AAP Urges Early Autism Diagnosis, Then Drugs Often Used

AAP Urges Early Autism Diagnosis, Then Drugs Often Used

by Barbara Loe Fisher

America's pediatricians, who cannot explain to American parents why so many of their young, highly vaccinated children are developing autism and other developmental disabilities, announced this week at a conference in San Francisco that it is time for doctors to get serious about diagnosing autism early and often.
This push for "early diagnosis" before age two is coupled with a push for "early intervention." Currently that intervention involves doctors prescribing psychiatric drugs for 80 percent of the children diagnosed with autism or Asperger disorder according to a report released at the same conference.

Although few parents would argue that it is important to recognize when a child is regressing physically, mentally and emotionally into autism, many parents are more interested in addressing the biological root causes for the kinds of brain and immune system dysfunction that their autistic children are exhibiting, rather than giving their children psychotropic drugs that only suppress the symptoms. Many parents, like Cindy Goldenberg in the early 1990's and Jenny McCarthy a decade later, have found that eliminating gluten and casein from their child's diet and employing other alternative therapies to repair healthy immune function, can effectively address vaccine-related biological causes for autism and greatly improve their children's health.

However, currently mainstream American pediatricians are overwhelmingly attempting to deal with the autism explosion by drugging children. Tobias Gerhard, PhD, assistant professor at the Rutgers University Institute for Health, Health Care Policy, and Aging Research acknowledged that the prevalence of Autism Spectrum Disorders increased 10-fold in the last decade and presented an analysis of medical care surveys reflecting two million health visits involving autism or Asperger disorder. He found that children were overwhelmingly male and white and that disruptive behavioral disorders were involved with 3 of every 10 cases.

The surveys revealed that about 80% of children diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder are treated with at least one psychiatic drug; 30% are given antipsychotic drugs, 40% antidepressants, 40% stimulants and about 30% some other drug, including mood stabilizers and anticonvulsants. Some children are prescribed several medications. "As with many psychiatric conditions in children, we really know very little [about] how these drugs actually work and how they should be used in practice," Dr. Gerhard said.

In Canada, where there is a nationalized health care system and long waiting lines for a doctor's appointment, there is a warning by Canadian pediatricians that early screening and treatment for autism is easier said than done. The former president of the Canadian Pediatric Society, Emmet Francoeur, points out that increased screening would involve an increase in the number of evaluation teams and treatment services, all of which is time consuming and expensive. He says "Unfortunately, unlike a broken bone or pneumonia, where you can take an x-ray and come up with a diagnosis, it takes multiple observers looking at multiple aspects of a child's development to diagnose autism."

As hard as it is for pediatricians to figure out how they are going to identify and treat lots of highly vaccinated autistic children, it is much harder for parents searching for answers for why their once healthy children developed autism and how to help them heal. The diagnostic screening tests, the visits to different doctors specializing in different parts of the body and the drug and behavioral therapies that may or may not work, can bankrupt the average middle class family.

One day, the educational and health care costs associated with the biggest epidemic our nation has ever experienced - the chronic disease and disability epidemic - may bankrupt our nation. It is a chronic illness epidemic that makes the polio epidemic of the 1950's look small by comparison. We are all paying a very high price for the failure of pediatricians, drug companies and government health officials to act responsibly in the 1980's when parents of DPT vaccine injured children pleaded with them to conduct methodologically sound scientific studies to investigate the biological mechanisms and genetic factors involved in vaccine-induced regression and neuroimmune dysfunction.

"Today Show" Talks Exemptions & Autism Cases

"Today Show" Talks Law & Autism Cases Skyrocket

by Barbara Loe Fisher

On Friday, Oct. 19, 2007 NBC's "Today Show" featured a 6 minute segment about the rising numbers of parents who are taking exemptions to vaccination for their children. In the live debate, which was moderated by "Today Show" co-host, Meredith Vieira, I faced off with California pediatrician Tanya Remer Altmann, M.D.

In my opening statement, I said:

"I have been a vaccine safety activist for 25 years and I have never seen the public debate about the right of parents to make informed, voluntary vaccination decisions be more intense than it is today. And I think that is because the states are requiring twice as many vaccines as were required in the 1980's and 90's when my children - my three children - were getting vaccinated. And, we are seeing with this increased vaccination 1 in 6 child now learning disabled, 1 in 9 asthmatic, 1 in 150 becoming autistic. We are seeing a child public health crisis that is unlike any crisis we have ever seen, including the epidemics of infectious disease we have experienced in the past."

