The Gillespie Family

Is Aluminum the New Thimerosal?
By Robert W. Sears
Issue 146, January/February 2008

Vaccines have become the most controversial parenting topic of the decade. When parents are considering whether or not to vaccinate their children, one of the things that must be considered is aluminum toxicity.

Aluminum is added to a number of vaccines to help them work better. Normally, one wouldn't consider aluminum to be a problem. It's a naturally occurring element that is present everywhere in our environment-in food, water, air, and soil. It's also a main ingredient in over-the-counter antacids. And because the body doesn't absorb aluminum, it's harmless when swallowed.

I didn't think much about aluminum when, 13 years ago, I began researching vaccines. In fact, the early seminars on vaccine education that I offered to parents included a brief statement that aluminum was nothing to worry about. But as I read each product insert and saw the number of micrograms (mcg) of aluminum contained in several vaccines, I wondered, "Has anyone determined what a safe level of injected aluminum actually is?" I didn't have to wonder for long, because the answer is easy to find; go to www.fda.gov, search on "aluminum toxicity," and you'll find several documents about aluminum.

The first document I came across discusses the labeling of aluminum content in injected dextrose solutions (the sugar solutions added to intravenous fluids in hospitals): "Aluminum may reach toxic levels with prolonged parenteral administration [ i.e., injected into the body] if kidney function is impaired. Research indicates that patients with impaired kidney function, including premature neonates [ i.e., babies], who received parenteral levels of aluminum at greater than 4 to 5 micrograms per kilogram of body weight per day, accumulate aluminum at levels associated with central nervous system and bone toxicity. Tissue loading [ i.e., toxic buildup in certain body tissues] may occur at even lower rates of administration."¹ For a tiny newborn, this toxic dose would be 10 to 20 mcg; for an adult, it would be about 350 mcg.

The second document discusses aluminum content in IV feeding solutions, or Total Parenteral Nutrition (TPN) solutions. The FDA requires these solutions to contain no more than 25 mcg of aluminum per liter of solution. A typical adult in the hospital would get around 1 liter of TPN each day, thus about 25 mcg of aluminum. The FDA document also states, "Aluminum content in parenteral drug products could result in a toxic accumulation of aluminum in individuals receiving TPN therapy. Research indicates that neonates and patient populations with impaired kidney function may be at high risk of exposure to unsafe amounts of aluminum. Studies show that aluminum may accumulate in the bone, urine, and plasma of infants receiving TPN. Many drug products used routinely in parenteral therapy may contain levels of aluminum sufficiently high to cause clinical manifestations [ i.e., symptoms]. . . Aluminum toxicity is difficult to identify in infants because few reliable techniques are available to evaluate bone metabolism in premature infants. . . Although aluminum toxicity is not commonly detected clinically, it can be serious in selected patient populations, such as neonates, and may be more common than is recognized."²

Elsewhere, I found a relevant 2004 statement by the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ASPEN), a group that monitors oral and injectable nutritional products for safety and side effects. It reiterated the cited FDA warnings to the letter, and recommended that doctors purchase IV products with the lowest aluminum content possible, "and should monitor changes in the pharmaceutical market that may affect aluminum concentrations."³

The source of the daily limit of 4 to 5 mcg of aluminum per kilogram of body weight quoted by the ASPEN statement seems to be a study that compared the neurologic development of about 100 premature babies who were fed a standard IV solution that contained aluminum, with the development of 100 premature babies who were fed the same solution with almost all aluminum filtered out. The study was prompted by a number of established facts: that injected aluminum can build up to toxic levels in the bloodstream, bones, and brain; that preemies have decreased kidney function and thus a higher risk of toxicity; that an autopsy performed on one preemie whose sudden death was otherwise unexplained revealed high aluminum concentrations in the brain; and that aluminum toxicity can cause progressive dementia. The infants who were given IV solutions containing aluminum showed impaired neurologic and mental development at 18 months, compared to the babies who were fed much lower amounts of aluminum. Those who got aluminum received an average of 500 mcg of the metal over a period of 10 days, or about 50 mcg per day. The other group received only about 10 mcg of aluminum daily-4 to 5 mcg per kilogram of body weight per day.⁴ This seems to be the source of this safety level.

However, none of these documents or studies mentions vaccines; they look only at IV solutions and injectable medications. Nor does the FDA require labels on vaccines warning about the dangers of aluminum toxicity, although such labels are required for all other injectable medications.

All of these studies and label warnings seem to apply mainly to premature babies and kidney patients. What about larger, full-term babies with healthy kidneys? Using the 5 mcg/kg/day criterion from the first document as a minimum amount we know a healthy baby could handle, a 12-pound, two-month-old baby could safely receive at least 30 mcg of aluminum per day. A 22-pound one-year-old could receive at least 50 mcg safely. Babies with healthy kidneys could probably handle much more than this, but we at least know that they can handle this much. However, these documents don't tell us what the maximum safe dose would be for a healthy baby or child, and I can't find such information anywhere. This is probably why the ASPEN group suggests, and the FDA requires, that all injectable solutions be limited to 25 mcg; we at least know that that level is safe.

Calculating Aluminum in Vaccines
Here are the current levels of aluminum per shot of the following vaccines, as listed on each vaccine's packaging:

DTaP (for Diphtheria, Tetanus, and Pertussis): 170-??625 mcg, depending on manufacturer
Hepatitis A: 250 mcg
Hepatitis B: 250 mcg
HIB (for meningitis; PedVaxHib brand only): 225 mcg
HPV: 225 mcg
Pediarix (DTaP-??Hepatitis B-??Polio combination): 850 mcg
Pentacel (DTaP-??HIB-??Polio combination): 330 mcg
Pneumococcus: 125 mcg

In other words, a newborn who gets a Hepatitis B injection on day one of life would receive 250 mcg of aluminum. This would be repeated at one month with the next Hep B shot. When, at two months, a baby gets its first big round of shots, the total dose of aluminum could vary from 295 mcg (if a non-aluminum HIB and the lowest-aluminum brand of DTaP are used) to a whopping 1225 mcg (if the Hep B vaccine is given along with the brands with the highest aluminum contents). These doses are repeated at four and six months. With most subsequent rounds of shots, a child would continue to get some aluminum throughout the first two years. But the FDA recommends that premature babies, and anyone with impaired kidney function, receive no more than 10 to 25 mcg of injected aluminum at any one time.

As a medical doctor, my first instinct was to worry that these aluminum levels far exceed what may be safe for babies. My second instinct was to assume that the issue had been properly researched, and that studies had been done on healthy infants to determine their ability to rapidly excrete aluminum. My third instinct was to search for these studies. So far, I have found none. It's likely the FDA thinks that the kidneys of healthy infants work well enough to excrete aluminum before it can circulate through the body, accumulate in the brain, and cause toxic effects. However, I can find no references in FDA documents that show that using aluminum in vaccines has been tested and found to be safe.

So I did what any pediatrician would do. I turned to the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), who in 1996 published a policy statement, "Aluminum Toxicity in Infants and Children," that made the following points:

Aluminum can cause neurologic harm.
A study from 30 years ago showed that human adults increase their urine excretion of aluminum when exposed to higher levels of the metal, which suggests that adults can clear out excess aluminum.
Adults taking aluminum-containing antacids don't build up high levels of aluminum in their bodies.
Reports of infants with healthy kidneys show elevated blood levels of aluminum from taking antacids.
People with kidney disease who build up bloodstream levels of aluminum greater than 100 mcg per liter are at risk of toxicity.
The toxic threshold of aluminum in the bloodstream may be lower than 100 mcg per liter.
The buildup of aluminum in tissues has been seen even in patients with healthy kidneys who receive IV solutions containing aluminum over extended periods.⁵

However, nowhere in this paper was there any mention of aluminum in vaccines.

To put this in perspective: Because the body of the average adult contains about 5 liters of blood, receiving more than 500 mcg of aluminum in the bloodstream all at once will be toxic if the kidneys aren't working well. (Toxicity has also been seen in patients with healthy kidneys.) Because a newborn's body contains about a liter (300 milliliters) of blood, more than 30 mcg of aluminum floating around in the bloodstream could be toxic if the baby's kidneys aren't working well. The body of a toddler or preschool-age child contains about 1 liter of blood, so more than 100 mcg in his system could be toxic-and, as we've seen, babies can receive more than 1000 mcg of injected aluminum all at one time. Fortunately, this amount doesn't all go into the blood at once, but is slowly diffused into the bloodstream over a period of time from the muscle or skin where it was injected.

