Delay and Selective Vaccine Schedules

A list of delay or selective vaccine schedules for parents who prefer this route:

 

Dr. Stephanie Cave’s vaccine schedule:

4 months: start Hib with IPV (polio)

6 months: DtaP started

7 months: second series of Hib and IPV

8 months: second series Dtap

9 months: third series Hib

10 months: third series DtaP

15 months: measles

18 months: fourth series Hib, IPV

19 months: fourth series DtaP

27 months: rubella

39 months: mumps

4-5 years: MMR boosters separate from any other boosters only if no titers for immunity.

4-5 years: boosters for DtaP and IPV if needed

Hepatitis B: If  Mother is not positive and baby is not attending child care we would like to postpone until at least school age and only give if mandated by state.

Pneumococcal (Prevnar): Do not want, only discuss if mandated by state only.

Varicella (Varivax): close to school age if mandated by law and if child is not immune to chicken pox based on blood test. Never before 4-5 years.

MMR: to be given seperately

15 months: measles

27 months: rubella

39 months: mumps

4-5 years: MMR boosters separate from any other boosters only if no titers for immunity.

 

 

This is from Dr. Miller (Generation Rescue)

 

1. no vaccines until 2 years old

2. no mercury containing vaccines

3. no live virus vaccines

4. vaccines to be given 1 at a time starting at age 2-

    a. pertussis

    b. diptheria

    c. tetanus

    d. polio

 

Dr. Sears Selective Vaccination Schedule

 

2 months-  DTaP, Rotavirus

3 months- Pc, HIB

4 months- DtaP, Rotavirus

5 months- Pc, HIB

6 months- DtaP, Rotavirus

7 months- Pc, HIB

15 months- Pc, HIB

5 years- Tetanus booster

10 years- Blood test(Titer) for Measles, Mumps, Rubella, Chickenpox, Hep A                  Consider vaccinating if not immune. Consider 3 dose Polio series if   traveling to Africa or Asia 

11years- HPV (3 doses)

12 years Hep B (3 doses)

 

 

Alternative Vaccine Schedule

 

2 months-  DTaP, Rotavirus

3 months- Pc, HIB

4 months- DtaP, Rotavirus

5 months- Pc, HIB

6 months- DtaP, Rotavirus

7 months- Pc, HIB

9 months- Polio, Flu (2 doses)

12 months- Mumps, Polio

15 months- Pc, HIB

18 months- DTaP, Chickenpox

21 months- Flu

2 years- Rubella, Polio

2.5 years- Hep B, Hep A

3 years- Hep B, Measles, Flu

3.5 years- Hep B, Hep A

4 years- DTaP, Polio, Flu

5 years- MMR, Flu

6 years- Chickenpox

12 years- Tdap, HPV

12 years 2 months- HPV

13 years-HPV, Meningococcal (once meningococcal approved for age 2-recommend at age 2 and delay Hep B for 6 months)

   

(Most people are immune after one dose. We continue to get multiple doses that MAY NOT BE NEEDED. Have them check antibody levels via titres blood test.)

 

 

 DAN! Guidelines:

 

•  Use Thimersol / Mercury free vaccines!!(THAT INCLUDES vaccines that have multiple viruses! Split them up!)

•  Use single dose vials from which to draw up the vaccines as opposed to multiple-dose vials which provide less uniform dosage.

•  Use inactivated polio. (IPV)

• Give RDA (Recommended Daily Allowances) of Vitamin C before and after vaccines
•  Give a natural form of Vitamin A ( cod liver oil ) to keep RDA’s at level at all times for the age.

•  Separate the MMR into 3…start with measles at 12-15 months, then mumps at 18-21 months, rubella at 24-27 months.

•  Do not give live virus vaccines to immunodeficient children.

•  Do not give vaccines if allergic to any of these components:

i. Yeast – Hep B

ii. Eggs – MMR

iii. Neonycian – MMR or Varicella

•  Hold off on the Varicella until 10-12 years & if the child is shown not immune to Chicken pox.

 

•  Checking vaccine titers before giving boosters

 

 

Deirdre Imus: How Do I Find a Green Pediatrician?

…Today I found a great link at Deirdre Imus’ website to the “Integrative Pediatrics Council” HERE which provides a list of “green” pediatricians throughout America (and one in Canada.)

How Vaccinations Work

How Vaccinations Work

 

PHILIP F. INCAO, M.D. May 5, 1999

In order to use vaccinations wisely, we need to understand exactly how they work. Until recently, the “mechanism of action” of vaccinations was always understood to be simply that they cause an increase in antibody levels (titers) against a specific disease antigen (bacterium or virus), thus preventing “infection” with that bacterial or viral antigen.

In recent years science has learned that the human immune system is much more complicated than we thought. It is composed of two functional branches or compartments which may work together in a mutually cooperative way or in a mutually antagonistic way depending on the health of the individual.

One branch is the humoral immune system (or Th2 function) which primarily produces antibodies in the blood circulation as a sensing or recognizing function of the immune system to the presence of foreign antigens in the body. The other branch is the cellular or cell-mediated immune system (or Th1 function) which primarily destroys, digests and expels foreign antigens out of the body through the activity of its cells found in the thymus, tonsils, adenoids, spleen, lymph nodes and lymph system throughout the body. This process of destroying, digesting and discharging foreign antigens from the body is known as “the acute inflammatory response” and is often accompanied by the classic signs of inflammation: fever, pain, malaise and discharge of mucus, pus, skin rash or diarrhea.

These two functional branches of the immune system may be compared to the two functions in eating: tasting and recognizing the food on the one hand, and digesting the food and eliminating the food waste on the other hand. In the same way, the humoral or Th2 branch of the immune system “tastes” and recognizes and even remembers foreign antigens and the cellular or Th1 branch of the immune system digests and eliminates the foreign antigens from the body. But just as too much repeated tasting of food will ruin the appetite, so also too much repeated stimulation of the “tasting” humoral immune system by an antigen will inhibit and suppress the digesting and eliminating function of the cellular immune system. In other words, overstimulating antibody production can suppress the acute inflammatory response of the cellular immune system! ¹

This explains the polar opposite relationship between acute discharging inflammations on the one hand and allergies and auto-immune inflammations on the other hand. The more a person has of one, the less he or she will have of the other!

A growing number of scientists believe that the increase in America, Europe, Australia and Japan in allergic and auto-immune diseases (which stimulate the humoral or Th2 branch of the immune system) is caused by the lack of stimulation of the cellular or the Th1 branch of the immune system from the lack of acute inflammatory responses and discharges in childhood. ^{2 3 4 5} We need to identify the factors which cause this shift in the function of the immune system or which cause allergies and auto-immune diseases in childhood to increase!

If we now return to the original question of the mechanism of action of vaccinations, we find what I believe is the key to the puzzle. A vaccination consists of introducing a disease agent or disease antigen into an individual’s body without causing the disease. If the disease agent provoked the whole immune system into action it would cause all the symptoms of the disease! The symptoms of a disease are primarily the symptoms (fever, pain, malaise, loss of function) of the acute inflammatory response to the disease.

So the trick of a vaccination is to stimulate the immune system just enough so that it makes antibodies and “remembers” the disease antigen but not so much that it provokes an acute inflammatory response by the cellular immune system and makes us sick with the disease we’re trying to prevent! Thus a vaccination works by stimulating very much the antibody production (Th2) and by stimulating very little or not at all the digesting and discharging function of the cellular immune system (Th1).

Vaccine antigens are designed to be “unprovocative” or “indigestible” for the cellular immune system (Th1) and highly stimulating for the antibody-mediated humoral immune system (Th2).

Perhaps it is not difficult to see then why the repeated use of vaccinations would tend to shift the functional balance of the immune system toward the antibody-producing side (Th2) and away from the acute inflammatory discharging side (the cell-mediated side or Th1). This has been confirmed by observation especially in the case of Gulf War Illness: most vaccinations cause a shift in immune function from the Th1 side (acute inflammatory discharging response) to the Th2 side (chronic auto-immune or allergic response). ⁶

The outcome of this line of thought is that, contrary to previous belief, vaccinations do not strengthen or “boost” the whole immune system. Instead vaccinations overstimulate the “tasting and remembering” function of the antibody-mediated branch of the immune system (Th2) which simultaneously suppresses the cellular immune system (Th1) thus “preventing” the disease in question.

What in reality is prevented is not the disease but the ability of our cellular immune system to manifest, to respond to and to overcome the disease!

There is no system of the human being, from mind to muscles to immune system, which gets stronger through avoiding challenges, but only through overcoming challenges. The wise use of vaccinations would be to use them selectively, and not on a mass scale. In order for vaccinations to be helpful and not harmful, we must know beforehand in each individual to be vaccinated whether the Th1 function or the Th2 function of the immune system predominates.

In individuals in whom the Th1 function predominates, causing many acute inflammations because the cellular immune system is overreactive, a vaccination could have a balancing effect on the immune system and be helpful for that individual.

In individuals in whom the Th2 function predominates, causing few acute inflammations but rather the tendency to chronic allergic or autoimmune inflammations, a vaccination would cause the Th2 function to predominate even more, aggravating the imbalance of the immune system and harming the health of that individual. This is what happened in Gulf War Illness.

The current use of vaccinations in medicine today is essentially a “shotgun” approach which ignores differences among individuals. In such an approach some individuals may be helped and others may be harmed.

If medicine is to evolve in a healthy direction, we must learn to understand the particular characteristics of each individual and we must learn how to individualize our treatments to be able to heal each unique human being in our care.

Based on the preceding explanation of how vaccinations work, here are my answers to your questions:

Vaccinations are usually effective in preventing an individual from manifesting a particular illness, but they do not improve the overall strength or health of the individual nor of the immune system. Instead, vaccinations modify the reactivity of the immune system, decreasing acute discharging inflammatory reactions and increasing the tendency to chronic allergic and auto-immune reactions.