To view the "Today Show" segment go to

Today, California autism activist Rick Rollens has released another new report on the skyrocking autism cases among young children living in California, all of whom got twice as many vaccines as my children got when they were young. Rick's son developed autism after suffering vaccine reactions and Rick went on to co- found the M.I.N.D. Institute - UC Davis after first warning America about the autism epidemic in 1997. His work with the California legislature to address the autism epidemic has included issuing periodic reports since 1997 about the never-ending increases in the numbers of children developing autism in California.

Rick reports that a record 1,060 new intakes of professionally diagnosed full syndrome DSM IV autism were added to California's developmental services system from July 3, 2007 to October 3, 2007. Children eligible for DDS services are between 3 and 21 years old. Three year old children entering the system today would have been born in 2004.

"According to the most recent report released this past week by California's Department of Developmental Services (DDS) (www.dds.ca.gov), California's developmental services system added a record 1,060 new intakes of professionally diagnosed full syndrome DSM IV autism during the 87 day period from July 3, 2007 to October 3, 2007....a rate of 12 new children a day, seven days a week..... or one new child every two hours.

Never in the 40 year history of California's developmental services system have 1000 or more new children been added in any one three month period to it's system. During the past 9 months alone California has added over 2900 new children with full syndrome autism (as always, the numbers of new intakes ONLY includes professionally diagnosed cases of full syndrome DSM IV autism and DOES NOT include any other autism spectrum disorders like PDD, NOS, or Asperger's Syndrome). Keep in mind that it took 16 years (from 1971 to 1987) for California's DD system to see a total population of 2700 persons with autism...during the past 9 MONTHS alone California has added 2900 new cases.

Autism is not only the fastest growing condition in California's DD system, now accounting for over 60% of all the new intakes (the remaining less then 40% being the COMBINED numbers of new intakes with mental retardation, cerebral palsy, epilepsy, and conditions that have as part of the condition mental retardation such as genetic diseases Fragile X and Down's), but; now there are more persons in California's DD system with a primary diagnosis of autism than with cerebral palsy.

Unlike any other of the conditions served by California's DD system where you see between 55- 60% of those populations over the age of 22 years old, with autism only 16% of the population is over the age of 22 years old, 84% between 3 and 21, and eight out of ten between 3 and 18 years old."

Attacks on Vaccine Exemptions Increase

Attacks on Vaccine Exemptions Increase

by Barbara Loe Fisher

As more and more Americans witness healthy children regressing after being repeatedly injected with dozens of doses of vaccines and becoming learning disabled, hyperactive, asthmatic, autistic and diabetic, more parents want to be able to make better informed, voluntary choices about vaccination. There is nothing like the first-hand experience of watching your child or grandchild regress within days or weeks of being injected with 5 to 10 vaccines and become a totally different child physically, mentally and emotionally, to persuade you to investigate legal avenues for avoiding more vaccines that could cause more harm. So it is not surprising that the Associated Press found that a greater number of parents today are seeking religious exemption to vaccination in the 28 states that do not allow a personal, philosophical or conscientious belief exemption to vaccination.

The vaccine safety and informed consent movement that was launched by parents of DPT vaccine injured children in 1982 has gained momentum with each new vaccine added to the mandatory list for school entry since that time. Primarily a grassroots movement powered by the educated middle class, where most successful social revolutions in technologically advanced countries begin, citizen activists are pointing out serious gaps in the quality and quantity of the scientific evidence supporting the cradle to the grave approach to vaccination adopted by government officials over the past quarter century. They are advocating that doctors be required to adhere to the informed consent ethic when administering vaccines.

It is this intellectual challenge to the validity of the science and ethics of forced vaccination policies that makes the doctors who operate and profit from mandatory vaccination policies so angry. They are not used to well informed, articulate health care consumers challenging their wisdom and demanding equality in making health care decisions for children. Angry that their authoritarian, paternalistic stance is not playing well in middle America anymore, some doctors are turning their anger into a desire for revenge.

While educated Americans challenge the scientific and moral basis for legally requiring citizens to use multiple vaccines throughout life, forced vaccination proponents like rotavirus vaccine patent holder and Merck consultant, Paul Offit, M.D., are leading an unprecedented assault on the philosophical and religious belief exemption to vaccination. Dismissing parental concern about vaccine risks as an "irrational, fear based decision," he and his colleagues want to socially ostracize and legally punish those who approach maintaining health and wellness in a different way and decline to purchase and use every vaccine industry produces and government recommends.