But that is the main point of this article. No one has measured the levels of aluminum absorption by the bloodstream when it is injected into the skin and muscle of infants, or the levels of excretion from the body via urination. All of the FDA and AAP documents that I've read state that aluminum might be a problem, but that they haven't studied it yet, so we should limit the amount of aluminum included in injectable solutions. But, again, no one is talking about the levels of aluminum in vaccines.

What I think may have happened is that because aluminum used to be found in only one vaccine-DTP, an older version of the current DTaP vaccine-no one thought much about it. Then, in the 1980s, the PedVaxHib brand of HIB meningitis vaccine was released, which also included aluminum; but other brands of HIB vaccine did not, so again, no one thought much about it. In the 1990s, the Hepatitis B vaccine began to be widely used; in the 2000s, the Pneumococcus vaccine; and, more recently, the Hepatitis A vaccine. Administering one aluminum-containing vaccine at a time involves only a small amount of the metal; administering four such vaccines simultaneously is a different story. It seems this issue has simply escaped everyone's attention. Or has it?

Limited Studies limit thinking
Several years ago, some suspected cases of aluminum toxicity resulted in various neurologic and degenerative problems. The Cochrane Collaboration, a group that studies health-care issues around the world, wanted to look at a very large study group to see if there was a real correlation between neurologic problems and the aluminum in vaccines. They investigated all the reported side effects of one aluminum-containing vaccine, DTP (no longer used), and looked for any evidence that such vaccines caused more side effects than non-aluminum vaccines. Other than more redness, swelling, and pain at the injection site, they found no indication that an aluminum-containing vaccine caused any more problems, and concluded that no further research should be undertaken on this topic.⁶ That is a very bold statement. Most researchers will draw conclusions from the findings of their own research; it's unusual to say that no one else should do any more research into the matter.

This is especially surprising because of the limitations of the Cochrane Collaboration's study. They looked at the effects of only one standard aluminum-containing vaccine, rather than the effects of all four being administered at once. They didn't study aluminum metabolism itself. They didn't test aluminum levels in children after vaccination, nor did they explore whether or not the amount of aluminum in vaccines builds up in the brain or bone tissues. They looked only for evidence of external symptoms of aluminum toxicity, not internal effects. Nor did they do their own research; instead, they reviewed all available studies conducted by other investigators. Despite all this, the Cochrane Collaboration study essentially closed the book on investigating aluminum toxicity from vaccines, without really having opened it in the first place.

The most obvious way to study this matter would be to inject various amounts of aluminum into children and see what happens to them internally. We know from the FDA documents that aluminum toxicity does occur from other types of injectable treatments; that it accumulates in the brain and bones in toxic amounts; that this may occur more commonly than is recognized; and that aluminum toxicity is hard to detect by looking for external symptoms. The question remains: What happens when these amounts of aluminum are injected via vaccines? Vaccine manufacturers may have begun to wonder about the same thing; I found some interesting research in the product insert of the new HPV vaccine, Gardasil. In researching the safety of Gardasil, Merck & Co., Inc., the vaccine's developer and manufacturer, added a step to their testing procedure by injecting aluminum into a separate group of test subjects used as a safety control group. They then compared the side effects of the Gardasil vaccine with a saline placebo that contained neither Gardasil nor aluminum, as well as with the placebo containing no Gardasil but the same amount of aluminum as the vaccine. They found that the placebo containing aluminum was much more painful than the saline placebo, and about as painful as the full HPV shot. The aluminum placebo also caused much more redness, swelling, and itching than the saline placebo, though not quite as much as the full HPV shot.

Unfortunately, Merck looked only at the effects of aluminum at the injection site. Nor did they state in the Gardasil product insert what role the aluminum placebo played in all the other standard side effects, such as fever and flu-like symptoms. Nor did they study the body's internal metabolism of aluminum. However, their research did show how irritating aluminum can be when injected into the muscles. It was a good first step. If aluminum can be toxic, why not just remove it from vaccines, as is being done with the preservative thimerosal, which contains the neurotoxin mercury? It's not that simple. Aluminum is an adjuvant; in other words, it helps vaccines work more effectively. When the metal is mixed with a vaccine, the body's immune system more easily recognizes the vaccine and creates antibodies against the disease. Thimerosal was easy to omit, because it has nothing to do with the efficacy of the vaccine itself. But the pharmaceutical companies would need good evidence that aluminum is harmful before they would invest in coming up with new, aluminum-free vaccines. (The Cochrane Collaboration report pointed out that removing aluminum from vaccines would then require extensive trials of the reformulated vaccines.⁷)

What, exactly, does a toxic level of aluminum do to the brain? While no one has studied healthy babies to see how much, if any, aluminum builds up in the brain from the amounts of aluminum used in vaccines, the study on IV feeding solutions in premature babies mentioned above revealed that aluminum impaired their neurologic and mental development.⁸ But that was in premature babies, not healthy, full-term infants. I found several animal studies involving aluminum and/or aluminum-containing vaccines that did show neurologic harm. Not only did aluminum build up in the brain and cause damage, but some of the damage looked similar to what is seen in the brains of Alzheimer's patients.^9-13¹⁴ However, it's hard to draw conclusions about aluminum's effects on humans from studies of animals. What we need are more studies of human infants.

A Call for Better Research
There is good evidence that large amounts of aluminum are harmful to humans. Because no meaningful research has specifically been done on aluminum in vaccines, there is no existing evidence that the amount in vaccines is harmful to infants and children. However, no one has actually studied aluminum levels in healthy human infants after vaccination to make sure it is safe. Should we now stop and research this matter? Or should we just go on, continuing to hope that it is safe to use aluminum as an adjuvant in vaccines?

Vaccine policy makers and advocates may read this article, review my perspective, and initiate research studies to explore the risks of aluminum. I would hope that those researchers do not conduct a retrospective review of all the old vaccine safety studies and journal articles to look for the side effects of aluminum. As the FDA, AAP, and others have stated, aluminum toxicity can't be detected by external observation alone. It would be a waste of time, and a grave disservice to the health of America's children, to have several such reports show up in the medical literature. The only way the issue of aluminum safety can be put to rest is to conduct real-time studies on thousands of infants and measure aluminum levels after vaccination.

In such a study, the researchers should look not only at blood levels. They should also find out whether or not aluminum accumulates in the body, where it accumulates, how the body eliminates it, and at what rate. Once I see such research, and have determined to my satisfaction that aluminum has been proven safe, I will post an update on www.thevaccinebook.com, and revise future editions of the book accordingly. If such research finds that aluminum may not be safe, then I would expect a new vaccine schedule to be adopted in which the administering of vaccines is spread out to minimize the amount of aluminum a child receives at any given time. I would also expect vaccine manufacturers to begin finding ways to reduce or remove aluminum from vaccines without compromising their effectiveness. We need to know the answers to many questions: Why does one brand of HIB vaccine require aluminum to make it work while another brand does not? Why does one brand of DTaP vaccine contain four times as much aluminum as another?

Learning from the Past
I worry that aluminum may end up being another thimerosal. I am relieved that, as of 2002, the mercury-containing preservative had been removed from most vaccines. But according to an article in the Los Angeles Times, Merck & Co., the makers of several vaccines, knew in 1991 that the cumulative amount of mercury in vaccines given to infants by six months of age was about 87 times the level then thought to be safe.14 The article includes a copy of an internal memo, written by one of Merck's research doctors and sent to the president of Merck's vaccine division, clearly stating the doctor's worry about mercury overload. What was done with that information back in 1991? We'll never know. What we do know is that vaccine manufacturers knew that we were overdosing babies, but that the mercury wasn't removed from vaccines until 10 years later. This was because few paid attention to the potential problems with mercury. When we did find out, we hoped it wasn't harmful, we did extensive research to try to show that it wasn't, and we slowly removed it from most vaccines.

The issue of mercury toxicity from vaccines is moot for infants receiving vaccines today, as long as doctors and parents choose a flu shot without mercury, know which brands of vaccines still contain barely detectable traces of mercury, and are aware that some plain Tetanus and Diphtheria-Tetanus vaccines still contain mercury (though these last vaccines are not parts of the routine vaccine schedule). [ For a current list of vaccines and their thimerosal contents, go to www.vaccine safety.edu/thi-table.htm-Ed

What isn't moot is the question of aluminum toxicity. As doctors, we can choose certain vaccine brands that contain less or no aluminum. We can be careful about giving only one aluminum-containing vaccine at a time. And we can talk about it instead of sweeping the issue under the rug. I pray that my fears about aluminum are unfounded, and that objective studies performed by completely independent groups with no ties to vaccine manufacturers or political organizations show that it is safe. If not, I would hope that manufacturers would start to reduce or eliminate the aluminum content of their vaccines as soon as possible. I know this won't be an easy task, but our children are worth it.