Epidemiologic studies ^{7 8 9} have shown that as families improve their living conditions, hygiene, nutrition, literacy and education, the risk of life-threatening acute infectious , inflammatory diseases very much decreases. Families with poor living conditions, hygiene, nutrition and literacy would generally be most likely to benefit from vaccinations. Families with good living conditions, hygiene, nutrition and education probably would benefit from vaccinations very little or not at all. Individuals with a tendency to allergic or auto-immune diseases are likely to be harmed by vaccinations.

Side effects of vaccination are usually allergic or auto-immune inflammatory reactions caused by the shift of the immune system’s reactivity from the Th1 side to the Th2 side. Modern medicine is just beginning to recognize this. ¹⁰

Modern medicine has not scientifically measured the risk/benefit ratio of any vaccine. ¹¹ Research into the risks of vaccines is very inadequate, according to two comprehensive reports on vaccines by the U.S. Institute of Medicine in 1991 and 1994.

My preceding explanation of how vaccinations affect the immune system is true also in animals. Vaccinations cannot make animals healthier, but only good handling, environment and nutrition can make animals healthy and resistant to disease. Vaccinating pigs may prevent them from having illness from one particular strain of virus but will not improve their overall resistance to other illnesses nor even to other strains of the same virus.

It is important to remember that an infection with a particular virus or bacterium does not necessarily cause illness unless the resistance of the individual is low. In the case of Japanese Encephalitis Virus (JEV), most infections cause no symptoms and fewer than 0.1% of infected individuals develop severe encephalitis. ¹² Individuals living in poor conditions, with poor hygiene, nutrition and education are at higher risk of serious illnesses from JEV or any other infection. In such individuals a vaccination would most likely be helpful.

Each individual should inform himself or herself: just how widespread is the disease outbreak? How many have become seriously ill or died? Does the outbreak affect all levels of society or mainly those in poor living conditions?

Very often the media exaggerate the extent of such outbreaks. Each individual should freely decide, based on knowledge and not on fear and hearsay, whether he or she or a child would benefit from a vaccination.

 

¹ Parish, C.R. “The Relationship Between Humoral and Cell-Mediated Immunity.” Transplant. Rev. 13 (1972):3.

² Ronne, T. “Measles Virus Infection without Rash in Childhood is Related to Disease in Adult Life.” The Lancet Ltd. (1985):1-5.

³ Odent, M.R., Culpin, E.E., Kimmel, T. “Pertussis Vaccination and Asthma: Is There a Link The Journal of the American Medical Association 272(1994):588.

⁴ Cookson, W.O.C.M., and Moffatt, M.F. “Asthma: An Epidemic in the Absence of Infection?” Science 275(1997):41-42.

⁵ Martinez, F.D. Role of viral infections in the inception of asthma and allergies during childhood: could they be protective? Thorax 1994;49: 1189-91.

⁶ Rook, G.A.W., Zumla, A. “Gulf War Syndrome: Is It Due to a Systemic Shift in Cytokine Balance Towards a Th2 Profile?” The Lancet 349 (1997): 1831-1833.

⁷ McKeown, T. The Modern Rise of Population. New York: Academic Press, 1976.

⁸ McKeown, T. The Role Of Medicine: Dream, Mirage, or Nemesis? New Jersey: Princeton University Press 1979.

⁹ Sagan, L.A. The Health of Nations. New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1987.

¹⁰ Rook, G.A.W., Zumla, A. “Gulf War Syndrome: Is It Due to a Systemic Shift in Cytokine Balance Towards a Th2 Profile?” The Lancet 349 (1997): 1831-1833.

¹¹ Robin, Eugene, M.D. “Some Hidden Dimensions of the Risk/Benefit Value of Vaccine” from the First International Public Conference on Vaccination. Alexandria, Virginia September 1997.

¹² Solomon, T., Kneen, R., Dung, N.G., Khanh, V.C., Thuy, T.T.N., Ha, D.Q., Day, N.P.J., Nisalak, A., Vaughn, D.W., White, N.J. “Poliomyelitis-like illness due to Japanese encephalitis virus” Lancet 1998; 351: 1094-97

Vaccine Information Sheet (VIS)

Vaccine Information Sheet (VIS)

 Vaccine information sheets are produced by the CDC.  In the US, it is a federal law that the VIS sheet be signed prior to any vaccine administration. It became a requirement with the passing of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986. The VIS sheets purpose is to describe a brief overview of the vaccine, the benefits, and the risks.

 

  It is NOT an informed consent sheet. A parent signs the sheet simply as an acknowledgment that they were informed of the benefits and risks.

 

There is no Federal requirement for informed consent. VISs are written to fulfill the information requirements of the NCVIA. But because they cover both benefits and risks associated with vaccinations, they provide enough information that anyone reading them should be adequately informed. Some states have informed consent laws, covering either procedural requirements (e.g., whether consent may be oral or must be written) or substantive requirements (e.g., types of information required). Check your state medical consent law to determine if there are any specific informed consent requirements relating to immunization. VISs can be used for informed consent as long as they conform to the appropriate state laws. (bolding mine)

 

According to an AAP survey regarding consent and immunizations: (bolding mine)

 

• The majority of pediatricians distribute written information on these vaccines the first time they are administered: 73.0% always distribute written information on the DTP vaccine; 63.8% always do so for MMR; 60.6% always do so for HIB; and 65.4% always do so for OPV.
• The majority of pediatricians also document provision of information in the patient’s record the first time a vaccine is administered. for the DTP vaccine, 61.3% of pediatricians said they always document provision of benefit/risk information, 56% reported always documenting information on the MMR, 53.8% always do so for the HIB vaccine, and for the OPV, 59.1% always do so.
• Two-thirds of the pediatricians reported they never record a parent’s specific verbal consent in the patient’s record the first time a vaccine is administered. For the DTP vaccine, 19.1% of the pediatricians said they always record parent’s specific verbal consent and 15.6% said they sometimes do so. For MMR, 17.1% said they always do and 13.3%, sometimes. For the HIB vaccine, 16.4% said they always record the parent’s verbal consent in the record and 13.8% said they sometimes do so; for OPV, 18.9% always and 13.0% sometimes do so.

One-half of the pediatricians always obtain the parent’s signature as evidence of consent the first time a DTP, MMR, or OPV vaccine is administered; 47.5% do so for the HIB vaccine. Most of the balance of pediatricians said they never do so (39.8% DTP, 43.0% MMR, 46.3% HIB, and 42.9% OPV).

 

Another AAP survey:

 Vaccine administration practices vary as a function of practice setting, practice area and region of the country. For example, pediatricians in group practices (45%) are less likely than pediatricians in hospital/clinic practices (59%) or solo practices (51%) to say they discuss vaccine risks/benefits with every dose of at least six of the seven vaccines (p<.01). Pediatricians practicing in rural areas and those in the Midwest and South are more likely to distribute VIS at every dose than are pediatricians practicing in other areas (70% rural vs. 55% inner city vs. 64% other urban vs. 59% suburban, p<.05) or regions of the country (72% Midwest vs. 68% South vs. 54% West vs. 49% Northeast, p<.001). practitioners in rural areas (65%) also are more likely to document provision of VIS with every dose of each vaccine than are practitioners in urban inner cities (43%), other urban areas (58%) or suburban areas (54%) (p<.01).

Doctors “firing’ Patients

 

Refuse to get your child a vaccine and get ‘fired’ by your Pediatrician. Who would of thunk?

 Refuse Vaccine, Get ‘Fired’ by Pediatrician?

 Well over a third of pediatricians — 39% — say they would “dismiss” families that refuse all vaccinations, a new study suggests. That’s surprising, says study leader Erin A. Flanagan-Klygis, MD, assistant professor of pediatrics at Chicago’s Rush Medical College.

But another finding surprises Flanagan-Klygis even more. More than one in four pediatricians — 28% — say they would fire families that agreed to some vaccinations but refused one or more other vaccinations.

This study is based on questionnaires filled out by 302 randomly selected members of the American Academy of Pediatrics who give recommended childhood vaccinations. Ref: October issue of Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine.

 

Dismissing the Family Who Refuses Vaccines

A Study of Pediatrician Attitudes

Results Fifty-four percent faced total vaccine refusal during a 12-month period. Pediatricians cited safety concerns as a top reason for parent refusal. Thirty-nine percent said they would dismiss a family for refusing all vaccinations. Twenty-eight percent said they would dismiss a family for refusing select vaccines. Pediatrician dismissers were not significantly different from nondismissers with respect to age, sex, and number of years in practice. Pediatrician dismissers were more likely than nondismissers to view traditional vaccines (diphtheria and tetanus toxoids and acellular pertussis; inactivated poliovirus; Haemophilus influenzae type b; measles, mumps, and rubella) as “extremely important,” but they were no more likely to view newer vaccines (7-valent pneumococcal conjugate, varicella-zoster virus, hepatitis B) as “extremely important.”

Conclusions Pediatricians commonly face vaccine refusal that they perceive to be due to parent safety concerns. In response, many pediatricians say they would discontinue care for families refusing some or all vaccines. This willingness to dismiss refusing families is inconsistent with an apparent ambivalence about newer, yet recommended, vaccines. The practice of family dismissal needs further study to examine its actual impact on vaccination rates, access to care, and doctor-patient relations.

 

Logically though, how can you as a parent or your child be ‘fired’?  They provide a service to YOU. You don’t work for THEM. Without YOU, who would THEY WORK FOR? Would you honestly want a physician that didn’t TRUST and RESPECT YOU to KNOW what is best for YOUR child?  Would you really want a physician that didn’t RESPECT your RIGHT to choose what you believe to be in the best interest of your child? Patients can fire their doctors. Doctors can only refuse to see you as a patient in the future. :)

 

 According to the American Medical Association, doctors have “an obligation to support continuity of care for their patients” and “should not neglect a patient.” But if a doctor must end the relationship, they have to provide enough notice so the patient can secure another health care provider.”

I’ve often found that doesn’t happen. Doctors simply tell patients to find a new doctor and in not so nice words. 

