Another excellent article from the Unbiased Science team. I hope it's disseminated widely. My wife and I certainly considered the pros and cons of vaccinations when our son was born but, for us, the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of do rather than don't vaccinate.
What I am continually amazed by is the fundamental foundation of genetic heritabilty data that is overlooked when discussing the etiology of ASD. While the Online Mendelian Inheritance In Man [OMIM] database from Johns Hopkins Medical School attempts to categorize every instance and occasion of a potential marker - some 139 - the single general category of Autism should be easily identifiable to every clinician and parent by its description.
And amazingly, the studies that began to define ASD began with a paper written, first, by Dr. Leo Kanner, "Autistic Disturbances of Affective Contact" in 1943, followed by a similar paper by Dr. Hans Asperger in 1944. And you would have thought they were dealing with a completely opposing entity: Kanner wrote of a group, "A majority [of which] are retarded, often severely; a significant proportion have seizures and may have “soft” neurological signs and symptoms—a whole range of repetitive or automatic movements, such as spasms, tics, rocking, spinning, finger play, or flapping of the hands; problems of coordination and balance; peculiar difficulties, sometimes, in initiating movements, akin to what is seen in parkinsonism," while Asperger spoke of children who "might have certain positive or compensating features— particular originality of thought and experience, which may well lead to exceptional achievements in later life.” And this is critical, as the OMIM is every bit as much focused on heritable behavioral diversity as it is on specific genetic heritability.
Nevertheless, serving as a base, the OMIM focuses on what you would expect for Mendelian inheritance: classic family pedigree studies (including Scandinavian studies that rely on familial pedigrees dating to the 17th century); validated twin studies; genetic heterogeneity (e.g. genome wide association studies); exclusion studies; molecular genetics; and populalation genetics. In our day, study after study confirms the indisputable fact that genetics are seen to influence the development of ASD in anywhere from 40-80% of cases, and we have only begun to investigate the epigenetic influences - currently believed to include later-in-life parenthood,; an over/under abundance of critical nutrients during pregnancy; disturbance in the brain/gut microbiome; and other yet to be discovered triggers may be triggers for ASD.
As a psychiatrist, I have long thought that the avoidance of this genetic fact is a distraction for what I have been reading in the research literature regarding the fear of being viewed as a "bad" or "negligent" parent for having an ASD child - and I believe you would very surprised by the sheer number of research studies that bear this out. I have concluded I need to be sensitive, empathetic, and supportive and I am trying to lose my "combative" mode!
I've never understood that "overwhelming the immune system" argument. Do people think the immune system is like a town police force that only responds in emergencies? Our bodies are constantly being challenged throughout our lives. It's amazing how well the whole system works!
Aluminum in vaccines is used to aggregate antigen and activate the NLRP3 inflammasome. It also induces reactive oxygen species (ROS) to exacerbate inflammation and induce glycolysis. I just provided evidence that vaccines and viral infectious agents are the more likely mechanism of transplant rejection. Further unpublished evidence implicates a role for autoimmune diseases, of which autism is classified. Story is not over yet. Yes, I accept burden of proof any other verbiage that someone wants to hand out . It may take awhile. But the science cannot rule out the possibility just yet, contrary to what you're hearing and reading. You're a little too comfy with past studies.
I read your study and I’m unsure of why your cryptic post is a cross between Bergman’s Seventh Seals and Baba Yaga’s fable of the man telling his silly bride-to-be “I’ll only marry you if I can find three people in the village dumber than you.” To be frank, I am really weary of bombshells. I find them exhausting, and more often than not, in my little corner of the world, disappointing.
