Wednesday, August 7, 2019

Vaccines Not Primary Cause of Autism

by Jim West (please share and cite)

Four Reasons

Empirical Science


Ultrasound fetal hazards far outweigh vaccine hazards. Ultrasound timelines correlate with autism. Vaccine timelines do not correlate.

Risk

Ultrasound damage is empirically proven at low intensity, at clinical intensity, and this happens with 100% reliability. This goes beyond "risk assessment". The question becomes not if, but why are they doing this? [ref]

Ultrasound is officially described as "harmless". Clearly there is a heavy political component, an investment in fetal damage, which should not be surprising in the context of Machiavellian medical monopoly practice. [ref] [ref]

A few seconds of ultrasound can damage the fetus.



Autism Initiation Timeline


Autism is initiated in the womb at approximately the 20th week gestation. [ref]

This corresponds with prenatal ultrasound, not vaccines. Doctors do not advise routine vaccination at the 20th week, but they do force by intimidation, pregnant women to undergo ultrasound at the 20th week.

Thus, ultrasound fetal damage is the sine qua non for autism. There are exceptions where other forms of radiation could have damaged the fetus, such as x-rays. Vaccines are not a sine quo non.

Vaccines could be a trigger like many other environmental stressors, but more likely it is the antibiotic preservative in the vaccine, not the vaccine itself.

Two primary interviewees in Wakefield's movie, Vaxxed, clearly describe "antibiotics" as the primary causative stressor! This is despite the film's intent -- to promote the concept of vaccine-caused autism.[ref

I spoke several times at length with Wakefield during the Vaxxed premiers in New York. He was "impressed" but would not allow further discussion.

Ultrasound "potentiates" antibiotics by a factor of approximately 100x! This use of ultrasound is an emerging but controversial antibiotic technology on children and adults, yet it is conspicuously not controversial when applied to a fetus. What's the difference? The ability to see ultrasound as the cause of damage.

Similarly, ultrasound intensity for the adult eye is limited to 50mW/cm2, yet for the fetus, limited to 720mW/cm2. What's the difference? The ability to speak and litigate.

Cuba: No Autism


Despite 100% vaccine compliance in Cuba, including the MMR, there has been virtually no autism!

Cuba could not afford to buy or maintain ultrasound machines, thus there was virtually no autism. 

Lately Cuba is being donated ultrasound machines, and Cuba is suffering some rising autism rates. More recently, with trade barriers falling, DUS sales reps are meeting high level officials in Cuba, preparing major sales campaigns.

Japan: Rising Autism


The MMR vaccine was cancelled circa 1992, when Japan suspected that the MMR might be causing autism, yet autism increase more than ever before!

In 1992 Japan increased ultrasound machine allowed intensities by at least 8x-15x. Autism increased though MMR was canceled. They were following the 1991 increase by the FDA.


Discussion


Vaccines are damaging Medical products. Even vaccine manufacturers admit that vaccines are not proven safe nor effective. [ref]

Vaccines are not proven effective because the disease causation paradigms (germs) are not valid. Environmental toxicology is missing from all aspects of disease epidemics --  despite massive industrial poisoning at all disease epicenters in proportion to disease intensity. [ref]

Controlled narrative

The vaccine controversy is a controlled narrative that primarily serves as a smoke screen. Because most anti-vaxers believe in the mainstream disease causation paradigms (germs), the mainstream is able to trick anti-vaxers into dramatizing germ theory and hiding greater medical horrors, such as ultrasound.

For example, the following article will keep anti-vaxers rolling along, as they are encouraged to shout how The New York Times "admits" that vaccine viruses are causing disease.



Anti-vaxers should be arguing causation in terms of toxicology, not virology. That would need to include vaccine-ultrasound synergy.

Vaccines are secondary, one of the several subsequent environmental stressors that can trigger "autism" in the already ultrasound-damaged child.

RFK Jr., Age Of Autism, Blaxill, Wakefield, Handley, etc.


Why do these prominent anti-vaxers have it so wrong? None will answer my emails or personal in-the-face requests for dialogue. None of the autism nonprofits will answer. Yet they know me, for, the leading autism organization (Age of Autism, Mark Blaxill) plagiarized my sensational DDT/Polio research as it launched its website.

They avoid resolution of the autism epidemic. They herd the sheep along while avoiding an effective rebellion. They are compensated well as they mislead people into the virus-vaccine morass. 