Take care when firing a patient

 A physician may legally and ethically decide not to continue treating a patient as long as the patient is not in need of immediate care and has been given a reasonable opportunity to find another doctor, which is consistent with the recommendations of the American Medical Association Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs.

 

According to the AAP:

Responding to Parental Refusals of Immunization of Children

Douglas S. Diekema, MD, MPH and the Committee on Bioethics

 The American Academy of Pediatrics strongly endorses universal immunization. However, for childhood immunization programs to be successful, parents must comply with immunization recommendations. The problem of parental refusal of immunization for children is an important one for pediatricians. The goal of this report is to assist pediatricians in understanding the reasons parents may have for refusing to immunize their children, review the limited circumstances under which parental refusals should be referred to child protective services agencies or public health authorities, and provide practical guidance to assist the pediatrician faced with a parent who is reluctant to allow immunization of his or her child.

 

So much for the Hippocratic Oath. Or respecting a parents RIGHTS under the LAW. Perhaps they have even forgotten that vaccines are not mandatory. They are only mandated for school or daycare attendance, without an exemption.

 

Parents often feel they have to explain their reason for not vaccinating. Why? If a physician’s belief  is to vaccinate everyone under the sun, nothing you say will make a difference to them. If not vaccinating is your choice, own it. If you do not vaccinate for religious reasons, simply state it. You owe no further explanation and it is against the law for a physician to question your faith or religious beliefs further. If it is against your philosophical beliefs, much like religion, simply state it, and no further discussion needed. You don’t question their religious beliefs, so nothing gives them the right to question or discriminate against yours.

Bullying? Yes, I’ve heard this one too. Remember, only you allow a physician to bully you. If a physician is unethical and unprofessional enough to start it, calmly leave without comment. A physician has no right to bully, yell, discriminate, name call, harass or threaten you, ever. We would call those descriptions ‘abuse’ and that is exactly what they are doing, and they are not above the law.

 

Finding the Right Physician

1. Make a list of physician’s names and get references from friends or families who have similar views as yours.

2.  Call and ask the receptionist if non-vaccinating/selective/delay patients are accepted before making the first appointment.  If you are comfortable with the answers to your questions, book an appointment.

3. Direct any further questions directly to the physician at the appointment.

National Vaccine Registry

 

Vaccines are now recorded and registered with your state’s vaccination registry.

 

According to the CDC:

 

Immunization Information Systems are confidential, population-based, computerized information systems that attempt to collect vaccination data about all children within a geographic area. IIS are an important tool to increase and sustain high vaccination coverage by consolidating vaccination records of children from multiple providers, generating reminder and recall vaccination notices for each child, and providing official vaccination forms and vaccination coverage assessments. One of the national health objectives for 2010 is to increase to 95% the proportion of children aged <6 years who participate in fully operational population-based IIS.

 

If you look further down the page you will find this statement:

 

State law requires that information in the IIS be kept confidential. Only you, your doctor, or healthcare workers who can assist you have access to the information. The information will not be shared with any other people or any other agency. If you are not interested in having your child in the IIS, all you would need to do is contact your state IIS and request to “opt-out” of the registry.

 

Healthcare workers would include Department of Health, CDC, and other government monitoring agencies. Is your child’s school a healthcare agency? Last I knew they were in the education field, yet they have access to it as well. Even the WIC program has linkages. See also: WIC Policy for Immunization Screening and Referral

 

Is this “opt-out” provision true? Not entirely. New York State no longer allows an ‘opt-out’ provision. That means, all children regardless of whether they are vaccinated or not, are in the system. If this vaccine registry was solely for its stated purpose above, why would nonvaccinated children need to be in it? They don’t need reminder notices or updated vaccination forms, etc.

 

Will children with medical or religious exemptions need to be included in NYSIIS?

• These children will be entered in NYSIIS and their records noted with the appropriate exemption. NYSIIS is a valuable tool to identify and protect these children in the event of an outbreak of a vaccine preventable disease. (bolding mine)

 

Why not call it what it is: identify, track, control, and discriminate.

I have heard many stories over the last few years of parents who ‘opted out’ in other states, yet they have found their child in the vaccine registry. Wouldn’t that be a clear violation of the HIPPA law?  No, and here is why:

 

Shalala Will Decide Privacy Rights If Congress Does Not Meet Deadline

 HIPAA provided that, if Congress does not enact legislation to create standards to protect individually identifiable health information in medical records by August 21, 1999, then the Secretary of HHS is required to establish rules governing how much information the government and other third parties can get out of private medical records by February 21, 2000. Currently, there are four medical privacy bills in the House and Senate, including the Health Care Personal Information Nondisclosure Act of 1999 (S.578-Senators Jeffords/Dodd); the Medical Information Protection Act of 1999 (S.881-Senator Bob Bennett) and the Medical Information Privacy and Security Act (S.573/H.R. 1057-Leahy/Kennedy).

All of these medical “privacy” bills allow extensive exemptions for unrestricted access and use of personal medical information in an individual’s medical records by anyone who invokes a right to access and use this information in the name of the public health including government officials, researchers and law enforcement officers. Citizens can be enrolled without their informed consent as research subjects in medical experiments if researchers make the case that the study will contribute to the public health.

This means that, without the individual’s informed consent, researchers working with government, industry and private physicians will be allowed unrestricted access to personal medical records for the purpose of enrolling unsuspecting patients in medical research experiments. Scientific researchers of the future could experiment on citizens with new drugs and vaccines. The elderly will not know whether the nursing home doctor urging the use of a new antidepressant or the family pediatrician recommending to a mother that her infant get 15 vaccines in one day, is making that recommendation because it is in the best interest of the individual or because the doctor has enrolled his patients in a government-endorsed medical experiment.

 

 Often, when these parents have requested to opt-out, they have been given false information from the Department of Health or have had to jump through hoops to get their child’s name removed. I seriously question if their name is ever entirely removed.

 

 The AAP’s stance:

 
The American Academy of Pediatrics continues to support the development and implementation of immunization information systems, previously referred to as immunization registries, and other systems for the benefit of children, pediatricians, and their communities. Pediatricians and others must be aware of the value that immunization information systems have for society, the potential fiscal influences on their practice, the costs and benefits, and areas for future improvement.

 

Yes, the almighty dollar sign right in the first paragraph…cha-ching!

 

How did the National Vaccine registry come about? Who or where does it get its funding from?

 All Kids Count

 The All Kids Count II program, funded by The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) from 1998-2000, sought to make 16 immunization registry projects based in local, county, and state health departments fully operational by January 1, 2000. The program also sought to develop a long-term policy to ensure registries are implemented and sustained nationwide. The program built on progress made under All Kids Count Phase I, 1992-1997, an RWJF program to begin the development of registries.

The national program office was based at the Task Force for Child Survival and Development in Atlanta With guidance from the program’s National Advisory Committee, the national program office gave grants ranging from $300,000 to $700,000 to 16 projects.

RWJF’s Board of Trustees authorized up to $11.25 million for phase II beginning in 1997.

 

…In late 1997, public policy set the stage for All Kids Count projects and other state and community registries to take a giant step forward. President Bill Clinton issued a presidential directive to Secretary of Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala “to start working with states on an integrated immunization registry system … we have to do it and do it right.”

 

As a result, an Initiative on Immunization Registries was undertaken by the National Vaccine Advisory Committee (NVAC), with support from the National Vaccine Program Office (NVPO) and the National Immunization Program of the CDC.

At the same time, more communities and states were developing or implementing registries. In 1998, when All Kids Count II began:

 

All 50 states had begun developing immunization registries.

Some 18 states had a law or rule authorizing immunization registries.

Ten states and several cities had mandated private provider reporting of immunizations to registries.

In 2001, 25 states had a law or rule authorizing immunization registries, and several states planned to introduce legislation or rules authorizing registries.

 …Educational Effort
All Kids Count began an intensive effort with immunization partners, especially the National Immunization Program, American Academy of Pediatrics and Every Child by Two (a non-profit organization that raises awareness of the importance of getting children fully immunized by the time they are two years old) to inform policymakers about the benefits, costs, and savings of registries, and the need to find a sustained source of funding if the promise of registries were to be realized.

 …The education effort culminated in a legislative briefing held May 1, 2000, in Washington, D.C. Hosted by former First Lady Rosalynn Carter and Mrs. Betty Bumpers, co-founders of Every Child by Two, the briefing had bi-partisan sponsorship from members of the Senate and House. Leading health organizations, health care professional organizations, and education organizations co-sponsored the briefing.

Carter and Bumpers urged legislators to find the political will and financial backing for development of immunization registries.

 New Federal Attention and Funding

…The education effort paid off. At the July 2000 National Immunization Conference, Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna Shalala promised support through the Medicaid program.

In Fall 2000, Medicaid announced its commitment to fund development and implementation of immunization registries at an enhanced rate of up to 90 percent matching funds for registry costs associated with Medicaid-eligible children (approximately 26 percent of children under age 7).

 

In June 2000, the Institute of Medicine issued Calling the Shots: Immunization Finance Police and Practices, a report on the future of the nation’s immunization system. It noted that community immunization information systems are an important tool to help keep children from but that a commitment must be made to ensure their success.

 

The report, approved by NVAC in January 2001, recommended:

 Continued and increased support for registries through the federal immunization grant program.

Wide promotion of use of Medicaid funds for registries.

Seeking approval to use the CDC’s Vaccines for Children operational funds for registries.

Discussions with insurers/health plans urging them to provide support for registries.

Development of a five-year, $60-million a year grant program to support further development and initial operation of registries.

 

…As All Kids Count II closed in 2001, The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation funded All Kids Count for three years to develop a vision for information systems that will integrate data about multiple health services.