Everyone is weary of bombshells. It's a natural human reaction. Probably why I got nixed for uncovering the mistakes. Funny thing is, the editor never questioned my citation of all the mistakes I revealed from the past 70 years. The reviewers wanted to see more experimental data, not just in silico. That's tough when you don't have a lab anymore to do the work. I'm still searching for collaborators. But as you can imagine, there are not too many eager beavers to do the proof-of-concept experiments I've planned. I already had preliminary data supporting cross reactivity with H1N1. One more experiment would have proved the concept. They wouldn't let me go there. It's expensive to do all that on my own, and I'm no spring chicken. I've taken enough risk and got burned in the process which affected my family. I still felt an obligation to publish and set the record straight and hope some younger investigators will come across it and move it forward some day. Similar thing happened with Ignaz Semmelweis and Luis Pasteur. May be hard to swallow, but if you follow the science from 1954, there's little doubt about the errors that were just by-passed. Everyone followed the bandwagon of "mismatched organs" because it made sense. It still does. It amazed me that so many good scientists could miss it, but not surprising given the changes in technology. There's still a lot to learn about exosomes. And the data points to these particles as the "entity" that is causing rejection both of transplants and autoimmunity. The inflammatory sequence is consistent with the metabolic pathway. I saw these antibodies arise after consistent and reproducible patterns of infection and vaccination in a pediatric institution. That's the best place to study it, away from the "noise" from pregnancy, life-long infection records and transfusion history seen in adults. HLA are associated with over 600 chronic diseases, by far more than any other area of the human genome. When you interrogate the same viral pairs for autoimmunity that I interrogated for HLA, and correlate them with HLA disease associations, you find autoimmune epitopes. It's fascinating and specific. Worst of all, I may never see it come to fruition in my lifetime. Sorry about the way it sounds, I'm just putting down my observations. If you went to the data repository for my paper, you can see the reproducibility yourself. EBV + another virus under stress = auto/alloimmunty. Altered antigenicity of infected cells has been known since the 1960's, but no one could understand it at a molecular level. HLA is the key to immune recognition. It's complex yet has an element of simplicity to it (the mechanism appears consistent). No one has tied the literature mistakes with HLA, stress, metabolic changes, pist translational modifications and viral superinfection together before. No study whatsoever. Speculation of molecualr mimicry, yes. But little concrete data. My study is the first to show evidence, albeit in silico, of its consistency. Just the right person at the right time and the right place. I didn't have any other choice except to shirk responsibility and walk away from what I saw. I'm still searching for ways to get the work done, but I need resources that I don't presently have. And most investigators just give me the "it's a great hypothesis, but it's not my area of focus." Sounds legit and I can't judge or get around it. But it doesn't mean I have to stop trying just yet. So I'll deal with the nay-sayers until I can prove them wrong or join them. Right now, I'm in the camp the says vaccines can cause disease (although not by themselves). The process is more complicated than that.
While I appreciate your response, I seriously question the ethics of you posting a cryptic, "I know something you don't know, but I'm not telling you," and suggesting the past science could - or probably is - all wrong. Nevertheless, it "might take awhile" to prove. This is unjustified "titillation," not the attitude of a credible researcher. You are doing nothing but contributing to the ongoing divisiveness these issue already provoke, and I fail to see the point.
Maybe there's an element of antagonism in my writing because of what I've been through and being tired of being stereotyped among anti-vaxers with no evidence or intellect. I worked as a technologist (with a master's degree in clinical immunology) in academic hospital labs for 35 years as a loyal employee built the lab at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and was ousted for questioning mainstream immunology (abbreviated version). We'll see how things go later this week as to whether I might be able to get some funding to get started with the next step. I am cryptic for reasons of caution and can't explain more than that. Sorry to disappoint you. Call it as you will.
Regarding the comments on aluminum as adjuvents in vaccines, the logic is flawed. No safety studies have been completed on "injecting aluminum". This data is based on ingesting it which achieves a first pass through the digestive system where nearly all of it is filtered out and excreted via urine.