RFK, Jr buries ultrasound causation for autism

Until a few years ago, RFK, Jr. seemed to resonate with my most cynical views about Medicine. I thought he was a great and courageous man. Lately, I've realized he is part of the smoke screen, the endless irresolution of autism issues. Here he buries the topic of ultrasound behind flame retardants,  2/15/2017:
A lot of people say well maybe it’s the glyphosate, from the pesticides, maybe it’s PFOA from flame retardants, maybe it’s ultrasound. There’s a number of hypotheses, they all should be investigated. But none of them [except vaccines] has the timing, or the sexual dimorphism that we see that we need to explain, when we look at these disorders.
He conspicuously places ultrasound last, behind "flame retardants". That's not a mistake. So why does he do that?

He is misleading about vaccines being the most obvious cause for autism, because vaccines do not have the proper timing for autism initiation. Ultrasound has the timeline, as I described.

He is misleading about an extraordinary "sexual dimorphism" (the difference of responses per sex) for vaccines -- because males and females usually respond very differently to any poisoning. Why does he even bother with such a statement? Apparently, to use a baffling tech term that includes the word "sexual", to psych out his audience.

Why doesn't RFK, Jr. resolve the vaccine controversy by simply requiring a proof for virus existence? To resolve any issue, it is well known that basic terms must be defined and substantiated. The difficulty of proving virus causation is well known among mainstream experts.
_____________________________________________

Disclaimer: The author is not an authority or professional. For medical advice, see a trusted professional without delay. All statements are hypotheses for discussion. Constructive criticism is welcome.

Fair Use Act Disclaimer.
This site is for discussion purposes only.
Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research.

Intellectual Property Rights
The intellectual property aggregated and redistributed in this site is for educational use only and is considered protected by standards of fair use. Intellectual property owners have been cited where possible. Original material produced for this site is copyright Jim West / harvoa, All rights reserved.

Please support this work by sharing, buying books, or donating.

Sunday, August 4, 2019

Hormesis

by Jim West (please share and cite)

Hormesis describes the true and well-established dose/response curve for toxicity. The word has been censored from all textbooks. FDA refuses to recognize it. It is the fundamental basis for apparent but falsely described pharmaceutical success. Even as I write this, the word "hormesis", Blogger marks it as a misspelling.

This is my most cynical but perhaps realistic view. If we can handle this, perhaps we could find a solution...

Why is the world so toxic?

The 'careless' toxic technology is allowed as part of a management agenda. The insider historian, Yuval Harari, writes, "Humans are managed according to agricultural protocols" [close paraphrase if not exact, from his book "Homo Deus"].

He doesn't explain, but "Agricultural protocols" is a standard concept in toxicology, for example the authoritative Hayes and Laws.

Farm life (cattle and plants) is purposely stressed (with toxic agri-chemicals) to raise the biological metabolism, at the cost of higher levels of disease and death. This increases "production", whatever that may be, e.g., such as egg laying or flesh mass.

For humans, "production" could be anything, such as Asperger obsessive computer programmers. Or an entire Millennial population less able to challenge authoritative corruption.

Hayes and Laws, says this in terms of the human "need for... sufficient but not overpowering challenge".. It is a top-down interest to stress us in nonsensical ways, that benefit upper level management. It is elitist management theory applied universally.
The term "sufficient challenge" introduced by Smyth (1967) refers to the entire range of phenomena and emphasizes the need of the organism for some measure of stress, whether it be a small amount of poison, a fact, he points out that he took the term from Toynbee's concept of "sufficient but not overpowering challenge" in connection with human history.
See my first article on this topic.
______________________________

Disclaimer: The author is not an authority or professional. For medical advice, see a trusted professional without delay. All statements are hypotheses for discussion. Constructive criticism is welcome.

Fair Use Act Disclaimer.
This site is for discussion purposes only.
Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research.

Intellectual Property Rights
The intellectual property aggregated and redistributed in this site is for educational use only and is considered protected by standards of fair use. Intellectual property owners have been cited where possible. Original material produced for this site is copyright Jim West / harvoa, All rights reserved.

Please support this work by sharing, buying books, or donating.

Thursday, August 1, 2019

Wakefield

by Jim West (please share and cite)


New Angle / Old Story


Andrew Wakefield -- I had read about his famous retracted study, but had never directly read the study.

It had seemed obvious that his formidable critic, Brian Deer, is a slime-ball.

Now I'm reading Wakefield's study, as published in The Lancet, 1998. "A. J. Wakefield" is first on the list of authors, as the "senior scientific investigator".

The study reviews 12 children with developmental and intestinal disorders. It associates these symptoms with "environmental triggers", of which, the attenuated viruses of the MMR vaccine are the main focus. [ref]

Toxicology


The word "antibiotic" is mentioned early, yet only once in the entire study.

[Subject four] developed recurrent antibiotic-resistant [middle ear infections] and the first behavioural symptoms...