 

 Immunization Registry Strategic Plan 2002-2007

Medicare and Medicaid funding

Federal Direct Assistance Grant Funds

Research Grants

Autism, Vaccines and Human Nature

Autism, Vaccines and Human Nature  By Lisa Jo Rudy

For decades, the magical team of Penn and Teller have been traveling the world, making TV programs, and entertaining Vegas audiences with a show that specifically and effectively debunks the idea that “seeing is believing.” The Amazing Randi has offered $1000000 to anyone that can demonstrate paranormal abilities under laboratory conditions – a prize which is still outstanding.

Despite these high-profile efforts to convince the public that seeing is not believing, many, many people believe wholeheartedly in scientifically unproven phenomena ranging from UFO’s to ESP to communication with the dead. Many of those people will tell you flat out that scientific studies can’t possibly trump the fact that they experienced those phenomena themselves. Some will even say “seeing is believing,” and they will mean it.

Despite a basic understanding of probability, untold millions believe, wholeheartedly, that they will beat the odds in the lottery or at the casino. Millions are presented with convincing studies and public education campaigns that make it crystal clear that smoking, poor diets and lack of exercise lead to life-threatening illness – yet they believe that they will beat the odds.

Knowing all this, I can’t help but feel that doctors and researchers have a strenuous uphill battle on their hands as they strive to explain the science behind vaccines, and the math behind risk analysis.

I just received a book called Do Vaccines Cause That?! by Drs. Martin Myers and Diego Pineda. The purpose of the book, as I understand it, is to demystify vaccines – and thus to make it clear to parents that the risks inherent in avoiding vaccines are far, far greater than the risks inherent in having their children vaccinated. To make the book friendlier, the authors include cartoons – and the publisher created a fun, engaging cover and selected a relatively large font. This really does make the book easier to read, and friendlier to approach.

Flipping through the table of contents, I was impressed by the chapter titles. “Vaccine Side Effects and Risk Perception: What if My Child Is the One in a Million?” and “Cause or Coincidence: How Do I Tell Whether or Not a Vaccine Caused That?!” While the use of exclamation points and question marks may be a little overwhelming, the topics, I thought, were right on.

But when I actually read the chapters, I found that the book was going in a direction quite different from what I expected. The question “What if My Child Is the One in a Million” is unlikely to be resolved, for example, by the authors’ discussion of relative risk. Of course it’s true that we’re taking a greater risk by driving our child to the doctor for a vaccination than we are by allowing the doctor to inject our child. But if our knowledge of relative risk really influenced our behavior, casinos, cigarettes and Keno games would have long since perished from the Earth.

If we live in the world, we can’t avoid cars. We CAN avoid vaccines. So… the real question here is not “what’s riskier than vaccines?” but rather “is there any reliable way to know whether my child is likely to have an adverse reaction to vaccines, and if so – will you, my pediatrician, use that technique to ensure the safety of this shot?”

It’s one thing to involve your child in the daily risks of modern life. It’s another to knowingly and deliberately subject your child to a medical procedure that (at least according to some) could lead to serious consequences. I know, I know – risk analysis tells me there’s virtually nothing to worry about. But were I, today, faced with the question of vaccinations for a newborn infant, would I be comfortable in “just saying yes?” Being a human mother living in today’s world, I’m not sure the choice, even for me, would be simple.

 

Present and Past U.S. Vaccine Schedules

 1980:

1983-2007:

 1990:

HepB- Birth, 2 months, 6 months

DTP- 2mon, 4 mon, 6 mon, 15-18mon, 4-6 years

HIb- all doses between 2-18months

Polio- 4mon, 6mon, 15-18mon, 4-6years

MMR-15 mon, 4years

Td- 14-16 years

 

 

1996:

 1997:

1998:

 

1999:

 

2000:

 

2002:

2004:

 

 

2005:

2007:

 

2008:

1960’s and 1970’s:

DPT

Individual doses of Measles, Mumps, Rubella OR MMR

OPV

Smallpox (before 1972)

 

Belief

What is a belief? It is basically a mental conviction of what one believes to be true. It essentially makes up who you are as it affects your whole life and the decisions you make. This thus forms your belief system. Your belief system is what you live by and tends to be habitual and unwavering. You weren’t born with beliefs. Your beliefs were shaped by you from inputs throughout your life through teachings of others, society, and personal experiences.

 

The vaccine issue is often centered on a belief system.  For instance, an individual who chooses to vaccinate may believe they are safe, believe they are important to health, believe that vaccines are responsible for the decline or elimination of disease, or believe anything their doctors tell them in relation to vaccines. Another example is an individual that believes vaccines aren’t safe, harms health, or do not believe doctors know best. In both examples, their belief systems can outweigh science regardless of what science shows. A belief system becomes more important than facts. An individual or the science itself can provide all the facts, but an individual’s belief system will triumph over facts.

 

 

We all have a need for certainty. Certainty keeps us comfortable. It makes us feel in control and safe, able to understand things, and make our predictions about the world. The need for certainty and a belief system go hand in hand. If a belief system is serving you well, you won’t abandon it on facts. When individuals discuss the vaccine issue, to vaccinate or not to vaccinate, for example; no matter what medical literature is cited, it may allow an acknowledgement, but their choice and decision to vaccinate or to not vaccinate, will generally remain the same because it won’t allow their need for certainty, or their belief system, to be tainted.

 

There are individuals whose beliefs concerning vaccines have changed, or those who look into the vaccine issue for the first time who may not have developed a strong belief system on the issue yet. Generally, individuals that change their beliefs do so because their original belief system tumbled and it no longer served them. This is often seen with parents of vaccine damaged children, or with new parents who are not willing to take the risk of vaccine damage. For them, the risks of vaccines outweigh the risk of illness. When new parents look at the issue with no preconceived belief system, they generally investigate both sides of the issue. Based on what they investigate, they will make their decision and thus form their belief system and their need for certainty.

 

 

 

Is Science What You Think it is?

Is Science What You Think it is?

 

 

What is Science? According to Wikipedia it is defined as:

 

Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning “knowledge” or “knowing”) is the effort to discover, and increase human understanding of how the physical world works. Through controlled methods, scientists use observable physical evidence of natural phenomena to collect data, and analyze this information to explain what and how things work. Such methods include experimentation that tries to simulate natural phenomena under controlled conditions and thought experiments. Knowledge in science is gained through research.

 

Science is ultimately about discovery and discovering ‘new’ laws of nature that have existed since the beginning of time.  Science gets its foundation from mathematics as it provides the methods to compose, correlate, model, analyze, and predict. Statistics, on the other hand, is something that can be misused due to suppression of data, misinterpretation of data, poorly designed experiments, and passing off fiction as fact. Science relies on experiments which have to be reproducible. Experiments should be large (population size, racial, economical, and social for instance) and double blind. Only the product(s) you wish to test should be in the experiment to be truly ‘double blind’. The placebo effect must also be taken into consideration.

 

 

 

Real Science should begin with no conclusions because the scientist is searching for truth and they don’t know what that truth is yet. They would do this by forming a hypothesis, make predictions for the hypothesis, and then test the predictions. The research would then reject or revise the hypothesis. Real science will point out flaws in their research, while junk science pretends there is none. Is raw data really ‘raw’? No, because it is what you planned from the start. The whole experiment from the theory, structure, system, what you believe, what you test, and how you test, etc. will be based on preconceptions. Truth will become what the structure says it is from the very start. The hypothesis will control what science does and will control all the details. So is it truly 100% objective? A hypothesis can be strong, and the belief held that it is correct, which could make things be seen that are not truly there. Some investigations and research end up being left ‘unfinished’ if it looks like the results contradict an accepted view or don’t meet the expected hypothesis.

 

TEN MYTHS OF SCIENCE: REEXAMINING WHAT WE THINK WE KNOW…
(McComas, William, Ten myths of science: Reexamining what we think we know…., Vol. 96, School Science & Mathematics, 01-01-1996, pp 10.)

 

Myth 1: Hypotheses Become Theories Which Become Laws

 

 

This myth deals with the general belief that with increased evidence there is a developmental sequence through which scientific ideas pass on their way to final acceptance. Many believe that scientific ideas pass through the hypothesis and theory stages and finally mature as laws. A former U.S. president showed his misunderstanding of science by saying that he was not troubled by the idea of evolution because it was “just a theory.” The president’s misstatement is the essence of this myth; that an idea is not worthy of consideration until “lawness” has been bestowed upon it.

 

 

Myth 2: A Hypothesis is an Educated Guess

 

The term hypothesis has at least three definitions, and for that reason, should be abandoned, or at least used with caution. For instance, when Newton said that he framed no hypothesis as to the cause of gravity he was saying that he had no speculation about an explanation of why the law of gravity operates as it does. In this case, Newton used the term hypothesis to represent an immature theory.

 

Myth 3: A General and Universal Scientific Method Exists

 

 

…The steps listed for the scientific method vary from text to text but usually include, a) define the problem, b) gather background information, c) form a hypothesis, d) make observations, e) test the hypothesis, and f) draw conclusions. Some texts conclude their list of the steps of the scientific method by listing communication of results as the final ingredient.

 

One of the reasons for the widespread belief in a general scientific method may be the way in which results are presented for publication in research journals. The standardized style makes it appear that scientists follow a standard research plan. Medawar (1990) reacted to the common style exhibited by research papers by calling the scientific paper a fraud since the final journal report rarely outlines the actual way in which the problem was investigated.

 

Myth 4: Evidence Accumulated Carefully Will Result in Sure Knowledge

 

… Scientists formulate laws and theories that are supposed to hold true in all places and for all time but the problem of induction makes such a guarantee impossible…

 

The nature of induction itself is another interesting aspect associated with this myth. If we set aside the problem of induction momentarily, there is still the issue of how scientists make the final leap from the mass of evidence to the conclusion. In an idealized view of induction, the accumulated evidence will simply result in the production of a new law or theory in a procedural or mechanical fashion. In reality, there is no such method. The issue is far more complex — and interesting –than that. The final creative leap from evidence to scientific knowledge is the focus of another myth of science.