On September 15, Dr. Offit sponsored a "Vaccine Education Symposium" at the Children's Hospital of Pennsylvania which featured speakers such as Dan Salmon, Ph.D., who has alleged that exemptions to vaccination are not protected by the U.S. Constitution and should be eliminated or severely curtailed
(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=12037257&dopt=AbstractPlus), as well as lawyers, vaccine manufacturers and CDC officials. At the symposium, discussions involved (1) requiring vaccination of all nurses and other health care workers as a condition of employment; (2) passing laws to facilitate prosecution of parents of unvaccinated children for economic damages when vaccinated children contract vaccine preventable diseases; (3) routine posting and publishing of lists of unvaccinated individuals in public places in communities; and (4) prosecuting parents who homeschool their children for child neglect if they do not vaccinate them.

The military approach to dissent is a risky one as it threatens to fatally compromise what is left of the sacred trust that exists between pediatricians and parents. But this approach has become much more common since September 11, 2001, when doctors and public health officials viewed that tragic event as an opportunity to aggressively promote vaccination and disease control as a matter of national security.

State mandatory vaccination laws have their roots in the 1905 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Jacobsen v Massachusetts. A Swedish Lutheran pastor, Reverend Henning Jacobsen and his son objected to a law requiring revaccination with smallpox vaccine because they had suffered severe reactions to the first vaccination. The nine Supreme Court justices at the turn of the century denied Jacobsen and his lawyers the right to present scientific evidence for harm caused by the smallpox vaccine, preferring to believe the lawyers representing public health officials who convinced them that doctors could predict ahead of time who would be injured by vaccination.

In the majority opinion, the Justices demonstrated a remarkable blind faith, bordering on religious conviction, in the infallibility of medical doctors and the safety of smallpox vaccination. The Court stated that "The matured opinions of medical men everywhere and the experience of mankind as all must know, negative the suggestion that it is not possible in any case to determine whether vaccination is safe."

Only briefly did the Justices address the issue of individual susceptibility to the potentially harmful effects of vaccination when they stated that mandatory vaccination must not be forced on a person whose physical condition would make vaccination "cruel and inhuman to the last degree. We are not to be understood as holding that the statute was intended to be applied in such a case or, if it was so intended, that the judiciary would not be competent to interfere and protect the health and life of the individual concerned. All laws should receive sensible construction."

Of course, in the succeeding 100 years since that Supreme Court decision affirming the power of the state to "keep in view the welfare, comfort and safety of the many and not permit the interests of the many to be subordinated to the wishes or convenience of the few," it has become clear that doctors cannot determine ahead of time who will be harmed by vaccination and that many more than a "few" have been injured or died from the effects of mass use of multiple vaccines in childhood as evidenced by the nearly two billion dollars paid to vaccine victims by the government since 1988.
An interesting historical fact about the fallout of the ethically flawed Jacobsen v Massachusetts decision is its citing by US Supreme Court justice Oliver Wendall Holmes in 1927 to justify the eugenics- movement inspired forced sterilization of a mentally retarded girl. Holmes agreed that the state could compel the young girl to be sterilized because "the principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the fallopian tubes."

Since 1905, the majority of states have provided for medical, religious and/or philosophical, personal belief or conscientious belief exemption to vaccination. Today, all but two states allow religious exemption to vaccination.
Since 1905, the numbers of vaccines recommended by doctors and required by state law has increased from one vaccine - smallpox - to nearly three dozen doses of 10 to 12 vaccines.

In the past, some states have required that an individual belong to a church or religion that adheres to a tenet opposing vaccination. However, when that restrictive language has been challenged at the state Supreme Court level, it has been struck down as unconstitutional (Sherr v. Northport-East Northport Union Free Sch. Dist., 672 F. Supp. 81, 89-90 (E.D. N.Y. 1987). Today, the exercise of religious exemption to vaccination usually requires a citizen to hold a sincere personal spiritual or religious belief that does not have to be tied to a specific church or religion. In some states, parents are required to either write a notarized statement and/or also obtain a letter from their spiritual advisor attesting to their sincere religious beliefs regarding vaccination.

The religious belief exemption is provided under the law for citizens who believe in a Creator and engage in prayer and may also consult scripture for guidance in making vaccination decisions which are spiritually based. Many parents of Christian, Jewish, Muslim and non-denominational spiritual beliefs, who already have a vaccine injured child, are engaging in prayer and consulting scripture for guidance in making vaccination decisions for their other children. It is important for the religious exemption to vaccination to only be taken by those who truly hold sincere religious or spiritual beliefs regarding vaccination.