Let me ask you this, if you went home and drank 4 shots of tequila, how would you feel? Depending on the person, you would feel some varying degree of intoxication. The next morning you may wake up with a hang over. Now repeat the same experiment by injecting 4 shots of tequila intramuscularly. Now how would you feel? Dead. You would very likely die of alcohol poisoning as it did not achieve first pass filtration via your digestive system and liver/kidneys.
The same is true of injecting aluminum. This bypasses filtration and accumulates in the bones and brain. A majority of children will be fine as the body processes this well documented nuerotoxin and excretes it over time. Another subset of children with a genetically limited ability to remove excess toxins are more likley to experience more severe side effects. Look up the study on premature babies being fed formula with aluminum in it. Many died as they did not have fully devoloped digestive filtration. Hence they banned aluminum from all injectables excluding vaccines, as an adjuvent is required to stimulate an immune response.
To note, vaccines do not cause autism. The genetic mutation limiting the child's ability to process these toxins allows them to accumulate in the brain thus causing autism. Parents of these children report a "regression" after vaccination. This is well documented, peer reviewed, and replicated numerous times in studies yet seemingly ignored by the medical industry and the "vaccinate everyone" crowd. Perhaps we should have a more measured approach to vaccinating that includes the testing of all children for these genetic markers that limit toxin processing and excretion. If a child has these markers, they should not recieve vaccines as the risk is too great.
So when we give iron infusions, are we injecting raw iron straight in? No. That's how ridiculous your alcohol example is. Nobody is injecting straight aluminium, it's in salt form, and it's a miniscule amount. Not enough to be a toxic dose at all. There have been plenty of studies that look at how it is excreted IM, and it all comes out through the urine. None of it is accumulating.
Also you've got no idea how our kidneys and liver work, do you? They're connected to your blood stream. Your kidneys filter your blood, not your stomach contents. Alcohol goes into your bloodstream straight from your gut. It doesn't go through the kidneys or liver first 🤣
Maybe I was not clear in my post. I am referring to ASD children. Yes, a vast majority of people have no issue processing the aluminum or other toxins in the vaccines. Autistic children do, hence why many experience a regression after vaccination. You can go look up the studies yourself. There are dozens, hence why nearly all autism agencies do not recommend vaccination in ASD children. Roughly 80% of children diagnosed with ASD are genetically incapable of processing these toxins (depeninding on the study - most are between 70% and 90%). We do not know the effects of vaccines on brain development in ASD children. Parents see their child get a vaccine, then experience a regression with ASD symptoms developing. Thus the strong link between ASD and vaccines. Vaccines are not the cause. Other toxins can also cause this regression, so it is not just vaccines to be clear.
On your point of ingestion versus injection, VERY little aluminum is absorbed into the bloodstream by the digestive system unless it is underdeveloped or there are gastrointestinal issues. Far less than 1% is actually absorbed where it is then filtered out by MOST people and excreted. So to your point of injecting iron or other vitamins for that matter, it is far more effective than than ingestion. It saddens me that even medical professionals continue this foolish regurgitated logic. 100% of injected iron ends up in the blood stream vs 10% or less via digestion. The same is also true of alcohol in my example. I am sorry if my point was not clear.
The problem I have with vaccination is that it is not a one size fits all. Every person is different and it may cause life long damage to a small percentage of people. Some simple pre genetic testing could identify risk factors for this small percentage of individuals and save them from irreversible life long damage. Is their well being not worth this simple extra step??? If this testing could drastically reduce the ever increasing prevalence of ASD and other disorders, would you not think this is a better approach?
Sadly any resistance or suggestion of a more measured approach is met with the same aggression you have shown here. Attack those who don't follow the rhetoric. That is the problem. Confirmation bias does not allow even the most intelligent of people to use logic and reason to determine that maybe we should explore this as an option. We have the ability through simple tests to reduce risk, yet when discussed it is met with nothing more than vitriol.