 

 

Myth 5: Science and its Methods Provide Absolute Proof

 

The problem of induction argues against proof in science, but there is another element of this myth worth exploring. In actuality, the only truly conclusive knowledge produced by science results when a notion is falsified. What this means is that no matter what scientific idea is considered, once evidence begins to accumulate, at least we know that the notion is untrue…whether scientists routinely try to falsify their notions and how much contrary evidence it takes for a scientist’s mind to change are issues worth exploring.

 

Myth 6: Science Is Procedural More Than Creative

 

Induction makes use of individual facts that are collected, analyzed and examined. Some observers may perceive a pattern in these data and propose a law in response, but there is no logical or procedural method by which the pattern is suggested. With a theory, the issue is much the same. Only the creativity of the individual scientist permits the discovery of laws and the invention of theories. If there truly was a single scientific method, two individuals with the same expertise could review the same facts and reach identical conclusions. There is no guarantee of this because the range and nature of creativity is a personal attribute.

 

Myth 7: Science and its Methods Can Answer All Questions

 

Philosophers of science have found it useful to refer to the work of Karl Popper (1968) and his principle of falsifiability to provide an operational definition of science. Popper believed that only those ideas that are potentially falsifiable are scientific ideas.

 

…Science simply cannot address moral, ethical, aesthetic, social and metaphysical questions.

 

 

Myth 8. Scientists are Particularly Objective

 

 

… contributions from both the philosophy of science and psychology reveal that there are at least three major reasons that make complete objectivity impossible.

 

Many philosophers of science support Popper’s (1963) view that science can advance only through a string of what he called conjectures and refutations. In other words, scientists should propose laws and theories as conjectures and then actively work to disprove or refute those ideas…. From a philosophical perspective the idea is sound, but there are no indications that scientists actively practice programs to search for disconfirming evidence.

 

Another aspect of the inability of scientists to be objective is found in theory-laden observation, a psychological notion (Hodson, 1986). Scientists, like all observers, hold a myriad of preconceptions and biases about the way the world operates. These notions, held in the subconscious, affect everyone’s ability to make observations. It is impossible to collect and interpret facts without any bias…. Certain facts either were not seen at all or were deemed unimportant based on the scientists’s prior knowledge. In earlier discussions of induction, we postulated that two individuals reviewing the same data would not be expected to reach the same conclusions. Not only does individual creativity play a role, but the issue of personal theory-laden observation further complicates the situation.

 

 

…scientists work within a research tradition called a paradigm. This research tradition, shared by those working in a given discipline, provides clues to the questions worth investigating, dictates what evidence is admissible and prescribes the tests and techniques that are reasonable. Although the paradigm provides direction to the research it may also stifle or limit investigation. Anything that confines the research endeavor necessarily limits objectivity. While there is no conscious desire on the part of scientists to limit discussion, it is likely that some new ideas in science are rejected because of the paradigm issue. When research reports are submitted for publication they are reviewed by other members of the discipline. Ideas from outside the paradigm are liable to be eliminated from consideration as crackpot or poor science and thus do not appear in print.

 

 

Myth 9. Experiments are the Principle Route to Scientific Knowledge

 

 

…True experiments involve carefully orchestrated procedures along with control and test groups usually with the goal of establishing a cause and effect relationship. Of course, true experimentation is a useful tool in science, but is not the sole route to knowledge.

 

… Scientific knowledge is gained in a variety of ways including observation, analysis, speculation, library investigation and experimentation.

 

 

Myth 10.  All Work in Science is Reviewed to Keep the Process Honest.

 

… professional scientists are also constantly reviewing each other’s experiments to check up on each other. Unfortunately, while such a check and balance system would be useful, the number of findings from one scientist checked by others is vanishingly small In reality, most scientists are simply too busy and research funds too limited for this type of review.

 

The result of the lack of oversight has recently put science itself under suspicion. With the pressures of academic tenure, personal competition and funding, it is not surprising that instances of outright scientific fraud do occur. However, even without fraud, the enormous amount of original scientific research published, and the pressure to produce new information rather than reproduce others’ work dramatically increases the chance that errors will go unnoticed.

 

 

 

What is Junk Science? Junk science is defined by Wikipedia as:

 

Junk science is a term used in U.S. political and legal disputes that brands an advocate’s claims about scientific data, research, analyses as spurious. The term conveys a pejorative connotation that the advocate is driven by political, ideological, financial, or other unscientific motives.

The term was first used in relation to expert testimony in civil litigation. More recently, it has been used to criticize research on the harmful environmental or public health effects of corporate activities, and occasionally in response to such criticism. “Junk science” is often counterposed to “sound science“, a term used to describe studies that favor the accuser’s point of view. It is the role of political interests which distinguishes debate over junk science from discussions of pseudoscience and controversial science.

 

So basically, junk science is scientific data and analysis that is ‘faulty’ and used to advance hidden agendas. Who then uses Junk Science?

 

 

1. The media for attention-getting headlines, and/or used for social or political agendas.

 

2. Social Activists to achieve social or political gain/change or to change beliefs.

 

3. Injury lawyers to award compensation and win large verdicts.

 

4. Government regulators as a way to increase budgets or expand their authority.

 

5. Individual Scientists to achieve fortune, fame, and can be used by the government for   their purposes.

 

6.  Businesses to make negative claims against their competitors.

 

7.  Politicians to gain favor with activist groups.

 

 

Junk Science, or otherwise known as pseudoscience, has no single ‘test’ that distinguishes it between science and junk science. There are differences that can become apparent and these differences are consistent. For instance:

 

1.  The primary goal of science is to achieve a more complete and more unified understanding of the physical world.

 

Pseudosciences are more likely to be driven by ideological, cultural, or commercial goals.

 

 

2.  Most scientific fields are the subjects of intense research which result in the continual expansion of knowledge in the discipline.

 

Pseudosciences -The field has evolved very little since it was first established. The small amount of research and experimentation that is carried out is generally done more to justify the belief than to extend it.

 

 

3.  Science-Workers in the field commonly seek out counterexamples or findings that appear to be inconsistent with accepted theories.

 

In the pseudosciences, a challenge to accepted dogma is often considered a hostile act if not heresy, and leads to bitter disputes or even schisms.

 

 

4.  Observations or data that are not consistent with current scientific understanding, once shown to be credible, generate intense interest among scientists and stimulate additional studies.

 

Pseudosciences – Observations or data that are not consistent with established beliefs tend to be ignored or actively suppressed.

 

5.  Science is a process in which each principle must be tested in the crucible of experience and remains subject to being questioned or rejected at any time.

 

Pseudosciences – The major tenets and principles of the field are often not falsifiable, and are unlikely ever to be altered or shown to be wrong.

 

6.  Scientific ideas and concepts must stand or fall on their own merits, based on existing knowledge and on evidence.

 

Pseudoscientific concepts tend to be shaped by individual egos and personalities, almost always by individuals who are not in contact with mainstream science. They often invoke authority (a famous name, for example) for support.

 

 

7.  Scientific explanations must be stated in clear, unambiguous terms.

 

Pseudoscientific explanations tend to be vague and ambiguous, often invoking scientific terms in dubious contexts.

 

 

 

How is Junk Science used in public relations? Most often it is in the disguise of public ‘health’ or ‘environment protection’. They will seek to prove conclusions are true for an economic profit. It is often done by attaching famous ‘scientists’ names. Only when it becomes too obvious to hide the truth, will a quiet phase out take place. Anyone who speaks out against the agenda, that is bought and paid for, will be debunked and labeled ‘junk science’, even if it is true. What is often deemed ‘junk science’, by those in a higher standing in the scientific community, defends something that threatens the health agenda or the environment for the good of all.

 

..to be continued

 

Antibodies Do NOT Produce Immunity

 

Antibodies do not produce immunity. 

The immune system consists of at least two parts which are the humoral and the cellular. When one is activated the other is suppressed. Because of this, the new approach has been to try and prevent suppression.

 

Dr. Rebecca Carly explains:

The mechanism by which the immune system is corrupted can best be realized when you understand that the two poles of the immune system (the cellular and humoral mechanisms) have a reciprocal relationship in that when the activity of one pole is increased, the other must decrease. Thus, when one is stimulated, the other is inhibited.  Since vaccines activate the B cells to secrete antibody, the cytotoxic (killer) T cells are subsequently suppressed.  (In fact, progressive vaccinia (following vaccination with smallpox) occurs in the presence of high titers of circulating antibody to the virus¹ combined with suppressed cytotoxic T cells, leading to spreading of lesions all over the body).  This suppression of the cell mediated response is thus a key factor in the development of cancer and life threatening infections.  In fact, the “prevention” of a disease via vaccination is, in reality, an inability to expel organisms due to the suppression of the cell-mediated response.  Thus, rather than preventing disease, the disease is actually prevented from ever being resolved.  The organisms continue circulating through the body, adapting to the hostile environment by transforming into other organisms depending on acidity, toxicity and other changes to the internal terrain of the body as demonstrated by the works of Professor Antoine Béchamp.  He established this prior to the development of the “germ theory” of disease by Louis Pasteur.  Pasteur’s “germ theory” was a plagiarist’s attempt to reshape the truth from Béchamp into his own “original” premise – the beLIEf that germs are out to “attack” us, thereby causing dis-ease. Thus, treatment of infection with antibiotics as well as “prevention” of disease with vaccines are both just corrupted attempts at cutting off the branches of dis-ease, when the root of the cause is a toxic internal environment combined with nutritional deficiency.  However, since Pasteur’s germ theory was conducive to the profits of the burgeoning pharmaceutical cartels that only manage dis-ease, no mention of the work of Professor Béchamp is made in medical school curricula.

     To make matters worse than the suppression of cellular immunity which occurs when vaccines are injected, adjuvants (which are substances added to vaccines to enhance the antibody response) can actually lead to serious side effects themselves. Adjuvants include oil emulsions, mineral compounds (which may contain the toxic metal aluminum), bacterial products, liposomes (which allow delayed release of substances), and squalene.  The side effects of adjuvants themselves include hyperactivity of B cells leading to pathologic² levels of antibody production,  as well as allergic reaction to the adjuvants themselves (as demonstrated in Gulf War I soldiers injected with vaccines containing the adjuvant squalene, to which antibodies were found in many soldiers). Note that the pathologically elevated hyperactivity of antibody production caused by adjuvants also results in a distraction from the other antigens that the immune system encounters “naturally”, which must be addressed to maintain health.