The 18 states which allow philosophical, personal or conscientious belief exemption to vaccination are the states which come the closest to allowing voluntary, informed consent to vaccination in America. NVIC supports the addition of conscientious belief exemption to all state vaccine laws, such as the law in Texas obtained in 2004 by parents led by Dawn Richardson, president of Parents Requesting Open Vaccine Education (PROVE), so citizens without sincere religious beliefs opposing vaccination can exercise a conscientious belief exemption.

Although pro-forced vaccination proponents are promoting the demonization and punishment of parents who advocate informed consent to vaccination, including the right to take a religious or conscientious belief exemption, they do not have a strong ethical basis for their position. The genetic co-factor involved in adverse responses to vaccination make one-size- fits-all forced vaccination laws a de facto selection of the genetically vulnerable for sacrifice and that kind of government policy should not be tolerated by any state.

As more children regress into poor health after vaccination and more parents discover that vaccines carry far greater risks than pediatricians and public health officials have admitted to date, there will be a greater public demand for flexibility in mandatory vaccination laws. Paul Offit and his cohorts would do well to respect and acknowledge genetic diversity and the need for informed consent protections in mandatory vaccination laws rather than attempt to turn enforcement of those laws into a military operation. That primitive approach will not survive the test of time.

Pediatricians Spy, Vaccine Pushers Target NASCAR

Pediatricians Spy, Vaccine Pushers Target NASCAR

by Barbara Loe Fisher

Do you know what your pediatrician is asking your child when you step out of the examining room? I'll bet you'd never guess.

According to one Dad in Massachusetts, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) have convinced America's pediatricians that they are agents of the State rather than healers paid by parents to offer medical advice for their children. He reports that the AAP now encourages doctors to ignore "legal barriers and deference to parental involvement" and spy on families by extracting personal information out of their little patients about Mom and Dad's lifestyle choices.

Whether pediatricians are just behaving badly in Massachusetts or are acting out all over the USA, it is disconcerting to hear that any doctor is secretly grilling children about whether Mom and Dad make them feel "uncomfortable" or smoke, drink, get high on (prescription?) drugs or own a gun. Even more alarming is the allegation that some pediatricians feel compelled to make a "report" to the State when the trusting little souls snitch on Mom and Dad for having a Michelob while watching Monday night football or harboring a registered rifle for duck hunting.

What makes this story so compelling is that a lot of doctors are acting like policemen these days. Could it have anything to do with the fact that, during the past quarter century, America's private docs have become joined at the hip with the ones wearing white military uniforms, who are running the U.S. Public Health Service?

Vaccination has been used as an organizing tool by over-zealous public health officials to appropriate power during the past quarter century. And their zeal has gotten a whole lot worse since September 11, 2001.

Maybe that is why young congressional aides employed by the U.S. House Homeland Security Committee were told to get hepatitis A, hepatitis B, tetanus, diphtheria and influenza vaccines before deploying for combat at - - - the NASCAR in Concord, North Carolina and Talladega, Alabama! http://www.charlotte.com/109/story/314034.html

Apparently "public health" advisors to the U.S. House Homeland Security Committee either consider visiting North Carolina and Alabama to be Third World hazardous duty or they think NASCAR fans are especially infectious. Either way, somebody had to think real hard about which vaccines to put on the congressional staffer's "must do" list before heading for the race track. Most of the vaccines selected were either in the "poor sanitation" (tetanus, diphtheria, hepatitis A) or risky "lifestyle" (hepatitis B) category.

The militarization of America's medical profession is a prescription for civil rights disaster. The next time you witness a doctor acting like a CIA operative or policeman, stifle the urge to either salute smartly or cower in the corner. Instead, publicize his or her bad behavior by writing an Op Ed in your local newspaper. And don't forget to blast it into cyberspace, where truth and freedom are alive and well.


"Thanks to guidelines issued by the American Academy of Pediatrics and supported by the commonwealth, doctors across Massachusetts are interrogating our kids about mom and dad's "bad" behavior. We used to be proud parents. Now, thanks to the AAP, we're "persons of interest." ....Of course doctors have a choice. They could choose, for example, to ask me about my drunken revels, and not my children. They could choose not to put my children in this terrible position. They could choose, even here in Massachusetts, to leave their politics out of the office. But the doctors aren't asking us parents. They're asking our kids. Worst of all, they're asking all kids about sexual abuse without any provocation or probable cause. The American Academy of Pediatrics has declared all parents guilty until proven innocent....." - Michael Graham, Boston Herald ( October 4, 2007)

