. In 2005, after four years of use, its product insert was found on several official websites, containing the language about causing autism. The vaccine is still approved, but was discontinued by the manufacturer in 2011.
“How many times have you heard a doctor or health worker hysterically say there is ZERO chance that vaccines cause autism?” asks Jeffrey John AufderHeide, author of this blog post about the ephemeral information in the product insert for Tripedia:
We all know there’s something of a whooping cough outbreak these days. In fact, there are 25,000 cases a year in the U.S., roughly, and have been for a decade–26,000 so far in 2012. The autism-vaccine debate has spawned plenty of accusations against vaccine refusers: they must be the cause of this.
But in fact, most of those who came down with the potentially deadly disease were vaccinated. And this info comes from the Centers for Disease Control, normally a vaccine proponent.
A new study published in yesterday’s New England Journal of Medicine identifies the culprit: the whooping cough vaccine introduced in the 1990s, a weaker version of the previous vaccine which had caused problems. This new study says that this safer vaccine loses effectiveness much faster than previously thought. The protective effect weakens soon after the children get the last of their five shots at around age 6.
What to do? Health officials are considering adding more booster shots to the schedule for older children. Whooping cough is most dangerous to children. They’d also like to see another vaccine, but none is close to ready for use.
How do you best protect your infant from whooping cough outbreaks? Obviously it’s the vaccine, right? Maybe not.
A study, performed at Kaiser Permanente (a health insurer) in California, examined children who contracted whooping cough during an outbreak in 2010 and found that most had in fact been fully vaccinated. According to Reuters News Service April 3, “Of the 132 patients under age 18, 81 percent were up to date on recommended whooping cough shots and eight percent had never been vaccinated. The other 11 percent had received at least one shot, but not the complete series.”
Meanwhile, Big Pharma advocates have been bashing parents who delay vaccination, claiming they are causing whooping cough epidemics. This is now patently false.
Dr. Joseph Mercola, who operates a huge website advocating natural health based on research outcomes, has a very interesting discussion of the Kaiser Permanente findings. He also quotes a key doctor who claims the efficacy of the new whooping cough vaccine was manipulated when a World Health Organization vaccine-oversight committee, which the doctor was a member of, redefined a case of whooping cough. This tougher definition involved 1) having at least 21 days of paroxysmal coughing and 2) laboratory confirmation. Since milder cases were excluded from the results of the efficacy study, the vaccine looked a lot more effective than it actually was, charged James D. Cherry, MD, who published his article recently in the respected journal Pediatrics.