It isn't a matter of "rhetoric," it's your argument from ignorance that's the issue. You imagine that we do not have good evidence, that we do not know. The "increasing prevalence" isn't a result of vaccination; it's a result of better understanding of those problems and the ability to diagnose that has resulted in "increasing prevalence". You're not using logic and reason. You're using bias and fallacious appeals. If there was evidence that vaccination was causing this, then we'd have good reason to explore it, but that isn't the case.
Thank you for sharing. I assure you it is not ignorance. I have read the studies for and against. I agree aluminum is safe for most people at the concentrations contained in vaccines. However if you notice in this article and as I have pointed out now several times, there is no consideration given to ASD processing of toxins. None. So no, this article does not cover my argument! You are missing the point entirely.
Yes improved ASD diagnosis has made the prevalence increase. Roughly 3.2% of children are being diagnosed yearly. The question I pose is could this prevalence not be reduced with altered or spread out vaccine schedules as proposed by Dr. Sears? Or perhaps for high risk children with these genetic markers, forgoing vaccination entirely. The studies have not been done. That is my point and you have proven it by sharing this article as a rebuttal. No mention of ASD toxin processing anywhere. Look it up yourself and Google ASD toxin processing. Dozens of peer reviewed and replicated studies. Sadly overlooked by our medical professionals.
Do you not believe a known nuerotoxin injected into a child with ASD genetic markers to have no effect given they can't process it to the same extent? Studies have confirmed a small percentage accumulates in the brain. This percentage would be far greater in an ASD child. We don't know how how much as the studies have not been done, but could it not affect brain development and impede cognitive function? More research is needed, but with 100% certainty we can ascertain that aluminum in vaccines for ASD children is very risky due to this inability to process toxins, hence why ASD organizations almost universally do not recommend further vaccination in these children.
PS At this point, you can find at least one (if not several) "studies" to support nearly anything. That does not mean the studies are valid or even well conducted. I literally saw one recently where they evaluated if frozen human feces could be made into an effective "shank". (The well-supported conclusion was, No.) Do you have experience evaluating studies? Most people do not. Even among the scientist I know, many may need help evaluating studies that are outside their specific field. https://www.clearerthinking.org/post/how-to-read-an-academic-paper-and-tell-whether-it-s-bullshit?
You'd need evidence that there's a difference. The evidence we have supports that there is not. It's not a neurotoxin, not at the levels used. The evidence does not support that greater levels accumulate in the brains of ADS children. You're never going to get evidence to support anything in science with 100% certainty. Science doesn't deal in absolutes. Uncertainty is a feature of science. (Not a bug.) You're expecting an unreasonable and unattainable standard. "Most major autism organizations do not advise against vaccination. In fact, leading organizations, including the Autism Society of America and Autism Speaks, actively advocate for vaccination and promote vaccine education initiatives."
I see Alle has already adequately addressed your tequila claim lol. But please do cite the peer reviewed literature that you are referring to in regards to autism.
Also to note, I am sure you are more than capable of using Google. Search ASD toxin processing. There are dozens of studies for you to read. It is not just vaccines but many other environmental toxins are not processed effectively by ASD children. This is likely also why there is a link between ASD and children raised in lower income families. Plastics, lead, highly processed food, and numerous other contaminents tend to be more prevalent in lower income brackets. This is theoretical at this point, but twin studies have shown lower prevalence of ASD and lesser symptoms in higher income families.
Telling someone to "Google it" is not supportive of the claim YOU made that seemingly goes against the evidence, hence the ask for the citation of which you refer. Google can yield you results on just about anything you ask it. That doesn't make it quality evidence by any means. The burden of proof is on you to provide quality evidence for that which you are claiming here. You seem passionate about this topic, so surely have you have some quality evidence at hand. More than just Googling ASD toxin processing. Maybe there are dozens of studies as you say, but it's also possible that zero of those studies are quality evidence.
See my other comments for some links to studies. There are dozens of them. You can easily look them up yourself with Google. That was my suggestion. I have read these studies over the past 10 years and don't have the time to dig through the bowels of the internet to find them all for you.