"Getting a hepatitis shot is standard procedure for travelers to parts of Africa and Asia, but some congressional aides [of the House Homeland Security Committee] were instructed to get immunized before going to Lowe's Motor Speedway in Concord and the racetrack in Talladega, Ala.....Staff who organized the trips advised the NASCAR-bound aides to get a range of vaccines before attending -- hepatitis A, hepatitis B, tetanus, diphtheria and influenza. Rep. Robin Hayes, a Republican from Concord, took umbrage when he heard about it. "I have never heard of immunizations for domestic travel, and as the representative for Concord, N.C., I feel compelled to ask why the heck the committee feels that immunizations are needed to travel to my hometown," Hayes said in an Oct. 5 letter to Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., who chairs the Homeland Security panel. "I have been to numerous NASCAR races, and the folks who attend these events certainly do not pose any health hazard to congressional staffers or anyone else," Hayes added. Thompson said the immunizations are commonly recommended for people working in hospitals, holding centers and similar locations. "I am sure you would agree that providing immunizations to personnel involved in public safety is good public health policy, and there is no need to exclude staff from taking the preventative measures that the public health community recommends -- regardless of why and where mass gatherings are taking place," Thompson said in the letter." - Lisa Zagaroli, Charlotte Observer (October 11, 2007)

CA Governor Vetos Vaccine Mandate


by Barbara Loe Fisher

It has been a bad year for drug company lobbyists and doctors pressuring politicians in California to pass new vaccine mandates for children in the state. GARDASIL maker, Merck, and pro-forced vaccination proponents tried to ram through HPV vaccine mandates last winter and, when they were soundly defeated, tried to pass a law (AB16) this summer that would have allowed a State Health Officer to mandate every new vaccine the CDC recommends for universal use. That proposed law did not make it to the Governor's desk but a bill to mandate Prevnar (pneumococcal vaccine) did get to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's desk (SB 533) and he vetoed it on October 5.

California's premiere autism activist, Rick Rollens, got word yesterday that the Governor issued the following statement explaining his veto:

"I am returning Senate Bill 533 without my signature. While I am a strong proponent of prevention and support efforts to improve vaccine rates for children, I am unable to sign this bill as California's public health experts believe it is not needed. The Department of Public Health can already require young children receive the pneumococcal vaccine. California's vaccine experts have not established a mandate because they believe it is not needed. Approximately 86 percent of children are already being vaccinated under a voluntary system. For this reason, I am returning this bill without my signature."

Behind the scenes, federal and state public health officials have always joined with the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and other medical organizations to support the lobbying efforts of vaccine manufacturers to get new vaccines mandated by states. This successful lobbying blitz has resulted in the more than doubling of the numbers of doses of vaccines children must get in order to attend daycare or school in the past quarter century.

Vaccine mandates mean assured and predictable profits for vaccine manufacturers. However, the fact that Governor Schwarzenegger indicated in his veto statement that state public health officials did not believe they needed the Prevnar mandate because "86 percent of children are already being vaccinated under a voluntary system" is an encouraging sign. Perhaps California state health officials are beginning to pay attention to the public's growing distaste for new vaccine mandates and have decided to pick their vaccine mandate battles more carefully.

Prevnar vaccine has been a blockbuster for Wyeth since it was licensed in 2000. So many parents wanted to get it for their children that Wyeth ran out of supplies in 2001, causing vaccine shortages and Prevnar continues to be a huge profit making enterprise for Wyeth. http://vaccineawakening.blogspot.com/search?q=prevnar

The same is true for Merck's GARDASIL vaccine. Merck's financial bottomline has been helped enormously by voluntary use of GARSASIL by women and young girls in America since GARDASIL was licensed in 2006.

Vaccine mandates are not needed in the 21st century because the millions that drug companies can spend to advertise a new vaccine, coupled with the millions of taxpayer dollars that the CDC spends to promote mass use of new vaccines gets the job done without trampling on individual rights and the informed consent ethic. Leading proponents of business ethics are beginning to acknowledge the importance of respecting the informed consent ethic, a position which the National Vaccine Information Center has taken and promoted publicly for the past 25 years http://alertmindpublishing.com/columnView.php?ID=czoyOiIzNSI7

Vaccines should be subjected to the law of supply and demand in the free market system like any other product produced by any industry. When people are allowed to exercise informed consent to risk taking, they own the decision they make and can take responsibility for the consequences of that decision. When people are forced to take a risk rather than make a voluntary, informed choice, they justifiably feel betrayed by those who coerced them when the risk turns out to be 100 percent.