This is revealing.

Wakefield is bent on avoiding toxicology!

Antibiotics are a common treatment for children. The study's listed "behavioral symptoms" could be the result of the overuse of antibiotics. Antibiotic-resistance could be a bad explanation for the failure of antibiotics for a disease which is actually not infectious, but rather toxicological. Antibiotics would just compound toxic damage.

Doreen Granpeesheh, PhD, describes two toxicological correlations for autism. A) "Very high use of antibiotics", and B) "Families reporting" vaccines prior to autism. 

Granpeesheh is the founder of The Center for Autism and Related Disorders. Her statement is found in Vaxxed, Wakefield's movie (how ironic).

Polly Tommey is one of the movie's producers. She reported that her son was vaccinated prior to her son's autism, however, if you listen carefully to her interview in Vaxxed, the vaccine symptoms merely triggered her -- to bring her son back to the doctor for a regimen of antibiotics.

I attempted to speak with Polly at the NYC movie premiere, but she blew me off, saying, "I'm not smart." I ignored that nonsense, but she repeated, "I'm not smart. Talk to my husband." Mr. Tommey was also unapproachable in the limelight.

Clearly, antibiotics should have been a major concern in Wakefield's study of "environmental triggers".

The study ignores neomycin, a known risk for anaphylactic reactions. This is MMR's antibiotic preservative.

The study mixes the terms, "environmental" and "virus", thereby eliminating the dichotomy (environment vs germ) as a tool for toxicological considerations.

It suggests MMR is an "environmental trigger", however, a trigger must trigger something, such as a pre-existing vulnerability. The study advocates the most highly funded industrial view, "genetic predisposition".

Genetic predisposition is based on twin studies. This is an admittedly weak type of study, which depends on The Equal Environment Assumption, an impossible assumption for twins in a womb exposed to, for example, hazardous ultrasound examinations.

The study ignores fetal ultrasound, which can establish vulnerability to antibiotics. Qian (1996) finds ultrasound "potentiating" subsequent antibiotics by 100-fold. [ref].

Note that the autism histories of Cuba and Japan completely exculpate the MMR yet add to the evidence for ultrasound causation. [ref]

Selection Criteria


The selection criteria is missing. How were the 12 children selected?

The term, "consecutively referred", implies an explanation, but there is none.

12 children, consecutively referred to the department of paediatric gastroenterology with a history of [developmental delay and GI tract disease], were investigated.

Selection criteria can determine the outcome of the study.

Were the 12 subjects picked out of the clear blue sky?  For what specific purpose were they referred? Who requested the children, and how, what context, what letter, what language? Who referred the subjects to the department? What filters were run for any removal of inappropriate subjects?

Invalid Controls


The control group in any study, consists of the healthy subjects. Wakefield acquired his 32 control blood samples at his son's birthday party. He say he paid the children and acquired permission from their parents.

He claims these were "healthy controls" but there is no mention of how he determined their health and private medical histories. His study does not describe his control selection process as that would be an embarrassment, defeating the study outright.

He did not obtain ethics committee approval.

As an example of Wakefield's arrogant confidence in his ability to manipulate people, he sprung his blood-sucking party game on children as young as age 4, at a party where the ability to make a private choice was not possible. The children and their parents were the victims of herd manipulation.

It would not be easy to remove your child from this party or its blood ritual. To deny or complain might mean no more invitations to the house of this rising star in the medical field. You and your child would be cast as cynical kill-joys and there would be subtle social consequences.

Brian Deer, the detestable critic, begins to make sense:

Brian Deer's Summary [ref]


How the case against the MMR vaccine was fixed:
- The Lancet paper was a case series of 12 child patients; it reported a proposed “new syndrome” of enterocolitis and regressive autism and associated this with MMR as an “apparent precipitating event.” But in fact:
- Three of nine children reported with regressive autism did not have autism diagnosed at all. Only one child clearly had regressive autism
- Despite the paper claiming that all 12 children were “previously normal,” five had documented pre-existing developmental concerns
- Some children were reported to have experienced first behavioural symptoms within days of MMR, but the records documented these as starting some months after vaccination
- In nine cases, unremarkable colonic histopathology results—noting no or minimal fluctuations in inflammatory cell populations—were changed after a medical school “research review” to “non-specific colitis”
- The parents of eight children were reported as blaming MMR, but 11 families made this allegation at the hospital. The exclusion of three allegations—all giving times to onset of problems in months—helped to create the appearance of a 14 day temporal link
- Patients were recruited through anti-MMR campaigners, and the study was commissioned and funded for planned litigation
Deer describes Wakefield's financial conflicts. [ref]
According to the figures, released under the Freedom of Information Act, Wakefield was paid £435,643 in fees, plus £3,910 expenses.
Wakefield’s work for the lawyers began two years before he published his now notorious report in The Lancet medical journal in February 1998, proposing a link between the vaccine and autism.
Wakefield did not mentioned the payments in the study.