But yes I am passionate about this topic. My son has autism and he experienced his regression after exposure to toxic mold we were unaware of it in a temporary home we rented prior to buying a house. He was not vaccinated as my wife's side of the family has a high prevalence of autism and we did our best to limit toxin exposure to all of our kids due to the countless hours of research I had done regarding environmental toxins and ASD. There is very clearly a link. Limiting plastics, organic food, etc.
This is anecdotal, but I can tell you that with the 100s of parents I have met who have ASD children and hearing their stories, almost every regression occurred after exposure to environmental toxins. Most commonly following vaccination. It is hard to watch a seemingly nuerotypical child disappear into their own head right in front of your eyes. Speech gone. Tics develop like hand flapping, spinning, banging their head on walls. Behavioral issues. No eye contact. The child you once knew disappears. The same stories told over and over again by all of these parents. Something is wrong and it is not just the aluminum in vaccines. Plastics, processed food, pesticides, etc. Vaccines are only one peice of the puzzle that is ASD. I tell most of these parents the vaccine did not cause the ASD, it merely triggered something already there. Anything could have triggered the regression such as mold in my son's case.
This is why I feel so strongly about it. More research is needed and acknowledgement that there is a link. Aluminum is a toxin and if not processed effectively, it may contribute to these regressions.
No she has not. It was merely an example of the absorption difference between injection and ingestion. There is a substantial difference. My point is that ASD children can't process these toxins after entering the bloodstream. After multiple injections, have we ever tested an ASD child on how much is excreted following vaccination vs non ASD? No we have not. We have also only tested individual vaccines, not the entire schedule. Do we know if the 30+ vaccines given to children over their childhood are safe when injected together? Please provide that study. I have yet to find one, so if you do know of one, please provide it.
You need a study showing what exactly? Please describe the study that you'd like to see in detail. Bc I think you're intentionally painting with a broad brush here and also seemingly ignoring the rigorous safety testing (and available) data that exists for vaccinations and how the vaccination schedule came to be. Maybe you're not, but that's how it reads. You can't just shrug off the safety data bc you can't find a single study that suits YOUR needs and wants. That's not how science works.
Thank you for sharing. From this link you shared, below are the corresponding levels of aluminum injected(vaccines) or ingested(breastfeeding or formula) in the first 6 months of life.
Vaccines: 4-5 of 1,000 pieces
Food via breastfeeding: 7 of 1,000 pieces
Food via regular formula: 38 of 1,000 pieces
Food via soy-based formula: 117 of 1,000 pieces
Given a two year old child will receive approximately 27 vaccines, sometimes several at once, this would be approximately 10+ "pieces" (mg) of aluminum directly into the bloodstream. In one day, a child could recieve as much as 1 to 1.5 of 1000 pieces (1 to 1.5 milligrams) if following the vaccine schedule. That is a lot in a very short period of time comparatively to ingested formula or breastmilk. Let me explain.
In comparison, assuminging a very high 1% digestive absorption rate of aluminum, breastfeeding at 182.5 days (6 months) would result in 0.07 pieces absorbed into the bloodstream spread out daily (7mg x 0.01). Daily intake at this above average level of absorption would equate to 0.000384 pieces per day (0.07mg absorbed over 6 months/182.5 days).
For the high aluminum soy formula, this would result in 1.17 pieces absorbed spread out over 182.5 days. Daily intake would be on average 0.006 milligrams/pieces per day.
Do you see my point? There is a difference between injection and ingestion and you have confirmed my argument in sharing this link. This is a 166x increase in "absorbed" aluminum in a single day in comparing soy formula vs the 6 old month vaccines where 4 or 5 are given at the same time! It is a 2604 fold increase (single day) in comparison to breastfeeding. This is all sauming a very high 1% digestive absorption rate, so these numbers are conservative.