Governor Schwarzenegger has the right idea: vaccine mandates are not needed for every vaccine that industry produces and the federal government promotes for children.
"Merck, like all business enterprises, has a right to unlimited profits providing it conducts itself ethically. An essential condition for ethical business is to deal only by mutual consent. This means that all parties involved must act of their own free will, without coercion. By advocating mandatory treatments, Merck participated in an attempt to violate individual rights. It is not too late for Merck to act responsibly. In promoting Gardasil it should explain the benefits of using the vaccine, enumerate the potential downsides, and admit that at this time more needs to be learned about its effects. Merck should talk to government officials, but the message must change. Merck could explain that Gardasil is a valuable treatment to be used only with the voluntary consent of responsible adults - either women or the parents of young girls. Merck should actively lobby against legislation that would coerce individuals to use its products." - Barry A. Liebling (March 2007)

Mutant Polio Viruses Pollute Water, Para

Mutated Live Vaccine Polioviruses Pollute Water, Paralyze

by Barbara Loe Fisher

In yet another stunning example of arrogant and immoral behavior, doctors at the World Health Organization (WHO) and Centers for Disease Control (CDC) admitted last week that they deliberately did not tell "the public" that neurovirulent mutated vaccine strain live polio viruses are polluting world water supplies and are responsible for polio outbreaks among children in Nigeria and other countries. Dr. David Heymann, a leader in WHO's polio eradication effort, reportedly explained that WHO "considered the [Nigerian] outbreak to be a problem for scientists and not something that would change global vaccination practices" so WHO didn't share the information with the public until now.

There is a lot of information that WHO and CDC officials have not shared with the public about what forcing worldwide use of a live oral polio for 40 years has done. The Sabin live polio vaccine - which is the public health community's main claim to fame and fortune in the 20th century - may not only have unleashed the most feared autoimmune disorder to plague man in two centuries
( http://www.lrb.co.uk/v25/n07/hoop01_.html ) as well as caused increases in brain, bone and lung cancers ( http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/jnci%3b94/3/229-a.pdf)
but also has created mutant paralytic viruses that could cripple many more humans than would have been crippled if the live virus polio vaccine had never been used at all.

The US abandoned the Sabin live polio vaccine in 1999 and switched to the inactivated Salk vaccine that cannot cause vaccine strain polio. So why are billions of dollars being spent to pour the risky live virus polio vaccine into the mouths of the poorest babies in the most underprivileged countries in the world where sanitation and water supplies are already compromised?

The worst part of this deception is that WHO and CDC spin doctors are trying to convince parents in Africa, India and elsewhere that it is the "unvaccinated" who are causing vaccine strain polio outbreaks even though many of these children are getting 9 or 10 polio vaccinations
http://vaccineawakening.blogspot.com/search?q=India%2C+polio+vaccine Although public health officials are trying to blame polio outbreaks on the 'unvaccinated," the medical literature documents that assertion to be false.

Here is just a sampling of articles from the medical literature about mutated vaccine strain polio viruses causing paralytic disease in vaccinated populations:

1) In 1999, Paul Fine took information from a WHO document and published an article in the American Journal of Epidemiology on the transmissability and persistence of oral polio viruses. He concluded that "the findings indicate that OPV viruses could persist under various plausible circumstances" after mass vaccination with live OPV around the world is stopped.

(2) In 2000, Israeli and CDC researchers reported in the Journal of Clinical Microbiology that a "highly evolved derivative of the Type 2 oral poliovaccine strain" was isolated from sewage in Israel. They concluded that "the presence in the environment of a highly evolved, neurovirulent OPV- derived poliovirus in the absence of polio cases has important implications for strategies for the cessation of immunization with OPV following global polio eradication." (http://jcm.asm.org/cgi/content/abstract/38/10/3729)

(3) In 2002, Japanese researchers reported in the Journal of General Virology on a 1993-1995 survey of poliovirus in river and sewage water. They concluded that "The prevalence of virulent type vaccine derived polioviruses (VDPV's) in river and sewage water suggested that the oral poliovaccine itself had led to wide environmental pollution in nature." (http://vir.sgmjournals.org/cgi/content/asbtract/83/5/1107)

(4) In 2002, Russian and FDA researchers reported in the Journal of Virology on the "Long Term Circulation of Vaccine-Derived Poliovirus That Causes Paralytic Disease" after finding a highly evolved derivative of the Sabin vaccine strain isolated in a case of paralytic poliomyelitis from a healthy 7 month old baby "in an apparently adequately immunized population." When the researchers analyzed the genome of the isolate, they found it was a double (type1-type2) vaccine-derived recombinant and that the number of mutations suggested "both had diverged from their vaccine predecessors." They concluded that "The reported data indicate that vaccine-derived viruses may make their way through narrow breaches and evolve into transmissible pathogens even in adequately immunized populations." (http://jvi.asm.org/cgi/content/full/76/13/6791)