 

Antibodies

 

When a B lymphocyte encounters an antigen, it is stimulated to mature into a plasma cell, which then produces antibodies (also called immunoglobulins, or Ig). Antibodies protect the body by helping other immune cells ingest antigens, by inactivating toxic substances produced by bacteria, and by attacking bacteria and viruses directly. Antibodies also activate the complement system. Antibodies are essential for fighting off certain types of bacterial infections.

Each antibody molecule has two parts. One part varies; it is specialized to attach to a specific antigen. The other part is one of five structures, which determines the antibody’s class-IgG, IgM, IgD, IgE, or IgA. This part is the same within each class.

IgM: This class of antibody is produced when a particular antigen is encountered for the first time. The response triggered by the first encounter with an antigen is called the primary antibody response. Normally, IgM is present in the bloodstream but not in the tissues.

IgG: The most prevalent class of antibody, IgG is produced when a particular antigen is encountered again. This response is called the secondary antibody response. It is faster and results in more antibodies than the primary antibody response. IgG is present in the bloodstream and tissues. It is the only class of antibody that crosses the placenta from mother to fetus. The mother’s IgG protects the fetus and infant until the infant’s immune system can produce its own antibodies.

IgA: These antibodies help defend against the invasion of microorganisms through body surfaces lined with a mucous membrane, including those of the nose, eyes, lungs, and digestive tract. IgA is present in the bloodstream, in secretions produced by mucous membranes, and in breast milk.

IgE: These antibodies trigger immediate allergic reactions (see Allergic Reactions: Introduction). IgE binds to basophils (a type of white blood cell) in the bloodstream and mast cells in tissues. When basophils or mast cells with IgE bound to them encounter allergens (antigens that cause allergic reactions), they release substances that cause inflammation and damage surrounding tissues. Thus, IgE is the only class of antibody that often seems to do more harm than good. However, IgE may help defend against certain parasitic infections that are common in some developing countries.

IgD: Small amounts of these antibodies are present in the bloodstream. The function of IgD is not well understood.

An Introduction to Immunity

 

INNATE IMMUNITY = This can best be described as GENETIC IMMUNITY or that immunity an organism is BORN WITH. This type of immunity can be an immunity that applies to the vast majority of the members of a species (SPECIES IMMUNITY), or it can be an immunity that applies to only a certain subgroup within a species down to a few individuals within that species. For example, cattle suffer from the cowpox virus, but appear to have a SPECIES IMMUNITY to the closely related smallpox viruses, whereas smallpox is a deadly disease to humans , but cowpox is a mild localized skin infection. Humans are susceptible to the HIV virus, but most of our related primates are immune to HIV, but they suffer from HIV-like viruses to which we appear to be immune. Within a species there may exist SUBGROUPS that are STATISTICALLY immune or resistant to particular pathogens. For example, the Northern Europeans appears to be more resistant to tuberculosis than are most Africans, whereas Africans are naturally resistant to a variety of African diseases that readily kill the “whites”. Finally, because of the genetic variation within every species INDIVIDUALS are statistically more resistant to some diseases, and more susceptible to other diseases. Most of you know those within your own families that “rarely” get colds or the flu, while other family members catch one respiratory infection after another. While there are many factors (diet, stress etc.) that could explain these individual differences, one of them is that certain COMBINATIONS OF GENES render some more resistant to the common cold viruses, whereas others of us are very susceptible. This type of immunity has NOTHING TO DO WITH the type of specific immunity we are discussing in this section.

ACQUIRED IMMUNITY = This refers to immunity that one acquires in one of two ways, active or passive. These are subdivided into the following further categories:

a) ACTIVE NATURALLY ACQUIRED IMMUNITY = This occurs when individuals suffer from
    a natural infection of a pathogen and become immune to that pathogen upon recovery (e.g.
    chickenpox)
b) ACTIVE ARTIFICIALLY ACQUIRED IMMUNITY = This occurs when individuals are
    actively vaccinated with an antigen that confers immunity.

c) PASSIVE NATURALLY ACQUIRED IMMUNITY = This occurs when individuals receive
    antibodies from their mother by a natural process, such as in BREAST MILK or in-utero transfer of
    antibodies from mother to fetus. In mammals, mother’s milk is know to contain a large concentration
    of antibodies and other antiviral and antibacterial substance that protect the newborn infants. Further,
    the mother’s antibodies cross the placental barrier, particularly near the end of term. In both these
    circumstances the infant is only resistant to whatever the mother is resistant to.
d) PASSIVE ARTIFICIALLY ACQUIRED IMMUNITY = This occurs when individuals are
    injected with POOLED serum from immune individuals that contain antibodies against a large number
    of pathogens. In the case of humans, a fraction of blood serum, GAMMA GLOBULIN, that is
    highly enriched in antibodies is injected into individuals that have been exposed to certain pathogens.
    The GAMMA GLOBULIN is obtained from pooled sera from many individuals and thus contains a
    broad spectrum of antibodies.

 

LENGTH OF IMMUNITY

PASSIVE acquired immunity is short lived as the antibodies eventually die off or are themselves removed from the body as foreign protein. Since the person receiving the passive dose DOES NOT PRODUCE their own antibodies, the immunity is TRANSIENT.

The ACTIVE forms of immunity are generally long lived, particularly in the case of recovery from a CLINICAL INFECTION. Sometimes this immunity it lifelong, but in other cases it is not. Vaccinations may induce long-lived immunity, but recent data indicate that vaccinations may not last as long as once was hoped. For example, there is a very effective vaccine against tetanus, but it lasts only a few years and every year hundreds of people who have been vaccinated against this bacterium die because they have not gotten their BOOSTER SHOTS (vaccinations given periodically to booster the immunity of previous vaccinations) every three to five years.

 

Vaccines and the immune response to vaccination

• Live and live-attenuated vaccines– Live vaccines contain either low doses or doses of mild forms of the disease organism. Live-attenuated vaccines contain living disease organisms that have been treated in some way to reduce their ability to cause disease while still causing an immune response. Both of these vaccines contain living organisms that are able to infect and multiply in the host and this enhances the strength and duration of the immune response.

 

• Killed (or inactivated) vaccines– Killed contain high doses of the killed disease organism. Killed vaccines generally result in a weaker and shorter immune response than live vaccines due to their inability to infect and multiply in the host.

 

• Sub-unit vaccines– These vaccines contain doses of purified antigens extracted from the disease organism.

 

• Recombinant vaccines– These vaccines are produced by incorporating the DNA for the antigens that stimulate a disease response to a disease organism into a vector (or carrier), such as a harmless virus, which is then used as a live vaccine.

 

• DNA vaccines– These vaccines contain purified DNA for the antigens that stimulate an immune response to a disease organism.

 

• Conjugate vaccines– These vaccines are used to elicit an immune response to an antigen that is normally able to evade detection by the immune system. They contain the antigen bound to a compound, such as a protein, to form a complex that is detectable by the immune system.

 

Antibody titers and immunity: Are they related?

Dr. Tedd Koren, D.C. stated, “Whenever we read vaccine papers, the MD researchers always assume that if there are high antibody levels after vaccination, then there is immunity (immunogencity). But are antibody levels and immunity the same? No! Antibody levels are not the same as IMMUNITY. The recent MUMPS vaccine fiasco in Switzerland has re-emphasized this point. Three mumps vaccines-Rubini, Jeryl-Lynn and Urabe (the one withdrawn because it caused encephalitis)- all produced excellent antibody levels but those vaccinated with the Rubini strain had the same attack rate as those not vaccinated at all, there were some who said that it actually caused outbreaks.” [Ref: Schegal M et al Comparative efficacy of three mumps vaccines during disease outbreak in Switzerland: cohort study. BMJ, 1999; 319:352-3.]

According to Trevor Gunn, B.Sc., “Many measles vaccine efficacy studies relate to their ability to stimulate an antibody response, (sero-conversion or sero-response). An antibody response does not necessarily equate to immunity….the level of antibody needed for effective immunity is different in each individual….immunity can be demonstrated in individuals with a low or no detectable levels of antibody. Similarly in other individuals with higher levels of antibody there may be no immunity. We therefore need to stay clear on the issue: How do we know if the vaccine is effective for a particular individual when we do not know what level of antibody production equals immunity?”

Dr. John March, a developer of animal vaccines, wrote, “Particularly for viral diseases, the ‘cellular’immune response is all important, and antibody levels and protection are totally unconnected.”

It is clear that immunity does not come from antibodies or even ‘memory cells’, although memory cells may play a small part in the much larger processes of protecting health. If a person is healthy, first time natural exposure to a virus does not necessarily result in disease. In fact, the majority of first time exposures result in no symptoms but do result in ‘antibodies’ which ‘prove the exposure’ but also prove that immunity was present before the exposure. Total body health is the only true immunity. The concept that immunity comes from ‘memory cells’ is none-the-less valuable in that it points out that booster shots are totally unnecessary. Knowing that total health equals immunity is a basic key to understanding that vaccinations are unnecessary and ineffective.

 

Titers: What do they tell us?

A “titer” is a measurement of how much antibody to a certain virus (or other antigen) is circulating in the blood at that moment. Titers are usually expressed in a ratio, which is how many times they could dilute the blood until they couldn’t find antibodies anymore. So let’s say they could dilute it two times only and then they didn’t find anymore, that would be a titer of 1:2. If they could dilute it a thousand times before they couldn’t find any antibody, then that would be a titer of 1:1000.

A titer test does not and cannot measure immunity, because immunity to specific viruses is reliant not on antibodies, but on memory cells, which we have no way to measure. Memory cells are what prompt the immune system to create antibodies and dispatch them to an infection caused by the virus it “remembers.” Memory cells don’t need “reminders” in the form of re-vaccination to keep producing antibodies.