Excerpted from The Vaccine Book ? 2007 by Robert Sears, MD. Reprinted by permission of Little, Brown and Company. New York, NY. All rights reserved. For more information, see www.thevaccinebook.com . For the notes to this article, see www.mothering.com/ articles/growing_child/vaccines/aluminum-new-thimerosal-notes.html

After years of insisting there is no evidence to link vaccines with the onset of autism spectrum disorder (ASD), the US government has quietly conceded a vaccine-autism case in the Court of Federal Claims.

The unprecedented concession was filed on November 9, and sealed to protect the plaintiff's identify. It was obtained through individuals unrelated to the case.

The claim, one of 4,900 autism cases currently pending in Federal "Vaccine Court," was conceded by US Assistant Attorney General Peter Keisler and other Justice Department officials, on behalf of the Department of Health and Human Services, the "defendant" in all Vaccine Court cases.

The child's claim against the government -- that mercury-containing vaccines were the cause of her autism -- was supposed to be one of three "test cases" for the thimerosal-autism theory currently under consideration by a three-member panel of Special Masters, the presiding justices in Federal Claims Court.

Keisler wrote that medical personnel at the HHS Division of Vaccine Injury Compensation (DVIC) had reviewed the case and "concluded that compensation is appropriate."

The doctors conceded that the child was healthy and developing normally until her 18-month well-baby visit, when she received vaccinations against nine different diseases all at once (two contained thimerosal).

Days later, the girl began spiraling downward into a cascade of illnesses and setbacks that, within months, presented as symptoms of autism, including: No response to verbal direction; loss of language skills; no eye contact; loss of "relatedness;" insomnia; incessant screaming; arching; and "watching the florescent lights repeatedly during examination."

Seven months after vaccination, the patient was diagnosed by Dr. Andrew Zimmerman, a leading neurologist at the Kennedy Krieger Children's Hospital Neurology Clinic, with "regressive encephalopathy (brain disease) with features consistent with autistic spectrum disorder, following normal development." The girl also met the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) official criteria for autism.

In its written concession, the government said the child had a pre-existing mitochondrial disorder that was "aggravated" by her shots, and which ultimately resulted in an ASD diagnosis.

"The vaccinations received on July 19, 2000, significantly aggravated an underlying mitochondrial disorder," the concession says, "which predisposed her to deficits in cellular energy metabolism, and manifested as a regressive encephalopathy with features of ASD."

This statement is good news for the girl and her family, who will now be compensated for the lifetime of care she will require. But its implications for the larger vaccine-autism debate, and for public health policy in general, are not as certain.

In fact, the government's concession seems to raise more questions than it answers.

1) Is there a connection between vaccines, mitochondrial disorders and a diagnosis of autism, at least in some cases?

Mitochondria, you may recall from biology class, are the little powerhouses within cells that convert food into electrical energy, partly through a complex process called "oxidative phosphorylation." If this process is impaired, mitochondrial disorder will ensue.

The child in this case had several markers for Mt disease, which was confirmed by muscle biopsy. Mt disease is often marked by lethargy, poor muscle tone, poor food digestion and bowel problems, something found in many children diagnosed with autism.

But mitochondrial disorders are rare in the general population, affecting some 2-per-10,000 people (or just 0.2%). So with 4,900 cases filed in Vaccine Court, this case should be the one and only, extremely rare instance of Mt disease in all the autism proceedings.

But it is not.

Mitochondrial disorders are now thought to be the most common disease associated with ASD. Some journal articles and other analyses have estimated that 10% to 20% of all autism cases may involve mitochondrial disorders, which would make them one thousand times more common among people with ASD than the general population.

Another article, published in the Journal of Child Neurology and co-authored by Dr. Zimmerman, showed that 38% of Kennedy Krieger Institute autism patients studied had one marker for impaired oxidative phosphorylation, and 47% had a second marker.

The authors -- who reported on a case-study of the same autism claim conceded in Vaccine Court -- noted that "children who have (mitochondrial-related) dysfunctional cellular energy metabolism might be more prone to undergo autistic regression between 18 and 30 months of age if they also have infections or immunizations at the same time."

An interesting aspect of Mt disease in autism is that, with ASD, the mitochondrial disease seems to be milder than in "classic" cases of Mt disorder. In fact, classic Mt disease is almost always inherited, either passed down by the mother through mitochondrial DNA, or by both parents through nuclear DNA.

In autism-related Mt disease, however, the disorder is not typically found in other family members, and instead appears to be largely of the sporadic variety, which may now account for 75% of all mitochondrial disorders.

Meanwhile, an informal survey of seven families of children with cases currently pending in Vaccine Court revealed that all seven showed markers for mitochondrial dysfunction, dating back to their earliest medical tests. The facts in all seven claims mirror the case just conceded by the government: Normal development followed by vaccination, immediate illness, and rapid decline culminating in an autism diagnosis.

2) With 4,900 cases pending, and more coming, will the government concede those with underlying Mt disease -- and if it not, will the Court award compensation?

The Court will soon begin processing the 4900 cases pending before it. What if 10% to 20% of them can demonstrate the same Mt disease and same set of facts as those in the conceded case? Would the government be obliged to concede 500, or even 1,000 cases? What impact would that have on public opinion? And is there enough money currently in the vaccine injury fund to cover so many settlements?

When asked for a comment last week about the court settlement, a spokesman for HHS furnished the following written statement:

"DVIC has reviewed the scientific information concerning the allegation that vaccines cause autism and has found no credible evidence to support the claim. Accordingly, in every case under the Vaccine Act, DVIC has maintained the position that vaccines do not cause autism, and has never concluded in any case that autism was caused by vaccination."

3) If the government is claiming that vaccines did not "cause" autism, but instead aggravated a condition to "manifest" as autism, isn't that a very fine distinction?

For most affected families, such linguistic gymnastics is not so important. And even if a vaccine injury "manifested" as autism in only one case, isn't that still a significant development worthy of informing the public?

On the other hand, perhaps what the government is claiming is that vaccination resulted in the symptoms of autism, but not in an actual, factually correct diagnosis of autism itself.

4) If the government is claiming that this child does NOT have autism, then how many other children might also have something else that merely "mimics" autism?

Is it possible that 10%-20% of the cases that we now label as "autism," are not autism at all, but rather some previously undefined "look-alike" syndrome that merely presents as "features" of autism?

This question gets to the heart of what autism actually is. The disorder is defined solely as a collection of features, nothing more. If you have the features (and the diagnosis), you have the disorder. The underlying biology is the great unknown.

But let's say the government does determine that these kids don't have actual "autism" (something I speculated on HuffPost a year ago). Then shouldn't the Feds go back and test all people with ASD for impaired oxidative phosphorylation, perhaps reclassifying many of them?

If so, will we then see "autism" cases drop by tens, if not hundreds of thousands of people? Will there be a corresponding ascension of a newly described disorder, perhaps something like "Vaccine Aggravated Mitochondrial Disease with Features of ASD?"

And if this child was technically "misdiagnosed" with DSM-IV autism by Dr Zimmerman, how does he feel about HHS doctors issuing a second opinion re-diagnosis of his patient, whom they presumably had neither met nor examined? (Zimmerman declined an interview).

And along those lines, aren't Bush administration officials somewhat wary of making long-distance, retroactive diagnoses from Washington, given that the Terry Schiavo incident has not yet faded from national memory?

5) Was this child's Mt disease caused by a genetic mutation, as the government implies, and wouldn't that have manifested as "ASD features" anyway?

In the concession, the government notes that the patient had a "single nucleotide change" in the mitochondrial DNA gene T2387C, implying that this was the underlying cause of her manifested "features" of autism.

While it's true that some inherited forms of Mt disease can manifest as developmental delays, (and even ASD in the form of Rhett Syndrome) these forms are linked to identified genetic mutations, of which T2387C is not involved. In fact little, if anything, is known about the function of this particular gene.

What's more, there is no evidence that this girl, prior to vaccination, suffered from any kind of "disorder" at all- genetic, mitochondrial or otherwise. Some forms of Mt disease are so mild that the person is unaware of being affected. This perfectly developing girl may have had Mt disorder at the time of vaccination, but nobody detected, or even suspected it.

And, there is no evidence to suggest that this girl would have regressed into symptoms consistent with a DSM-IV autism diagnosis without her vaccinations. If there was such evidence, then why on earth would these extremely well-funded government attorneys compensate this alleged injury in Vaccine Court? Why wouldn't they move to dismiss, or at least fight the case at trial?

6) What are the implications for research?

The concession raises at least two critical research questions: What are the causes of Mt dysfunction; and how could vaccines aggravate that dysfunction to the point of "autistic features?"