(5) In 2003, Russian and FDA researchers published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences a "Microarray analysis of evolution of RNA viruses: Evidence of circulation of virulent highly divergent vaccine-derived polioviruses." They said "We identified a type-3 VDPV (vaccine derived polio virus) isolated from a healthy person and missed by conventional methods of screening. The mutational profile of the polio strain was consistent with less than 1 year circulation in human population and was highly virulent in transgenic mice, confirming the ability of VDPV to persist in communities despite high levels of immunity." (http://www/pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/100/16/9398)

(6) In 2005, Russian and FDA researchers published an article in Journal of Virology in which they reported on results of a study of vaccine-derived isolates from "an immunocompromised poliomyelitis patient, the contacts, and the local sewage." They acknowledged that "The increased neurovirulence of vaccine derivatives has been known since the beginning of OPV use, but their ability to establish circulation in communities has been recognized only recently during the latest stages of the polio eradication campaign." They go on to discuss the new recombinant type 2/type1 genome that has developed as a result of mass use of live polio vaccine as well as "another mutation in the VP3 protein" that may facilitate "virus spread in immunized populations." Their conclusion:

"The patterns and rates of the accumulation of synonymous mutations in isolates collected from the patient over the extended period of [vaccine strain poliovirus] excretion suggest either a substantially nonuniform rate of mutagenesis throughout the genome, or, more likely, the strains may have been intratypic recombinants between coevolving derivatives with different degrees of divergence from the vaccine parent. This study provides insight into the early stages of the establishment of circulation by runaway vaccine strains." ( http://jvi.asm.org/cgi/content/abstract/79/2/1062)

For too long, vaccine-wielding doctors employed by the U.S. government and worldwide medical organizations, like the WHO, have joined with pharmaceutical companies and conned politicians and populations around the world into accepting forced use of vaccines that have not been properly tested and regulated. When doctors and scientists think they are entitled to experiment on people and keep those medical experiments secret, it is no wonder that iatragenic diseases like cancers, AIDS and mutated vaccine strain viral diseases soon follow.

It is time to take the holy robes off of doctors and scientists who are tinkering with the biological integrity of the human race and the ecological balance on earth. The parents in Africa and India, who are fleeing from the vaccine-wielding doctors hunting their children down, are not ignorant or crazy. They are exercising common sense.




"A polio outbreak in Nigeria was caused by the vaccine designed to stop it, international health officials say, leaving at least 69 children paralyzed.....The CDC and the World Health Organization announced the cause of the polio outbreak last week, even though they knew about it last year.....The oral polio vaccine contains a weakened version of polio virus....In rare instances, as the virus passes through unimmunized children, it can mutate into a form that is dangerous enough to spark new outbreaks. In 2001, officials reported that 22 children were paralyzed from polio in the Dominican Republic and Haiti in this way. Subsequent vaccine-caused polio outbreaks have occurred in the Philippines, Madagascar, China and Indonesia.....CDC's Kew added: "The people who are against immunization may seize on anything that could strengthen their position, even if it's scientifically untenable."....WHO said that changing the vaccination strategy is unnecessary. "It would be nice if we had a more stable oral polio vaccine, but that's not the way it is today," Heymann said. "We will continue working the way we have been working because we don't want children to be paralyzed anywhere." - Maria Cheng, Associated Press (October 5, 2007)

"Between 1961 and 1978, Lederle, a leading vaccine manufacturer, controlled between 70 to 80 percent of the oral polio vaccine market. Its product was known as "Orimune". From 1978 until 2000 (the year the United States prohibited the sale of the oral polio vaccine), that company had 100% of the American market for oral polio vaccine. It has claimed that it distributed over 650 million doses in the United States alone since its licensure. At the conference of the United States of America, Department of Health & Human Services, held on Monday, January 29-30, 1997 entitled CBER-NCI-NICHD-NIP-NVPO SIMIAN VIRUS 40 (SV40): A POSSIBLE HUMAN POLYOMAVIRUS WORKSHOP, representatives of Lederle assured the assembly that all oral polio vaccine in the United States manufactured by that company was SV40 free and that it had prepared the vaccine in green monkey kidney cells that do not harbor the SV40 virus. Internal Documents obtained by SV40 Cancer.com tell a different story." - SV40Cancer.com (http://www.sv40cancer.com/knew.asp)