Vaccine Titer Table

This just doesn’t apply to humans but pets as well.

A Rebuttal to the Doublespeak in:”Parents, officials struggle over right to refuse vaccines”

A Rebuttal to the Doublespeak in:

“Parents, officials struggle over right to refuse vaccines”

by Dr. King, PhD

 

 

 

 

Questions for the Doc

Here’s a list of things to talk with your doctor about in relationship to vaccines:

 

 
Is there any reason I shouldn’t vaccinate? 
 
Are you vaccinated with every vaccination you’re recommending me to give to my child? Have your own children had all of these vaccines? 
 
What studies have been done to prove their safety? Who funded these studies (if any exist)? 
 
What studies have been done to prove their efficacy? Who funded these studies (if any exist)? 
 
Vaccines contain mercury; even residual amounts, formaldehyde, aluminum, MSG, phenol, etc. What are the safety studies on their use? 
 
Vaccines sometimes contain 3-5 viruses in one shot. Would a baby normally contract 3-5 diseases at one time? Is it really safe to expose my baby to many different diseases at one time?

 
Why don’t vaccines give life long immunity? 
 
Do we know if my child is not allergic to eggs? Do we know if my child is not allergic to antibiotics?  

What genetic material is being injected into a child’s body along with the vaccine? What are the possible consequences to those ingredients? What studies have been preformed to prove that it’s safe? 
 
Have vaccines been tested for carcinogenic material?

 

Have vaccines been tested for teratogenic (gene altering) effects?

 

Have vaccines been tested for reproductive system affects? What studies prove their safety? 
 
What is the National Vaccine Injury Act?  
 
What is VAERS?

 
Insurance companies do not cover for damage to life and property due to: 
*Acts of God 
*Nuclear war and nuclear power plant accidents 
*Vaccination 
Why is vaccination on this list? 
 
Do we legally have to vaccinate? Are there exemptions? 
 
If my child suffers adverse reactions to any vaccine can I file suit against the manufacturers of the product? 

 

These questions are very important and it’s your right to know for a fully informed consent.

What will Ultimately Guide Your Decision

Your decision will ultimately be driven by fear or become one of conviction based on your philosophy, which fear will have no part.

     Fear and the Vaccine Decision:

• Fear of a reaction to a vaccine will outweigh the fear of the disease(s).
• Fear of the disease(s) outweigh the fear of a vaccine reaction.
• Fear and selective vaccinators-they won’t fear the disease(s) they vaccinated for, but may obsess over the disease(s) they didn’t vaccinate for.
• Fear and Risk Figures-it won’t be the actual overall figure that steers your decision, but whether you think your child will be that one child. Example: the 1/1000 figure whether it be a disease or a reaction.

     Fear is the biggest emotion in connection with the vaccine issue. That is why your fear must be addressed before making a decision. Things to think about:

• Vaccine trials do not represent everyone. Statistical norms bear no relationship to individual risks because that is unique to every person.
• No vaccine information, not even package inserts, disclose all information. Some information is considered ‘trade secrets’, or are sealed documents.
• Even if your child is immunologically more at risk of a disease, those same factors may make them more at risk from the vaccine.
• Medical literature and the pharma industry will slant their material based on the emotion of fear. The big message will always be: Immunization saves you or death is on the other side. They have and always will, take a disease and focus on the worst symptoms. They will leave out key facts so you don’t see the lies nor the truth.
• Medical literature and the pharma industry will make the benefits of vaccines sound simple and easy. They count on parents having a lack of critical thinking and count on blind faith.
• Always remember-not one illness can’t have serious consequences if the conditions are right, and the majority don’t have vaccines for them.
• Vaccines are a trade-off and there are consequences even if you can’t see it or it is not immediate.
• If vaccines were safe, manufacturers would not need federal legislation to protect them from liability-vaccine injury or death. If they were effective, no one would question their use nor value. If they were healthy for us, there would be no state mandates for daycare or schools, nor be forced.
• False evidence that appears real is the greatest strategy ever invented. So study your history.
• Research what both sides have to say, pro and con, and weigh the difference.
• Vaccine manufacturers and government officials will justify the cost of vaccine programs by showing the correlation between the money spent on vaccines and lives saved and/or health care costs saved. Vaccine injuries or death are rarely reported. The money spent to care for vaccine injuries or death, or the money spent in court to prove the injury or death, should be published publically as well to balance both sides of the financial cost. To date $1,804,415,262.35 has been paid out. (That doesn’t even begin to count in all the injuries or deaths that aren’t included in the VICP)

     Once you face your fear, then you are ready to make a decision. A parent who addresses the vaccine issue and how it relates to their lifestyle, health, diet, etc., will not have a philosophy based on fear any longer. Those who vaccinate will typically believe their child is protected for life and fear stagnates, as they no longer feel they have to think about the issue. Only if their child has a vaccine reaction, or if their child gets the disease anyway, will fear again be addressed.

What happens after your decision is made?

     If you believe a vaccine equates to 100% protection and no risk of disease, yet your child gets the disease, or a vaccine reaction occurs, how are you going to react? if you choose not to vaccinate and your child gets a disease, how are you going to react? Will the former blame the medical profession for vaccine damage or death because of the choice you made to accept them? If you don’t vaccinate and your child catches a disease and gets very ill from it, are you going to blame others? Well, here is a NEWSFLASH: Others are NOT your scapegoat. Your choice is exactly that-Yours to own. You did your own research, you know about exemptions, the immune system, diet, etc., and you made your choice. Like anything else in life; you live with the choices you make based on what you know at the time.

     The decision to not vaccinate will mean you go against the grain of the majority, so a thick skin and strong convictions in your beliefs are necessary. Vaccinating parents will simply get a smile, a pat on the head, and be the good sheep the pharma industry and government wants them to be.

     The decision is not easy and can be one of the hardest you will ever make for your child.

To Vaccinate or Not…

Questions to think about when looking at the vaccine issue: 
 
1) What is your decision to be based on?  The science or guided by your own fears? Pressure of health professional, or your own gut feeling? Faith? 
 
2) What is your personal parenting philosophy? 

3) Do you know how to treat the diseases we have vaccines for, whether you decide to vaccinate or not? 
 
4) If something goes wrong such as complications, side effects, or even death, whether you vaccinate or not, do you have a faith or support system which will see you through the crisis?

5) How are you going to achieve daily good health?  

6) Do you have convictions that will not be compromised no matter what pressures and arguments are thrown your way?  

7) Once you make your decision, are you prepared to accept responsibility for it? 

8)  If you are unwilling to make a well-informed decision, then you have to allow someone else to make it for you. If you allow your responsibility to be made by another person, are you prepared to accept the outcomes without blame?

Building a Baby from the Foundation Upwards:

                                Building a Baby from the Foundation Upwards:

Neurological Issues Can Start From Conception If the Conditions Are Right

 

 Genetics, nutrition, environmental toxins, vaccines, and their combined impact on the immune system, can all play a role in Autism spectrum disorders. Think of it as a pyramid with the child at the top and all the damaging features underneath starting in utero. Some children don’t need vaccines to tip them over the edge if the child was born at the top or near the top of the pyramid to begin with. Other children who are close to the top, all they would need is a major mineral imbalance combined with one or two vaccines to tip them over the edge.

Think about this quote in the United States Senate on May 12, 1999 by Dr. Bonnie Dunbar, a Professor of Immunobiology:

“I would challenge any colleague, clinician or research scientist to claim that we have a basic understanding of the human newborn immune system. It is well established in studies in animal models that the newborn immune system is very distinct from the adolescent or adult. In fact, the immune system of newborns in animal models can easily be perturbed to ensure that it cannot respond properly later in life.”

 

Children who have gone into an immediate regressive autism after vaccines are the ones who may have been able to cope, and not tipped over the edge, if they had more time to mature their immature immune systems.  Others, without vaccines, were just too close to the top of the pyramid at birth or in utero.

 

Birth Control Pill Use:

 

Anything that affects hormones enough to stop a lining shedding could cause issues. The use of hormones disrupts mineral balance, and further disturbs the normal running of metabolic pathways. If enough are disturbed, then it could contribute to an unstable foundation for a baby. The pill can strip out magnesium, zinc, B6, folic acid and EFA’s from the body.

The pill can skew the hormone system long-term and changes vascular circulation permanently, and further trashes the body’s supply of magnesium, zinc, B vitamins, folic acid and essential fatty acids. All these things lay the foundation for a pregnancy in which fetal nutrient absorption comes from a deficit position right at the outset.

Dr. Ellen Grant wrote a book called Sexual Chemistry which explains it. She was involved in the original large trials on what the pill does to the body.

 Also:  

…”Our studies in 1981 and 1989 found significantly higher concentrations of copper and cadmium in hair in dyslexic children compared with matched controls.1,2 Sweat zinc was severely deficient in the dyslexic children, being 66% lower than that for control children. However, the control children in 1989 had much lower average zinc level than the children tested for laboratory reference range purposes 10 years before in 1979.2,3 Zinc deficiency allows accumulation of toxic metals which may be important causes of the increase in autism, asthma, dyslexia and hyperactivity in the past few decades.4,5

Biolab Medical Unit offers analyses of all toxic metal levels in blood, metal sensitivity tests and the effects of toxic metal substitution on proteins and some binding sites.6,7 Dr John McLaren- Howard presented the results of testing 61 autistic children at a Biolab Workshop for Doctors in June 2004, as he was attempting to find out which nutritional tests should be recommended. Among the 42 boys and 19 girls most were deficient in zinc and magnesium. Many were also deficient in copper, chromium, manganese, molybdenum and B vitamins. Therefore, essential fatty acids were also likely to be deficient. 16 children had DNA-adducts in leucocytes to malondialdehyde, 12 to cadmium, 9 to nickel. Three of the 61 children had DNA-adducts to mercury and one had DNA- adducts to lead. 37 children had antigliadin IgG antibodies, while 30 children had malabsorption detected by a D-xylose test. Malabsorption was most common in those with Asperger’s type syndrome, 16 out of 18 children.