While some Mt disorders are clearly inherited, the "sporadic" form is thought to account for 75% of all cases, according to the United Mitochondrial Disease Foundation. So what causes sporadic Mt disease? "Medicines or other toxins," says the Cleveland Clinic, a leading authority on the subject.

Use of the AIDS drug AZT, for example, can cause Mt disorders by deleting large segments of mitochondrial DNA. If that is the case, might other exposures to drugs or toxins (i.e., thimerosal, mercury in fish, air pollution, pesticides, live viruses) also cause sporadic Mt disease in certain subsets of children, through similar genotoxic mechanisms?

Among the prime cellular targets of mercury are mitochondria, and thimerosal-induced cell death has been associated with the depolarization of mitochondrial membrane, according to the International Journal of Molecular Medicine among several others. (Coincidently, the first case of Mt disease was diagnosed in 1959, just 15 years after the first autism case was named, and two decades after thimerosal's introduction as a vaccine preservative.)

Regardless of its cause, shouldn't HHS sponsor research into Mt disease and the biological mechanisms by which vaccines could aggravate the disorder? We still do not know what it was, exactly, about this girl's vaccines that aggravated her condition. Was it the thimerosal? The three live viruses? The two attenuated viruses? Other ingredients like aluminum? A combination of the above?

And of course, if vaccine injuries can aggravate Mt disease to the point of manifesting as autism features, then what other underlying disorders or conditions (genetic, autoimmune, allergic, etc.) might also be aggravated to the same extent?

7) What are the implications for medicine and public health?

Should the government develop and approve new treatments for "aggravated mitochondrial disease with ASD features?" Interestingly, many of the treatments currently deployed in Mt disease (i.e., coenzyme Q10, vitamin B-12, lipoic acid, biotin, dietary changes, etc.) are part of the alternative treatment regimen that many parents use on their children with ASD.

And, if a significant minority of autism cases can be linked to Mt disease and vaccines, shouldn't these products one day carry an FDA Black Box warning label, and shouldn't children with Mt disorders be exempt from mandatory immunization?

8) What are the implications for the vaccine-autism debate?

It's too early to tell. But this concession could conceivably make it more difficult for some officials to continue insisting there is "absolutely no link" between vaccines and autism.

It also puts the Federal Government's Vaccine Court defense strategy somewhat into jeopardy. DOJ lawyers and witnesses have argued that autism is genetic, with no evidence to support an environmental component. And, they insist, it's simply impossible to construct a chain of events linking immunizations to the disorder.

Government officials may need to rethink their legal strategy, as well as their public relations campaigns, given their own slightly contradictory concession in this case.

9) What is the bottom line here?

The public, (including world leaders) will demand to know what is going on inside the US Federal health establishment. Yes, as of now, n=1, a solitary vaccine-autism concession. But what if n=10% or 20%? Who will pay to clean up that mess?

The significance of this concession will unfortunately be fought over in the usual, vitriolic way -- and I fully expect to be slammed for even raising these questions. Despite that, the language of this concession cannot be changed, or swept away.

Its key words are "aggravated" and "manifested." Without the aggravation of the vaccines, it is uncertain that the manifestation would have occurred at all.

When a kid with peanut allergy eats a peanut and dies, we don't say "his underlying metabolic condition was significantly aggravated to the extent of manifesting as an anaphylactic shock with features of death."

No, we say the peanut killed the poor boy. Remove the peanut from the equation, and he would still be with us today.

Many people look forward to hearing more from HHS officials about why they are settling this claim. But whatever their explanation, they cannot change the fundamental facts of this extraordinary case:

The United State government is compensating at least one child for vaccine injuries that resulted in a diagnosis of autism.

And that is big news, no matter how you want to say it.

NOTE: Full text of the government's statement is posted here.

David Kirby is the author of "Evidence of Harm - Mercury in Vaccines and the Autism Epidemic, A Medical Controversy" (St. Martins Press 2005.

SPECIAL REPORT!
Cause Of Autism Discovered......
And It's Not The Mercury!

By: Dr. Rebecca Carley Source: http://www.drcarley.com March 8, 2008

This is the update that has gone out to the thousands of people on my list. I await the response of David Kirby and Dr Boyd Haley, who are receiving this e-mail as well.
The following is the ammo by which Big Pharma can be brought to its knees. I ask you to circulate it widely. It is time for you to DEMAND that those promoting mercury as the cause of autism respond to what I have written below. If the true intention of these people is to stop this epidemic in our children, then they should let go of their egos and admit that I have figured out the true cause. Let me first encourage all of you to go to http://www.drcarley.com/the_big_picture.jpg ; you will see that I have ALWAYS said it is the BIG PICTURE of assaults to our immune systems (and mercury is there) which combine to cause disease, including autism. But it is the corruption of the immune system caused by the inoculation of viruses which is the root cause of all autoimmune diseases and cancer...and once this information is in the hands of a critical mass of the people, we will put a stop to the biggest epidemic the world has ever known...VIDS (Vaccine Induced Diseases). And the individuals who continue to promote mercury as the root cause in the face of this information will be exposed for being INTENTIONAL disinformers.
Below is a verbatim copy of the US Government concession filed last November in a Court of Federal Claims case brought by a family claiming that mercury containing vaccines were the cause of the child's autism that is posted on David Kirby's blog at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/the-vaccineautism-court-_b_88558.html . David Kirby, author of "Evidence of Harm", is one of the individuals who is distracting the public that it is "all about the thimerosol". The take home message therefore is that if the mercury were removed, vaccines would be safe. A BIGGER LIE HAS NEVER BEEN TOLD; and my document "Inoculations the True Weapons of Mass Destruction" posted on www.drcarley.com describes the corruption of the immune system caused by the injection of viruses directly into the body, bypassing secretory IgA (an antibody in the upper GI and respiratory tracts critical for the processing of the germ by the immune system for natural immunity to occur).
I was a guest with David Kirby on a radio show which is posted on my website at http://www.drcarley.com/kirby_vs_carley_autism.mp3 , on which I confronted him with the fact that autism is actually a non-fatal case of subacute sclerosing panencephalitis caused by demyelination following vaccine induced encephalitis, and that the name of the condition was changed to autism to hide this self evident fact. I have sent Mr. Kirby copies of the documents on my website, and asked him multiple times to be a guest on one of my internet shows to discuss the "mercury vs demyelination" theories of autism. He will not do so.
What is truly amazing is that he is now mentioning live viruses amongst a plethora of other potential problems (see # 6 at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/government-concedes-vacci_b_88323.html)....but is he discussing the live viruses bypassing secretory IgA, causing vaccine induced encephalitis and subsequent demyelination? NO...he is mentioning live viruses as a cause of mitochondrial damage. So once again, we will now be distracted with this genetic mitochondrial defect...perhaps develop a test to find the children with this problem before they are vaccinated, when in fact genetic defects can also be caused by vaccines. More confusion and distraction...rather than admitting that there is no such thing as a safe vaccine...and the practice should be abandoned altogether, and attention placed on strengthening the immune system. Of course, since population reduction is the true agenda of the powers that be, not only will the vaccine push continue...but viruses are being developed to cause disease and cancer. The mad scientists have to be stopped...and this WILL happen once enough people have opened their eyes.
I urge all of you to carefully read this decision dated 11/9/07, in which this young girl won her case claiming vaccines caused her autism. Note these important points:
1. 2 days after multiple vaccines (which included the MMR, which has NEVER had mercury), she developed a high fever, high pitched screaming, and was lethargic and irritable. these are symptoms of VACCINE INDUCED ENCEPHALITIS, an inflammation of the brain caused by injection of LIVE VIRUSES (not from mercury).
2. She also began to arch her back when she cried (a sign of vaccine induced encephalitis, NOT mercury poisoning).
3. She developed a POST-VARICELLA VACCINATION RASH (which proves that the vaccination GAVE HER THAT DISEASE).
4. She was diagnosed with vaccine induced ENCEPHALOPATHY (degenerative disease of the brain)...as you will see below, mercury is involved in causing the degenerative disease Alzheimer's, NOT autism).
5. She developed a SEIZURE DISORDER later on (go to the CDC website and look for the vaccine information statement on the MMR vaccine (which has never had mercury), and you will see that one of the side effects is LONG TERM SEIZURES.
6. You will also note that they did genetic testing of the child and found that she has a genetic defect in her cellular energetics (Note that vaccines are known to cause GENETIC MUTATION due to insertion of plasmids of DNA from the viruses or tissues used to culture them; in fact, this is the whole basis on which DNA vaccines are designed).
7. You will notice that although the white coat in this case went as far as to do genetic testing in this child, there were NO ANTI MYELIN OR ANTI NEURONAL FILAMENT LEVELS DONE; this IS the test that demonstrates demyelination before it is massive enough to show up on MRI's; and this IS the test that proves that autism is actually a non-fatal form of subacute sclerosing panencephalitis (which is why this test is almost never done).
Here is the decision (but please be sure to also read what I have written after it)...
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
    OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