He says that the payments were actually for a subsequent study (but from the same sponsors). He says he didn't read the fine print as he filled out the conflicts of interest area for the publication application. He says he personally did not find his finances embarrassing and that was good enough to stay silent. [ref]

Richard Horton, senior editor of The Lancet, stated that if the peer-reviewers were aware of this conflict, the study would never have been published.

Wakefield's defenses are based on claims of good intentions, and little science. For example, he defends himself during his 2010 interview with Alan Golding by highlighting (at great length) his moral sense, his desire to help the families of autistic children. [ref]

Political Speculation


Wakefield uses humility to steer autism research towards virology and away from toxicology.
We did not prove an association between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and the syndrome described. Virological studies are underway that may help to resolve this issue.
Virology, as a disease causation paradigm, is moot because it does not discount toxicological factors. [ref]

Wakefield is a medical soldier. He claims to have paused to help families that were damaged by friendly fire. His army prosecutes him for misrepresenting the friendly fire. A public argument ensues, obfuscating the shape of the actual unfriendly fire (Medical poisoning, chemical and radiative).

The Lancet

Wakefield might have gotten a pass if he were not critiquing a vaccine, however, the premier medical publication, The Lancet, readily published his study without sufficient challenge. His flawed study then dangled in The Lancet, a planted seed, awaiting its use as a polarizing device.

How is it possible that this grossly invalid study with anti-vax implications survived the usual biased peer review?

   a) No selection criteria

   b) No valid controls

   c) No conflicts of interest listed

   c) No toxicology

   d) Unsupported virology

No selection criteria: The Lancet cannot be forgiven.

No valid controls: The Lancet cannot be forgiven.

No conflicts of interest listed: The reviewers for The Lancet might be forgiven, because they were not informed of the conflict of interest, though Wakefield claims Horton knew.

No toxicology, and no virology supported: In the context of politics, these are somewhat forgivable for all parties, because this is the hard real politic of publishing in Medicine. Strong toxicology is not allowed. Strong challenges to virology are not allowed. Nevertheless, Wakefield does play the game full on, not worthy for a great medical martyr (his role).

Politically, the study and Wakefield's attention-grabbing scandal is valuable to industry as a disinformational, polarizing martyr theme.

Wakefield is persecuted mainly by Brian Deer, The Lancet, UK General Medical Council, and the mainstream media. As a charade, all of them, including Wakefield and many of his anti-vax fans, are merely avoiding toxicology under cover of great ethical concern.

Shills


Long ago, Wakefield joined with Mark Blaxill, a well-paid omnipresent leader of the autism/vax movement who has been described as a shill and former pharma consultant by investigator Jake Crosby. [ref]

Wakefield, the pro-vaxer, is the martyr for cheering anti-vaxers. He advocates that the 3-in-1 MMR injection be applied as three separate injections. By obsessing on the unconfirmed validity of these three viruses (Measles, Mumps, Rubella), Wakefield advocates three toxic vaccinations instead of one. Update: Wakefield is becoming more anti-vax, but he still maintains the same energy-sucking arguments that avoid the scientific fundamentals, as listed above. [ref]

Co-Authors


As senior scientific investigator, Wakefield managed his co-authors who performed specific tasks.

The co-authors survived the legal procedures that netted Wakefield. They did not come to his defense. Wakefield forgives them, saying their choice is "human nature".

Wakefield says he won't debate Deer because Deer is beneath him.

Vaxxed shows Wakefield with a few colleagues at the famous 1998 press conference at the Royal Free Hospital. One is grim and the other is covering his face as Wakefield presents his study. I doubt this is only because of pharma politics.


_________________________________

Disclaimer: The author is not an authority or professional. For medical advice, see a trusted professional without delay. All statements are hypotheses for discussion. Constructive criticism is welcome.

Fair Use Act Disclaimer.
This site is for discussion purposes only.
Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research.

Intellectual Property Rights
The intellectual property aggregated and redistributed in this site is for educational use only and is considered protected by standards of fair use. Intellectual property owners have been cited where possible. Original material produced for this site is copyright Jim West / harvoa, All rights reserved.

Please support this work by sharing, buying books, or donating.

Utility earth current and radiation

  by Jim West   (please share and cite) Utility earth current  is real , dangerous and ubiquitous , yet it is rarely mentioned by the mainst...