The zinc and magnesium lowering effects of maternal use of progesterones and oestrogens, parental smoking and alcohol use and parental dental mercury and other dental metal levels like nickel and tin, need to be looked at in larger studies. Mercury is a toxic metal whether it is in dental amalgams or in vaccines. If 5% of autistic children show evidence of signs of mercury exposures, this still means large numbers of children have been adversely affected. Clearly the increasing incidence of childhood diseases needs proper biochemical scientific investigations.”

  
Environmental:

 

Pollutants ‘in children’s blood’  

Toxic metals for vegetable fruit sprays, like Arsenate of copper and Arsenate of Mercury, DDT used to be used. Now, sprays are different, but are they really better? Our stolen future  and Chem Trails.  

 

Vaccines:

 

The vaccine becomes the bullet for many children. They start out seemingly healthy, even with perhaps a shaky foundation. But once the bullet (vaccine) is injected, they begin to spiral downwards. Symptoms are pathway dysfunction, not illness.

 

Diet and Nutrition/Minerals:

 

Copper and zinc are important because if they are out of sync the enzymes that create neurotransmitters, that the brain cells use to transmit their messages from one brain cell to another, won’t work properly. B6 works with those. Proper balance is what is needed because if you get the copper and zinc right, you can modulate the brains regulation of mood and reaction to stress. These enzymes also need B6; as B6 often helps in treating depression. In women, low zinc and high copper can be linked to ‘rage’ episodes during PMS.

Suphur has a key interaction with selenium. Selenium is good for skin, hair, nails, to build certain amino acids in the cells and brain, and make sulfonated compounds for the joints.  When there is a deficiency, there is a reduction in the activity of the enzyme gluthathione peroxidase. This results in reduced immune function, which has its greatest effect on the helper T dependent cells,  and production of Ig.M is impaired. IgM is one of the front line Th1 antibodies which are made in the early stages of an infection. Children suffering from malnutrition fail to grow when given a recuperative diet, if it remains selenium deficient because selenium is necessary for protein synthesis. While it protects against the toxic effects of the pollutant cadmium, and mercury from all sources, it also increases the effectiveness of vitamin E, and it reduces the chances of all types of cancer. In communities where selenium intake is low, the cancer rate is high.

Maternal selenium nutrition and neonatal immune system development.

Skeletal muscle disorders associated with selenium deficiency in humans.
Deficiency in selenium or Vitamin E also shows reduced natural killer cell activity. With regard to the enzymes; Glutathione is essential for:
-detoxification and liver function
-effective immune response
-antioxidant defense
-male fertility (low sperm counts)

-blood sugar metabolism
-blood pressure regulation
-tumor inhibition
-inhibition of thrombus formation in diabetes
-prevention of neurodegenerative disorders like Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson disease, Huntington’s chorea, stroke and brain trauma.

Effective Glutathione is important for T cell proliferation, development of large CD8+ T cells, cytotoxic T cell activity and production of CD16+ natural killer cells. Glutathione protects and repairs liver tissue under severe acute and chronic alcohol exposure.

Selenium protects against the toxic effects of the pollutants cadmium, and mercury. It helps prevent chromosome breakage in tissue culture. It is the basis of the unique enzyme system Glutathione peroxidase, which destroys peroxides before they can attack cellular membranes, while the vitamin E acts within the membrane itself preventing the oxidation of membrane lipids.

When discussing epigenetics; they know demethylation is carried down through the generations and they know it can be reversed.

 This is the list of tests a DAN doctor may perform:

*Complete blood count w/ differential and platelet count
*Serum metabolic assay (complete)
*Thyroid profile (T3, T4 and TSH)
*Amino acid profile (plasma)
*Organic acid profile (urine)
*Ammonia level
*Lactic acid level
*Pyruvic acid level (pyruvate)
*Heavy metal profile (lead, mercury, arsenic and cadmium), blood
*Vitamin A level
*Zinc and copper (serum)
*Measles, mumps and rubella antibody IGG titers
*Fragile X
*IgG, A, M, E
*IGG subclasses
*T cell function tests
*Myelin basic protein and neural axon filament antibodies

 But other minerals should be tested as well such as:

*Magnesium

*Chromium

*Selenium

*Aluminum

*Dysbiosis  

 

Immunologist have begun to test for a genetic variant in an enzyme called  Methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR) and  Glutathione.  
METALLOTHIONINE PROTEIN DYSFUNCTION
Diseases that can occur because of MT protein dysfunction include:
· Psoriasis and eczema
· ADD and ADHD
· Autism
· Schizophrenia and Obsessive Compulsive disorder
· Anorexia
· Alcoholism
· Chronic fatigue syndrome
· Alzheimer’s

Metallothionine protein disorder is thought to be a genetic defect involving more than one gene. This disorder results in a decreased ability of the MT protein to function normally. Metallothionine protein helps regulate zinc and copper levels in the blood,  withdrawal heavy metals as they enter the body, help development and continued functioning of the immune system, help development and pruning of brain cells, (neurons), help prevent  yeast overgrowth in the intestines, aid in the production of enzymes that break down casein and gluten, aid in the production of hydrochloric acid by stomach cells, help taste and texture discrimination by the tongue, and aid in the behavior control and development of memory and social skills.

In 2000, William Walsh, Ph.D. of the Pfeiffer Treatment Center discovered that the majority of autistic patient’s exhibit MT dysfunction and the classic signs of autism can be explained by a MT dysfunction. There are four primary types of MT proteins and each has an important role in the body.

MT-I and II are present in all cells throughout the body. They regulate copper and zinc, are involved in cell transcription, detoxify heavy metals, play a role in the immune function, and are involved in a variety of G.I. tract functions.

MT-III is found primarily in the brain and functions as a gross inhibitory factor in the brain. MT-III is located primarily in the central nervous system with small amounts present in the pancreas and intestines. It plays a major role in the development, organization and programmed death of brain cells.

MT-IV is found in the skin and upper G.I. tract. They help regulate stomach acid pH, taste and texture discrimination of the tongue and help protect against sunburn and other skin traumas.

Theories for the Pathophysiology of Autism:

Brain autoimmunity
Deficits in sulfur metabolism
Abnormal liver detoxification
Gastrointestinal abnormalities

 

Possible Causes of Immune Injury or Alterations:

 

 

 

A genetic weakness (C4B null allele) and/or predisposition, combined with one or more of the following:
1) Shortened or absent breast-feeding preventing the full development of transferred cellular immunity. (Fudenberg)

2) Early gluten (usually wheat) introduction prior to one year of age. Wheat has been genetically manipulated in the last 100 years to increase the gluten content.

3) Early use of cow’s milk or casein based formulas. (Allergenic and altered)

4) Immunizations with live viruses, especially the MMR after 1978. There is frequent regression after the MMR vaccine that has been observed and published (Wakefield). Other vaccinations and the resulting effects on interleukin or autoimmunity. (Singh) DPT (especially if whole cell pertussis is used) and HepB (not live viruses) may also play a role in immune alterations.

5) Use of antibiotics and resulting yeast and pathogenic bacteria infection or overgrowth, with resulting immune modification and toxic exposure. (Shaw, Fudenberg, Wuepper)

6) Maternal allergy, chronic fatigue syndrome, or leaky gut problems that caused the child to be pre-sensitized in the womb. (Fudenberg)

7) Leaky gut from any number of the above or also related to parasites or GI infections in the child that allow gluten and casein to leak into the bloodstream. Once in the body, the body alters them into toxic substances. Sucrose (table sugar) also leaks in and it is an abnormal sugar in the blood stream that causes a host of problems.

8) Defect in the detoxification pathway of the brain, Phenol Sulfur-Transferase or PST enzyme defect. Inadequate intake of sulfur compounds. (Rosemary Waring, Birmingham University, England).

9) They develop autoantibodies to Myelin Basic Protein (Singh, Fudenberg, and Gupta) and other brain components. Measles is known to induce MBP antibodies. I’ll talk about this a lot more later.

10) Defective cellular immunity, especially in the NK cell activity towards self and pathogens. (Fudenberg, Gupta). And the probable elevation of Interleukin-2 and 12.

 

Jeff Bradstreet, M.D., FAAFP
The International Child Development Resource Center  
Let’s break each one above down…

1. Breast milk creates the right probiotics which absorb minerals the right way, and provide the foundation for cellular immunity and nutrient absorption. The gut makes up 70 % of the immune system.  It also plays a role in e-coli endotoxin production.

2. It has nothing to do with the gluten. Salivary fluid has an enzyme in it, to break down grains when the molar teeth cut. Celiac for example isn’t caused by too much gluten. It’s caused by lack of the enzyme opening the pathway to those with epigenetic susceptibility. Before 1900’s, celiac was pretty much unheard of. More gluten isn’t good for some people.

3. Unpasteurized animal milk worked well versus pasteurized.

4.  True, but you only know what you have looked at. What about the others?

5.  Antibiotics cause immune modification all on their own, not necessarily as a result of the resulting yeast and pathogenic bacteria infection and overgrowth. What about e.coli?

6.  What caused the maternal allergy? If you look at minerals and other, you may be able to eliminate the allergy.

7.  Leaky gut would not be a problem if the foundation was laid right and a change in nutrition better understood.

8.  If you have an inadequate intake of sulfur compounds and/or an inadequate intake of other minerals such as magnesium, zinc, selenium.

9.  That is not the cause, but the end result. The cause needs to be worked out.

10.  See # 9.

Fever Reducers
Fever reducers lower glutathione levels. When glutathione levels are reduced, you increase the level of the hormones. They also suppress the immune system further.

 Also See:

 Autism – the vaccine connection 
  
The lutein free diet, a treatment option for autism. Review of lutein as it relates to autism. 
 
The Thoughtful House (2005 Conference)