    CHILD, a minor,
    by her Parents and Natural Guardians,
    Petitioners,
    v.
    SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,
    Respondent.
    RESPONDENT'S RULE 4(c) REPORT
    In accordance with RCFC, Appendix B, Vaccine Rule 4(c), the Secretary of Health and Human Services submits the following response to the petition for compensation filed in this case.
    FACTS
    CHILD ("CHILD") was born on December --, 1998, and weighed eight pounds, ten ounces. Petitioners' Exhibit ("Pet. Ex.") 54 at 13. The pregnancy was complicated by gestational diabetes. Id. at 13. CHILD received her first Hepatitis B immunization on December 27, 1998. Pet. Ex. 31 at 2.
    From January 26, 1999 through June 28, 1999, CHILD visited the Pediatric Center, in Catonsville, Maryland, for well-child examinations and minor complaints, including fever and eczema. Pet. Ex. 31 at 5-10, 19. During this time period, she received the following pediatric vaccinations, without incident:
    Vaccine Dates Administered
    Hep B 12/27/98; 1/26/99
    IPV 3/12/99; 4/27/99
    Hib 3/12/99; 4/27/99; 6/28/99
    DTaP 3/12/99; 4/27/99; 6/28/99
    Id. at 2.
At seven months of age, CHILD was diagnosed with bilateral otitis media. Pet. Ex. 31 at 20. In the subsequent months between July 1999 and January 2000, she had frequent bouts of otitis media, which doctors treated with multiple antibiotics. Pet. Ex. 2 at 4. On December 3,1999, CHILD was seen by Karl Diehn, M.D., at Ear, Nose, and Throat Associates of the Greater Baltimore Medical Center ("ENT Associates"). Pet. Ex. 31 at 44. Dr. Diehn recommend that CHILD receive PE tubes for her "recurrent otitis media and serious otitis." Id. CHILD received PE tubes in January 2000. Pet. Ex. 24 at 7. Due to CHILD's otitis media, her mother did not allow CHILD to receive the standard 12 and 15 month childhood immunizations. Pet. Ex. 2 at 4.
According to the medical records, CHILD consistently met her developmental milestones during the first eighteen months of her life. The record of an October 5, 1999 visit to the Pediatric Center notes that CHILD was mimicking sounds, crawling, and sitting. Pet. Ex. 31 at 9. The record of her 12-month pediatric examination notes that she was using the words "Mom" and "Dad," pulling herself up, and cruising. Id. at 10.
At a July 19, 2000 pediatric visit, the pediatrician observed that CHILD "spoke well" and was "alert and active." Pet. Ex. 31 at 11. CHILD's mother reported that CHILD had regular bowel movements and slept through the night. Id. At the July 19, 2000 examination, CHILD received five vaccinations - DTaP, Hib, MMR, Varivax, and IPV. Id. at 2, 11.
According to her mother's affidavit, CHILD developed a fever of 102.3 degrees two days after her immunizations and was lethargic, irritable, and cried for long periods of time. Pet. Ex. 2 at 6. She exhibited intermittent, high-pitched screaming and a decreased response to stimuli. Id. MOM spoke with the pediatrician, who told her that CHILD was having a normal reaction to her immunizations. Id. According to CHILD's mother, this behavior continued over the next ten days, and CHILD also began to arch her back when she cried. Id.
On July 31, 2000, CHILD presented to the Pediatric Center with a 101-102 degree temperature, a diminished appetite, and small red dots on her chest. Pet. Ex. 31 at 28. The nurse practitioner recorded that CHILD was extremely irritable and inconsolable. Id. She was diagnosed with a post-varicella vaccination rash. Id. at 29.
Two months later, on September 26, 2000, CHILD returned to the Pediatric Center with a temperature of 102 degrees, diarrhea, nasal discharge, a reduced appetite, and pulling at her left ear. Id. at 29. Two days later, on September 28, 2000, CHILD was again seen at the Pediatric Center because her diarrhea continued, she was congested, and her mother reported that CHILD was crying during urination. Id. at 32. On November 1, 2000, CHILD received bilateral PE tubes. Id. at 38. On November 13, 2000, a physician at ENT Associates noted that CHILD was "obviously hearing better" and her audiogram was normal. Id. at 38. On November 27, 2000, CHILD was seen at the Pediatric Center with complaints of diarrhea, vomiting, diminished energy, fever, and a rash on her cheek. Id. at 33. At a follow-up visit, on December 14, 2000, the doctor noted that CHILD had a possible speech delay. Id.
CHILD was evaluated at the Howard County Infants and Toddlers Program, on November 17, 2000, and November 28, 2000, due to concerns about her language development. Pet. Ex. 19 at 2, 7. The assessment team observed deficits in CHILD's communication and social development. Id. at 6. CHILD's mother reported that CHILD had become less responsive to verbal direction in the previous four months and had lost some language skills. Id. At 2.
On December 21, 2000, CHILD returned to ENT Associates because of an obstruction in her right ear and fussiness. Pet. Ex. 31 at 39. Dr. Grace Matesic identified a middle ear effusion and recorded that CHILD was having some balance issues and not progressing with her speech. Id. On December 27, 2000, CHILD visited ENT Associates, where Dr. Grace Matesic observed that CHILD's left PE tube was obstructed with crust. Pet. Ex. 14 at 6. The tube was replaced on January 17, 2001. Id.
Dr. Andrew Zimmerman, a pediatric neurologist, evaluated CHILD at the Kennedy Krieger Children's Hospital Neurology Clinic ("Krieger Institute"), on February 8, 2001. Pet. Ex. 25 at 1. Dr. Zimmerman reported that after CHILD's immunizations of July 19, 2000, an "encephalopathy progressed to persistent loss of previously acquired language, eye contact, and relatedness." Id. He noted a disruption in CHILD's sleep patterns, persistent screaming and arching, the development of pica to foreign objects, and loose stools. Id. Dr. Zimmerman observed that CHILD watched the fluorescent lights repeatedly during the examination and would not make eye contact. Id. He diagnosed CHILD with "regressive encephalopathy with features consistent with an autistic spectrum disorder, following normal development." Id. At 2. Dr. Zimmerman ordered genetic testing, a magnetic resonance imaging test ("MRI"), and an electroencephalogram ("EEG"). Id.
Dr. Zimmerman referred CHILD to the Krieger Institute's Occupational Therapy Clinic and the Center for Autism and Related Disorders ("CARDS"). Pet. Ex. 25 at 40. She was evaluated at the Occupational Therapy Clinic by Stacey Merenstein, OTR/L, on February 23, 2001. Id. The evaluation report summarized that CHILD had deficits in "many areas of sensory processing which decrease[d] her ability to interpret sensory input and influence[d] her motor performance as a result." Id. at 45. CHILD was evaluated by Alice Kau and Kelley Duff, on May 16, 2001, at CARDS. Pet. Ex. 25 at 17. The clinicians concluded that CHILD was developmentally delayed and demonstrated features of autistic disorder. Id. at 22.
CHILD returned to Dr. Zimmerman, on May 17, 2001, for a follow-up consultation. Pet. Ex. 25 at 4. An overnight EEG, performed on April 6, 2001, showed no seizure discharges. Id. at 16. An MRI, performed on March 14, 2001, was normal. Pet. Ex. 24 at 16. A G-band test revealed a normal karyotype. Pet. Ex. 25 at 16. Laboratory studies, however, strongly indicated an underlying mitochondrial disorder. Id. at 4.
Dr. Zimmerman referred CHILD for a neurogenetics consultation to evaluate her abnormal metabolic test results. Pet. Ex. 25 at 8. CHILD met with Dr. Richard Kelley, a specialist in neurogenetics, on May 22, 2001, at the Krieger Institute. Id. In his assessment, Dr. Kelley affirmed that CHILD's history and lab results were consistent with "an etiologically unexplained metabolic disorder that appear[ed] to be a common cause of developmental regression." Id. at 7. He continued to note that children with biochemical profiles similar to CHILD's develop normally until sometime between the first and second year of life when their metabolic pattern becomes apparent, at which time they developmentally regress. Id. Dr. Kelley described this condition as "mitochondrial PPD." Id.
On October 4, 2001, Dr. John Schoffner, at Horizon Molecular Medicine in Norcross, Georgia, examined CHILD to assess whether her clinical manifestations were related to a defect in cellular energetics. Pet. Ex. 16 at 26. After reviewing her history, Dr. Schoffner agreed that the previous metabolic testing was "suggestive of a defect in cellular energetics." Id. Dr. Schoffner recommended a muscle biopsy, genetic testing, metabolic testing, and cell culture based testing. Id. at 36. A CSF organic acids test, on January 8, 2002, displayed an increased lactate to pyruvate ratio of 28,1 which can be seen in disorders of mitochondrial oxidative phosphorylation. Id. at 22. A muscle biopsy test for oxidative phosphorylation disease revealed abnormal results for Type One and Three. Id. at 3. The most prominent findings were scattered atrophic myofibers that were mostly type one oxidative phosphorylation dependent myofibers, mild increase in lipid in selected myofibers, and occasional myofiber with reduced cytochrome c oxidase activity. Id. at 7. After reviewing these laboratory results, Dr. Schoffner diagnosed CHILD with oxidative phosphorylation disease. Id. at 3. In February 2004, a mitochondrial DNA ("mtDNA") point mutation analysis revealed a single nucleotide change in the 16S ribosomal RNA gene (T2387C). Id. at 11.
CHILD returned to the Krieger Institute, on July 7, 2004, for a follow-up evaluation with Dr. Zimmerman. Pet. Ex. 57 at 9. He reported CHILD "had done very well" with treatment for a mitochondrial dysfunction. Dr. Zimmerman concluded that CHILD would continue to require services in speech, occupational, physical, and behavioral therapy. Id.
On April 14, 2006, CHILD was brought by ambulance to Athens Regional Hospital and developed a tonic seizure en route. Pet. Ex. 10 at 38. An EEG showed diffuse slowing. Id. At 40. She was diagnosed with having experienced a prolonged complex partial seizure and transferred to Scottish Rite Hospital. Id. at 39, 44. She experienced no more seizures while at Scottish Rite Hospital and was discharged on the medications Trileptal and Diastal. Id. at 44. A follow-up MRI of the brain, on June 16, 2006, was normal with evidence of a left mastoiditis manifested by distortion of the air cells. Id. at 36. An EEG, performed on August 15, 2006, showed "rhythmic epileptiform discharges in the right temporal region and then focal slowing during a witnessed clinical seizure." Id. At 37. CHILD continues to suffer from a seizure disorder.
    ANALYSIS
Medical personnel at the Division of Vaccine Injury Compensation, Department of Health and Human Services (DVIC) have reviewed the facts of this case, as presented by the petition, medical records, and affidavits. After a thorough review, DVIC has concluded that compensation is appropriate in this case.
In sum, DVIC has concluded that the facts of this case meet the statutory criteria for demonstrating that the vaccinations CHILD received on July 19, 2000, significantly aggravated an underlying mitochondrial disorder, which predisposed her to deficits in cellular energy metabolism, and manifested as a regressive encephalopathy with features of autism spectrum disorder. Therefore, respondent recommends that compensation be awarded to petitioners in accordance with 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-11(c)(1)(C)(ii).
    DVIC has concluded that CHILD's complex partial seizure disorder, with an onset of almost six years after her July 19, 2000 vaccinations, is not related to a vaccine-injury.
    Respectfully submitted,
    PETER D. KEISLER
    Assistant Attorney General
    TIMOTHY P. GARREN
    Director
    Torts Branch, Civil Division
    MARK W. ROGERS
    Deputy Director
    Torts Branch, Civil Division
    VINCENT J. MATANOSKI
    Assistant Director
    Torts Branch, Civil Division
    s/ Linda S. Renzi by s/ Lynn E. Ricciardella
    LINDA S. RENZI
    Senior Trial Counsel
    Torts Branch, Civil Division
    U.S. Department of Justice
    P.O. Box 146
    Benjamin Franklin Station
    Washington, D.C. 20044
    (202) 616-4133
    DATE: November 9, 2007
PS: On Friday, February 22, HHS conceded that this child's complex partial seizure disorder was also caused by her vaccines. Now we the taxpayers will award this family compensation to finance her seizure medication. Surely ALL decent people can agree that is a good thing.
By the way, it''s worth noting that her seizures did not begin until six years after the date of vaccination, yet the government acknowledges they were, indeed, linked to the immunizations of July, 2000, - David Kirby