The article does go on to discuss this fact, but it assumes all people have the same toxin processing capabilities. They do not. Google ASD toxin processing and read the dozens of replicated studies identifying this issue. For most of us, we simply filter this aluminum out and a very small percentage ends up accumulating in our tissues, bones, and brain. Less than 1%. For ASD this number is much higher. But, no studies have been done to determine exactly how much. We simply do not know. What we do know is that aluminum in high enough concentration is a nuerotoxin. Now put two and two together and now we can start to see why there is a link between vaccines and the increased prevalence of ASD. As mentioned in other comments here, other environmental toxins can cause ASD regression as well. Vaccines are not the only culprit.
I simply advocate for a measured approach. It is not as simple as injecting everyone and expecting the same result. Vaccines are important, but would it not be prudent to identify higher risk children and possibly delay or forgo vaccination? Or should we continue mass vaccination and count the permanently damaged children merely as a cost to the greater good?
Like every doctor/scientist/nurse that presents this exact argument about breastmilk or forumla, these numbers do not differentiate the amount of aluminum ABSORBED into the bloodstream. 100% in the vaccines versus less than 1% in digested breast milk or formula. It is a foolish argument especially as it pertains to ASD where far less is excreted through filtration. Prove me wrong!
Two studies you need to examine that clearly are at odds with your argument:
1) This 2023 study is a thorough & comprehensive examination of the effect of Al in the human brain and the accumulated risk of subsequent development of Alzheimer’s Disease, ASD, Alcohol Use Disorder, Multiple Sclerosis, & Parkinson’s Disease. Aluminium in the Human Brain: Routes of Penetration, Toxicity, and Resulting Complications. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10139039/#sec3-ijms-24-07228. You will note that it concludes, ""The risk of Al toxicity via vaccination is minimal compared to the benefits presented by vaccinations alone, and data regarding skin Al absorption appear to be limited."
2) This 2023 study is a general safety study: "Aluminum salts are by far the most widely used adjuvants for human vaccines, showing acceptable safety and efficacy... In conclusion, this study provides a reference for the application of adjuvants in vaccines by studying the physicochemical properties and adsorption conditions of different aluminum adjuvants and antigens." https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405844023060085. Physicochemical properties and adsorption state of aluminum adjuvants with different processes in vaccines.
Thank you for sharing. The first article you shared indicates that the science is not conclusive surrounding aluminum adjuvents and ASD (section 3). My suggestion is more research is needed to understand the risks due to environtment toxin exposure. I don't disagree with you in that aluminum is safe for most people in the small amounts contained in vaccines.
Other environmental toxins are also linked to a higher prevalence and severity of ASD. The jury is still out on aluminum. Below are a handful of studies completed. There are many more. The current status quo is vaccinate everyone as the benefit outweighs the risk. I believe with further understanding and research we can determine children who have the genetic markers for ASD and alter, delay, or completely forgo the current vaccine schedule to mitigate these risks. Why do this? Because the science is becoming clear that ASD children are more severely affected by envirmontal toxins, including those contained in vaccines.
For the majority of us, aluminum is safe. I 100% agree. The current vaccine schedule is safe, although I personally feel some are unnecessary. I also think Dr Sears suggestion of spacing vaccines out instead of several during one visit is a wise consideration to mitigate adverse reactions.
With all due respect, I have offered you concise & specific research regarding Al accumulation in the brain, and safety & efficacy studies that are not only contemporaneous, but validated and accurate. Your response is help rejecting complaining, which is not altogether unexpected. Further, you have completely ignored my rather lengthy post detailing the undeniable heritability of ASD, and would continue this unfounded, uncited argument of a debunked association between aluminum and ASD. And with that, I leave you to your own devices with my best wishes.
Not debunked I am afraid. Even the articles you shared auggest more research is needed as the results are unclear. I liked that description you posted to note and I appreciate the commentary and challenging my opinions. It is important to have proper discourse and debate on these topics. Too often it is merely shut down as some anti vax conspiracy nut. Labeled and discredited just for disagreeing. Science is often not a straight and concise road to truth. Repeated replication is the key.