"Four years ago I wrote The River, a book in which I argued for a new theory of how the Aids pandemic began. The book proved very controversial, and provoked what I would consider a defensive response from many in the scientific community, who damned the theory on insubstantial grounds. I am returning to this subject now because there is new evidence, both historical and scientific, to demonstrate that the theory was buried prematurely. After 27 million deaths and the infection of more than 66 million people with HIV, there are now strong indications that human hands - in particular, those of the doctor and the scientist - started the AIDS pandemic. This is not the theory of origin favoured by most in the medical establishment: the familiar 'cut hunter' or natural transfer theory proposes that a single hunter or bushmeat seller became infected with simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV) while skinning or butchering a chimp, and that the pandemic started from that one infection. The theory of origin that I supported in The River is the OPV (oral polio vaccine) theory, and it requires a little background. In the 1950s, OPVs were prepared in primate cells, as most still are today. As a result, each OPV contained not only weakened poliovirus, but also whichever monkey viruses happened to be present in the cell substrate......" - Edward Hooper, London Review of Books (April 3, 2003)

Combo Vaccine Study Proves Nothing

Combo Vaccine Study Proves Nothing

by Barbara Loe Fisher

A study funded by British vaccine maker, GlaxoSmithKline, and conducted by University of Rochester vaccine developers claims to have proven that simultaneously injecting infants with 7 vaccines in separate shots is no more reactive or less effective than simultaneously injecting infants with 7 vaccines contained in combination shots.

Specifically, GSK conducted the study in an effort to "prove" that the 5 vaccines in 1 shot, Pediarix, can be given simultaneously with other vaccines without causing more reactions or compromising the effectiveness of the pertussis (whooping cough) portion of the shot as pre-licensure studies indicated.

What do GSK officials and University of Rochester doctors running the study for GSK think that they have proven about Pediarix safety and effectiveness? Do they really believe the educated public will be reassured by a study that only included 575 two month old healthy babies divided into three groups - all of whom got seven vaccines whether given separately or in combination?

To accurately answer outstanding questions about Pediarix safety and effectiveness - as well as the safety and effectiveness of repeatedly injecting babies with seven vaccines simultaneously at two, four, and six months - GSK would have had to prospectively enroll at least 3,000 - 5,000 infants aged two months to five years and followed them up for at least five years. The study should also have included an unvaccinated group of children with a five year follow-up period to compare the brain and immune system function of unvaccinated children to those who were injected with Pediatrix in combination with other vaccines. By age five, the symptoms of ADHD, learning disabilities, autism, asthma, severe allergies and other neuroimmune dysfunction become apparent and, if autism occurs in about 10 per 1,000 children, a study of 3,000 to 5,000 children would yield between 30 and 50 autistic children by age five in all groups if there are no health outcome differences between vaccinated and unvaccinated children.

Even without an unvaccinated control group, it is ludicrous to conclude that studying 575 healthy newborns and following them up for 7 months generates enough useful data to conclude much of anything about giving infants so many vaccines on one day, whether the vaccines are given separately or in combination. This study by GSK to promote purchase and use of Pediarix does nothing to reassure parents and doctors that there are no adverse long term health consequences from repeatedly using this vaccine in combination with other pediatric vaccines in the first year of life.

Medical World News Today, October 4, 2007
Study Checks the Safety of Combination Vaccines

"Only more immunizations will enter the schedule," said Michael Pichichero, M.D., professor of Microbiology/Immunology, Pediatrics and Medicine at the University of Rochester and the study's lead author. "Coupling or tripling of these vaccines is increasingly important, as this streamlining helps to promote parent compliance, timely vaccination and fewer administration errors." .....The earlier studies found that when the vaccines were co-administered, a suboptimal immune response was produced against whooping cough, and more uncomfortable reactions, such as swelling at the injection site, could be expected.... "Vaccine opponents may liken the process of the body processing simultaneous vaccines to a computer running too many applications; the machine grows slow, and the programs, one by one, begin to terminate," Pichichero said. "But those fears are unfounded; we have found no evidence that a child's body is at any point approaching a maximum threshold as far as learning to produce immune responses." ...."If pediatricians were holding out on making the switch to a combined vaccine for fear that its protection might be inferior, they no longer need be concerned," Pichichero said. "It seems the clinical relevance of any previously observed differences with regard to whooping cough immunity have been dispelled." - Medical World News Today (October 3, 2007)