Now I am going to prove to you, BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT, that mercury is a distraction in the case of autism:
Please go to http://healthtruthrevealed.com/audio-interviews.php , click on "inoculations the true weapons of mass destruction", and listen to the interview I did on this very subject on 3/4/08. You will hear Greg Ciola mention research done at the University of Calgary regarding mercury's effect on brain neurons, and I thank him for sending me a link to this information. He also mentions an interview he did with John Moore, a researcher in the dangers of mercury who himself was severely injured by mercury poisoning due to multiple amalgam fillings. His interview is posted at http://healthtruthrevealed.com/full-page.php?id=39&&page=news . You will read on page 16 that Mr. Moore states that the research done at the University of Calgary shows "the myelin sheathing simply stripped away from the nerve".
Now, go to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85tgwh3HpsM ; this is CRITICAL. You will hear and see the effect of mercury on brain neurons demonstrated by the University of Calgary which Mr. Moore refers to. Mercury causes DEATH of the nerve's axon, as the actin & tubulin which make up the neurofibrils are destroyed when mercury binds to the tubulin molecules, causing the neurofibril to collapse, and some neurofibrils form aggregates or tangles. THIS IS THE KEY DIAGNOSTIC FEATURE SEEN IN ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE; NOT AUTISM! You will also notice that these neurons in a culture dish do not have myelin on then; in fact, THE MYELIN SHEATH IS NOT EVEN MENTIONED IN THIS VIDEO. (Side note - when the brains of Alzheimer's patients are studied microscopically, ALUMINUM is found in the middle of these neurofibrillary tangles).
I also encourage you to go to http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1803137818942286763 , and hear Dr Boyd Haley discuss autism & thimerosol (be sure to watch all 4 videos in this series). Dr Haley blames thimerosol for Gulf War Syndrome (GWS) as well as autism. I have done many shows on GWS, which has many factors; Gulf War PLAGUE (the infectious component of the SYNDROME) is due to mycoplasma incognitas which was in the vaccines given to the soldiers. As explained in my document "Inoculation the true weapons of mass destruction" at www.drcarley.com , the injection of vaccines corrupts the immune system and prevents any infective agent from being eliminated from the body. GWS has many other aspects to it; depleted uranium, pyridostigmine pills given to the soldiers, aspartame in their beverages, etc. To blame thimerosol solely for GWS is disinformation in its highest form.
Dr. Haley brings up the work of Dr Andrew Wakefield, whose medical license was attacked because he demonstrated measles virus in the lymphoid patches in the guts of autistic children. DR. BOYD ADMITS HE DID NOT EVEN STUDY THE MEASLES VIRUS. Although Dr Wakefield did not realize that these viruses' significance as a chronic infection is that this leads to a constant production of anti-measles antibody which, through molecular mimicry, then attackes the myelin sheath (causing demyelination), he was attacked because his work supports my work; especially since the MMR has NEVER HAD MERCURY. Dr. Haley's work reinforces the notion that if you take mercury out of vaccines, they will be safe. My work proves there is NO SUCH THING as a safe vaccine, due to the corruption of the immune system caused by injection of live viruses.
Dr. Haley also discusses how antibiotics further accelerate the damage in these children. The question he does not address is why are the vaccinated children on antibiotics? Answer...because they have chronic infection caused by inoculation of live viruses; as quoted from Harrison's principles of medicine in my response to the CDC (also on my website), "RARELY IS PREVENTION OF INFECTION PER SE CONSIDERED TO BE AN IMPORTANT GOAL OF VACCINATION. In fact, asymptomatic infection after vaccination can serve to enhance and prolong the immune response". (And this prolonged immune response IS prolonged production of anti-measles antibody which then continue to attack the myelin sheath, causing demyelination). As I also quote from Harrison's in my CDC response the symptoms of subacute sclerosing panencephalitis (SSPE), you will see that autism is a non-fatal form of SSPE. The way Dr. Haley gets around the fact that almost every parent reports their child descended into autism following their MMR shot is by saying that the children received OTHER vaccines containing mercury at the same time as they received the MMR.
Dr. Haley also discusses how mercury is more toxic in children with immune disorders. Where did these immune disorders come from? From the corruption of the immune system caused by the inoculation of live viruses. He also discusses that mercury can cause toxicity which affects genetics by decreased methylation of DNA & RNA. However, no mention is made of the genetic mutations caused by injection of plasmids of DNA from the organisms themselves and the tissues that the viruses are cultured on, which is the whole basis of DNA vaccines. That is why this court case focuses on the fact that the child had a genetic defect which caused mitochondrial dysfunction. Where this defect originated is not discussed...injection of foreign DNA in prior vaccines (You will note in the court decision that the parents were not tested for this defect, as that would have proven that this is NOT an inherited genetic defect, but rather a mutation that occurred in this child de novo).
Lastly, Dr. also states that oral vaccines would be safer, but does not say this is because of the secretory IgA causing proper handling of the antigen (as also explained in my inoculation paper), leading to life long NATURAL immunity. Of course, if all vaccines were made into oral forms, people may then ask the hard question...SO WHY ISN'T NATURAL EXPOSURE TO THESE VIRUSES THE BEST WAY TO GO? This question would stop vaccine production altogether, which would stop the creation of all autoimmune diseases and cancer, which would shut down Big Pharma. THAT IS THE POTENTIAL OF MY INFORMATION; which is why the medical mafia has gone as far as taking my only child, not just my medical license as they tried with Dr. Wakefield in an attempt to shut me down.
Can you handle knowing the fact that all this is being done to the children ON PURPOSE? Then go here
and listen to the 2nd hour of my interview on 3/5/08 with Dr. True Ott, where he discusses how the history of MediSIN goes back to the 1600's as detailed in the Magnum Opus, with the creation of amulets by sacrificing animals and mixing their blood with mercurial compounds TO CAST A SPELL AND CONTROL THE MINDS OF THE POPULATIONS (Dr Ott discusses this starting at 13 minutes of the 2nd hour of our interview). He explains how the origins of the word "pharmaceutical" in Latin is "pharmakia", which translates to "SORCERY". Yes, folks...you have now entered the rabbit hole...because nothing has changed since the 1600's.
I have been trying for 10 years to stop the vaccination holocaust on people and pets. I have proven, with the quoted studies and works of the "mercury causes autism" disinformers themselves, that it is NOT MERCURY WHICH CAUSES AUTISM. I leave it up to you to forward this e-mail to all the individuals and groups which promote mercury as the cause of autism, so you will see for YOURSELVES who is intentionally misleading you, vs. who was misguided. You will know which is the case by whether or not they respond. SILENCE IS CONSENT that I am right; and if they do not join with me to stop this holocaust altogether, you must then ask yourself WHY. IT IS TIME FOR THOSE WITH HONORABLE INTENTIONS TO JOIN WITH ME TO STOP THIS EPIDEMIC OF VIDS. Let's roll....
Namaste,
Dr Carley