Would you agree that aluminum is a nuerotoxin in high enough concentrations? I think the science is clear on that myself.
Would you agree that ASD children have difficulties processing toxins? I think more research is needed, but I would say with a fairly high degree of certainty yes.
Would you agree there is a strong enough correlation between vaccination and ASD regression? At this point I would not, but my anecdotal experience suggests ther is a strong link based on the 100s of stories I have heard from other parents of autistic children. The science here has been flawed as it was previously tested from the basis of vaccines being the cause when it is more likely a combination of environmental toxins before and after birth. Maybe the straw that broke the camels back if you will. More research needed.
The safety studies you claim do not exist, do. We know how the aluminum contained in some vaccines is processed by the body. All of your assertions are contradicted by numerous well-conducted studies. Before you ask for evidence, two things. What evidence would convince you? Second, please don't reverse the burden of proof. You made a claim, and it's your responsibility to provide evidence to support it, not for me to provide evidence to disprove it. If you can think of something that would convince you, then I suggest you look for that. If nothing would convince you, you aren't thinking scientifically or critically. Extra points for claiming that all studies conducted for aluminum are based on eating it, which differs from injecting it, then claiming that premature infants eating it is why aluminum is "banned" for injections (which, according to you, would differ).
Those studies were not conducted on ASD children, were they? That was my point. A vast majority of people have no issue processing this aluminum, you are correct. I am not talking about this group.
Another excellent article from the Unbiased Science team. I hope it's disseminated widely. My wife and I certainly considered the pros and cons of vaccinations when our son was born but, for us, the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of do rather than don't vaccinate.
What I am continually amazed by is the fundamental foundation of genetic heritabilty data that is overlooked when discussing the etiology of ASD. While the Online Mendelian Inheritance In Man [OMIM] database from Johns Hopkins Medical School attempts to categorize every instance and occasion of a potential marker - some 139 - the single general category of Autism should be easily identifiable to every clinician and parent by its description.
And amazingly, the studies that began to define ASD began with a paper written, first, by Dr. Leo Kanner, "Autistic Disturbances of Affective Contact" in 1943, followed by a similar paper by Dr. Hans Asperger in 1944. And you would have thought they were dealing with a completely opposing entity: Kanner wrote of a group, "A majority [of which] are retarded, often severely; a significant proportion have seizures and may have “soft” neurological signs and symptoms—a whole range of repetitive or automatic movements, such as spasms, tics, rocking, spinning, finger play, or flapping of the hands; problems of coordination and balance; peculiar difficulties, sometimes, in initiating movements, akin to what is seen in parkinsonism," while Asperger spoke of children who "might have certain positive or compensating features— particular originality of thought and experience, which may well lead to exceptional achievements in later life.” And this is critical, as the OMIM is every bit as much focused on heritable behavioral diversity as it is on specific genetic heritability.
Nevertheless, serving as a base, the OMIM focuses on what you would expect for Mendelian inheritance: classic family pedigree studies (including Scandinavian studies that rely on familial pedigrees dating to the 17th century); validated twin studies; genetic heterogeneity (e.g. genome wide association studies); exclusion studies; molecular genetics; and populalation genetics. In our day, study after study confirms the indisputable fact that genetics are seen to influence the development of ASD in anywhere from 40-80% of cases, and we have only begun to investigate the epigenetic influences - currently believed to include later-in-life parenthood,; an over/under abundance of critical nutrients during pregnancy; disturbance in the brain/gut microbiome; and other yet to be discovered triggers may be triggers for ASD.
As a psychiatrist, I have long thought that the avoidance of this genetic fact is a distraction for what I have been reading in the research literature regarding the fear of being viewed as a "bad" or "negligent" parent for having an ASD child - and I believe you would very surprised by the sheer number of research studies that bear this out. I have concluded I need to be sensitive, empathetic, and supportive and I am trying to lose my "combative" mode!