"We believe autism is an environmental illness."

Jenny McCarthy: My son's recovery from autism
http://punauni.freeblogit.com/2008/04/02/jenny-mccarthy-my-sons-recovery-from-autism/

In light of the recent Hannah Poling decision, in which the federal
court conceded that vaccines could have contributed to her autism, we
think the tide is finally turning in the direction of parents like us
who have been shouting concerns from our rooftops for years.
Actress Jenny McCarthy believes that vaccines could have contributed
to her son's autism.

Autism is a debilitating disorder, which according to the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, is suffered by 1 in 150 kids, making
it more common than childhood cancer, diabetes and AIDS combined.

Recently, England and Ireland reported that autism is affecting one
in 58 individuals.

Is it any wonder that autism has become many new parents' No. 1 fear?

We've met some of the most amazing moms and dads who are forging
their own path to prevention and recovery. When our son, Evan, was
diagnosed with autism we were lucky enough to benefit from their
knowledge and experience. Evan has been healed to a great extent by
many breakthroughs that, while perhaps not scientifically proven,
have definitely helped Evan and many other children who are
recovering from autism.

There are some who wonder what we mean when we say "recovering" from
autism. They confuse the word recover with cure. While you may not be
able to cure an injury caused in a terrible car accident, you can
recover; you can regain many skills that you once lost. In the case
of autism, we think there are treatments that often bring about such
healing, so that the observable symptoms of the condition no longer
exist. Even though we may no longer see any symptoms of autism, we
can't say a child is "cured" because we do not know what they would
have been like had they never been injured.

We believe what helped Evan recover was starting a gluten-free,
casein-free diet, vitamin supplementation, detox of metals, and anti-
fungals for yeast overgrowth that plagued his intestines. Once Evan's
neurological function was recovered through these medical treatments,
speech therapy and applied behavior analysis helped him quickly learn
the skills he could not learn while he was frozen in autism. After we
implemented these therapies for one year, the state re-evaluated Evan
for further services. They spent five minutes with Evan and
said, "What happened? We've never seen a recovery like this."

Evan is now 5 years old and what might surprise a lot of you is that
we've never been contacted by a single member of the CDC, the
American Academy of Pediatrics, or any other health authority to
evaluate and understand how Evan recovered from autism. When Evan
meets doctors and neurologists, to this day they tell us he was
misdiagnosed - that he never had autism to begin with. It's as if
they are wired to believe that children can't recover from autism.
Video Watch CDC chief on vaccines, autism »

So where's the cavalry? Where are all the doctors beating down our
door to take a closer look at Evan? We think we know why they haven't
arrived. Most of the parents we've met who have recovered their child
from autism as we did (and we have met many) blame vaccines for their
child's autism.

We think our health authorities don't want to open this can of worms,
so they don't even look or listen. While there is strong debate on
this topic, many parents of recovered children will tell you they
didn't treat their child for autism; they treated them for vaccine
injury. Read about latest fight over vaccines and autism

Many people aren't aware that in the 1980s our children received only
10 vaccines by age 5, whereas today they are given 36 immunizations,
most of them by age 2. With billions of pharmaceutical dollars, could
it be possible that the vaccine program is becoming more of a profit
engine then a means of prevention?

We believe autism is an environmental illness. Vaccines are not the
only environmental trigger, but we do think they play a major role.
If we are going to solve this problem and finally start to reverse
the rate of autism, we need to consider changing the vaccine
schedule, reducing the number of shots given and removing certain
ingredients that could be toxic to some children.

We take into account that some children have reactions to medicines
like penicillin, for example, yet when it comes to vaccines we are
operating as if our kids have a universal tolerance for them. We are
acting like ONE SIZE FITS ALL. That is, at the very least, a huge
improbability.

Even if the CDC is not convinced of a link between vaccines and
autism, changing the vaccine schedule should be seriously considered
as a precautionary measure. (If you would like to see some ideas for
alternative schedules, check out http://generationrescue.org.)

We wish to state, very clearly, that we are not against all vaccines,
but we do believe there is strong evidence to suggest that some of
the ingredients may be hazardous and that our children are being
given too many, too soon!

"If this study found there has been no increase in diseases in countries that discontinued the booster shots, as was noted, why is the current policy of over vaccinating our children continuing? Where are the conflict-free studies that prove giving infants and children 49 immunizations - most of them by age 5, are safe and effective? I'm also starting to think that we should follow the lead being set in veterinary medicine. Studies have provided evidence that the over-vaccination of dogs and cats can result in numerous maladies including cancer, skin and ear conditions, arthritis, allergies, diabetes, aggression, behavior problems and other immune system dysfunctions. There is even a name for the conditions caused by animal over-vaccination, vaccinosis and it is note worthy to read what veterinarians' say about over-vaccinating our pets. "Vaccinosis is the reaction from common inoculations (vaccines)...These reactions might take months or years to show up and will cause undue harm to future generations." - Deirdre Imus, Huffington Post (November 19, 2007)

Over Medicated and Over-Vaccinated:
The Unintended Consequences of Medicines Meant to Protect

Several important findings affecting our children's health were reported in the past few months. All of them raising questions about the unintended consequences of widely accepted medical treatments. In September news reports about Prevnar, a vaccine developed to protect against pneumonia in children, along with the overuse of antibiotics, was "having the unfortunate effect of promoting new superbugs that cause ear infections" that are resistant to all antibiotic drugs approved for children.

A month later it was announced that once routinely recommended infant and cold medications were being immediately and voluntarily recalled by many of the country's largest drug companies because the products were being "misused leading to overdosing," particularly in children 2 years and younger. In addition, physicians and public health officials expressed concern that there were no studies demonstrating the effectiveness of the medications.

In responding to the recall, Dr. Steven Czinn, chair of the department of pediatrics, University of Maryland School of Medicine stated, "In the 21st century, it is unacceptable to be marketing medication to infants and children that may not work."

Are they kidding me? "No studies demonstrating the effectiveness of these cold medications"? Don't we have a whole federal agency; the Food and Drug Administration, whose job it is to make sure drugs are safe and effective? If this data was available, why did it take 35 years to notify parents the medications they were giving their sick children may not work? Where is the evidence-based science that should have been here to prove safety and efficacy?

Just a few weeks ago another study called into question long prescribed vaccination recommendations and added more "fuel to the fire" in the on going controversy over our nation's immunization policies.

Published in the New England Journal of Medicine [Nov. 8, 2007] the study, funded by the U.S. Public Health Service, suggests we may want to reevaluate and adjust our nation's current vaccination recommendations.

Scientists from the Oregon Health & Science University found many of the vaccines administered to millions of American's may be providing immunity longer than what was first believed, making the need for some booster shots unnecessary.

"Surprisingly, we found that immunity following vaccination with tetanus and diphtheria was much more long-lived than anyone realized, and that antibody responses following viral infections were essentially maintained for life," stated lead author Dr. Mark Slifka, a scientist at the Vaccine and Gene Therapy Institute. The study also found similar longer than expected immunity for several other vaccines.

According to the study, "it [a booster shot] may just be unnecessary under certain circumstances." Logically, this would make sense. After all, if vaccines are effective, one should not need another booster shot.

But our kids are getting a lot of booster shots...shots containing heavy metals and viruses. Shots that a growing number of parents, physicians and researchers believe could be contributing to the rise of chronic illnesses and developmental disorders affecting our children. If the booster shots are unnecessary because immunity is present, why expose our children to these toxins?

If this study found there has been no increase in diseases in countries that discontinued the booster shots, as was noted, why is the current policy of over vaccinating our children continuing? Where are the conflict-free studies that prove giving infants and children 49 immunizations - most of them by age 5, are safe and effective?

I'm also starting to think that we should follow the lead being set in veterinary medicine. Studies have provided evidence that the over-vaccination of dogs and cats can result in numerous maladies including cancer, skin and ear conditions, arthritis, allergies, diabetes, aggression, behavior problems and other immune system dysfunctions.

There is even a name for the conditions caused by animal over-vaccination, vaccinosis and it is note worthy to read what veterinarians' say about over- vaccinating our pets.

"Vaccinosis is the reaction from common inoculations (vaccines)...These reactions might take months or years to show up and will cause undue harm to future generations."

"In a general and frightening context, I see the overall health and longevity of animals deteriorating. The bodies of most animals have a tremendous capacity to detoxify poisons, but they do have a limit." These statements made by seasoned animal health professionals have an eerie familiar ring to them.

They bare a striking resemblance to what parents of children suffering from autism and other neurodevelopmental disorders have been claiming. Why is it that veterinarians have a better appreciation of how over-vaccinating with shots containing various toxins and viruses might overload the immune system of the family pet but mainstream physicians can't quite wrap their arms around such a logical premise when it comes to our babies and young children? If vaccinosis can cause maladies in animals, isn't it possible that like animals, over-vaccinating our children might, not only be unnecessary, but may be contributing to the rising rates of chronic diseases and neurodevelopmental disorders affecting our children today?

It is also interesting to note that the mercury- containing preservative [thimerosal] used in vaccines for over 50 years was removed from animal vaccines back in 1992. Unfortunately for the kids, it remained in children's vaccines for another decade and remains in some vaccines like the influenza (25 micrograms) and tetanus vaccine (25 micrograms) today and in trace amounts (3 micrograms) in some immunizations. Add this all up and there's still a lot of mercury being injected into our children.

What most people don't realize is that any liquid waste containing more than 200 parts per billion (ppb) mercury must be deposited at a hazardous waste site and that drinking water cannot exceed 2 ppb mercury. But when the influenza vaccines arrive and are injected into pregnant woman and infants as young as six months, those vaccines contain 50,000 ppb mercury. This is an amount that is 250 times higher than hazardous waste. According to EPA guidelines, this amount of mercury can only be considered safe if a person weighs 550 pounds. Even trace amounts of mercury in vaccines can be anywhere from 600 to 2000 ppb.

The CDC and The Institute for Vaccine Safety claim there are "no biological effects" from trace amounts (.3 micrograms) of mercury. So, where are the evidenced based (conflict free) studies that prove the safety of these "trace" amounts and proof that there are "no biological effects" of any amount of mercury being injected into our children and pregnant moms? Also, where are the evidence based studies proving the safety of vaccines given to pregnant moms and our children that contain other toxins such as aluminum and formaldehyde?

I do take issue with the NEJM study opinion that "over-vaccinating the population poses no health or safety concerns". Where is the hard data showing that giving vaccines, where immunity already exists... is not harmful?

Thimerosal has been proven to be a carcinogen, immunotoxic, genotoxic, nephrotoxic and neurotoxic. One study found thimerosal's lethal toxicity to developing human neurons below 1 part per billion (Parran et al., 2005). Another study concluded, "thimerosal.....has been found not only to render its primary toxic effect, but also capable of changing the properties of cells. This fact suggests that the use of thimerosal for the preservation of medical biological preparations, especially those intended for children, is inadmissible." (Kravchenko et al., 1983).

These and many other studies would suggest over-vaccinating, certainly does pose some "health and safety concerns."

So here we have several recent findings that all contradict previously long held medical beliefs and raise more questions about the unintended consequences of overuse of some medications and over vaccinating and perhaps the over marketing of these treatments by pharmaceutical companies. Far too often we are beginning to see physician prescribed drugs (like Vioxx and thalidomide) and vaccines (like the whole cell DPT and Rotovirus) thrust upon the public that are later found to be unsafe.

While physicians warn the public about the over use of antibiotics, it is the physicians themselves that over-prescribed these antibiotics for every ailment under the sun. And like antibiotics, every time a new vaccine was developed, it quickly found its way onto the immunization schedule along with the recommended booster shots. We are now reaping the unintended consequences of the overuse of these medical interventions. Instead of being healthier, we have a nation of very sick children.

Let's open our eyes to what appears obvious to doctors treating animals... we have allowed ourselves and our children to be overdosed through a culture dominated by drug company marketing influence which has now become dangerously out of control and detrimental to our children's health.

National Vaccine Information Center

WASHINGTON, DC (February 8, 2007) -- This morning, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released, through its Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), the latest revised prevalence figures for autism. The report indicates that the prevalence of autism is now 1 in 150, up from the 1 in 166 figure reported by the CDC in January, 2004.

Today's report states, "Findings from this first U.S. multi-site collaborative study to monitor ASD prevalence demonstrated consistency across the majority of sites, with prevalence statistically significantly (p<0.001) higher in New Jersey. ! ; Average ASD prevalence across all six sites was 6.7 per 1,000 children aged 8 years. These results indicate that ASDs are more common than was believed previously."

Speaking at a Capitol Hill briefing about the new data, Dr. Gary Goldstein, Autism Speaks' Scientific Advisory Committee Chair and President of the Kennedy Krieger Institute, said, "These new numbers provide a much more accurate picture of a disorder that has undoubtedly become a major national health crisis. Our dedication to finding critical answers about autism -- potential causes, better treatments and, hopefully, a cure -- must become that much more urgent today."

These new prevalence estimates are the first to come from multiple sites utilizing the same methodology for the same points in time. (Previous prevalence estimates have been from single sites and have relied on differing methodologies). According to the CDC, th! ese data represent the most comprehensive effort to obtain accurate pr evalence figures for Autism Spectrum Disorders to date, and offer important information about the prevalence of these conditions in multiple parts of the U.S.

As part of this study, six ADDM sites evaluated the prevalence of ASDs for children who were eight years old in 2000 (born in 1992): Arizona, Georgia, Maryland, New Jersey, South Carolina and West Virginia.

An additional eight sites determined ASD prevalence for children who were eight in 2002 (born in 1994): Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Missouri, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Utah and Wisconsin.

http://deseretnews.http://deserhttp://deseretnehttp://d

Author focuses on 'new autism'
By Elaine Jarvik
Deseret Morning News

Here's what Dr. Bryan Jepson thought he knew about autism six years ago: that it was a rare, genetic, developmental, untreatable brain disorder. But that's the "old autism," he says.

Jepson, who graduated from the University of Utah School of Medicine in 1995, says what he knew about autism then he mostly learned from the movie "Rain Man." Later, in 2001, his lovable, happy 18-month-old baby began to change - to "fade away," as Jepson puts it. The toddler no longer wanted to be read to, wouldn't look his parents in the eye and liked to spin in circles in the middle of the floor.

A child psychiatrist told Jepson and his wife, Laurie, "Prepare yourself for the time when Aaron will need to be institutionalized. Forget experimental therapies." Instead, Laurie Jepson took to the Internet. And before long, her husband - who categorizes himself as a "mainstream" physician - was deep in medical literature about
the biochemistry of autism. Soon he was convinced that autism is a complex metabolic disease that has as much to do with the gut as it does with the brain.

Bryan Jepson, who is now director of medical services at Thoughtful House Center for Children in Austin, Texas, is back in Utah this week to talk about his new book, &quo

AUTISM STATISTICS.

WHY THE AUTISM SPEAKS BLACKOUT ON JENNY AND DAN!?

Government Concedes Vaccine-Autism Case in Federal Court - Now What?