I've never understood that "overwhelming the immune system" argument. Do people think the immune system is like a town police force that only responds in emergencies? Our bodies are constantly being challenged throughout our lives. It's amazing how well the whole system works!
Aluminum in vaccines is used to aggregate antigen and activate the NLRP3 inflammasome. It also induces reactive oxygen species (ROS) to exacerbate inflammation and induce glycolysis. I just provided evidence that vaccines and viral infectious agents are the more likely mechanism of transplant rejection. Further unpublished evidence implicates a role for autoimmune diseases, of which autism is classified. Story is not over yet. Yes, I accept burden of proof any other verbiage that someone wants to hand out . It may take awhile. But the science cannot rule out the possibility just yet, contrary to what you're hearing and reading. You're a little too comfy with past studies.
I read your study and I’m unsure of why your cryptic post is a cross between Bergman’s Seventh Seals and Baba Yaga’s fable of the man telling his silly bride-to-be “I’ll only marry you if I can find three people in the village dumber than you.” To be frank, I am really weary of bombshells. I find them exhausting, and more often than not, in my little corner of the world, disappointing.
Everyone is weary of bombshells. It's a natural human reaction. Probably why I got nixed for uncovering the mistakes. Funny thing is, the editor never questioned my citation of all the mistakes I revealed from the past 70 years. The reviewers wanted to see more experimental data, not just in silico. That's tough when you don't have a lab anymore to do the work. I'm still searching for collaborators. But as you can imagine, there are not too many eager beavers to do the proof-of-concept experiments I've planned. I already had preliminary data supporting cross reactivity with H1N1. One more experiment would have proved the concept. They wouldn't let me go there. It's expensive to do all that on my own, and I'm no spring chicken. I've taken enough risk and got burned in the process which affected my family. I still felt an obligation to publish and set the record straight and hope some younger investigators will come across it and move it forward some day. Similar thing happened with Ignaz Semmelweis and Luis Pasteur. May be hard to swallow, but if you follow the science from 1954, there's little doubt about the errors that were just by-passed. Everyone followed the bandwagon of "mismatched organs" because it made sense. It still does. It amazed me that so many good scientists could miss it, but not surprising given the changes in technology. There's still a lot to learn about exosomes. And the data points to these particles as the "entity" that is causing rejection both of transplants and autoimmunity. The inflammatory sequence is consistent with the metabolic pathway. I saw these antibodies arise after consistent and reproducible patterns of infection and vaccination in a pediatric institution. That's the best place to study it, away from the "noise" from pregnancy, life-long infection records and transfusion history seen in adults. HLA are associated with over 600 chronic diseases, by far more than any other area of the human genome. When you interrogate the same viral pairs for autoimmunity that I interrogated for HLA, and correlate them with HLA disease associations, you find autoimmune epitopes. It's fascinating and specific. Worst of all, I may never see it come to fruition in my lifetime. Sorry about the way it sounds, I'm just putting down my observations. If you went to the data repository for my paper, you can see the reproducibility yourself. EBV + another virus under stress = auto/alloimmunty. Altered antigenicity of infected cells has been known since the 1960's, but no one could understand it at a molecular level. HLA is the key to immune recognition. It's complex yet has an element of simplicity to it (the mechanism appears consistent). No one has tied the literature mistakes with HLA, stress, metabolic changes, pist translational modifications and viral superinfection together before. No study whatsoever. Speculation of molecualr mimicry, yes. But little concrete data. My study is the first to show evidence, albeit in silico, of its consistency. Just the right person at the right time and the right place. I didn't have any other choice except to shirk responsibility and walk away from what I saw. I'm still searching for ways to get the work done, but I need resources that I don't presently have. And most investigators just give me the "it's a great hypothesis, but it's not my area of focus." Sounds legit and I can't judge or get around it. But it doesn't mean I have to stop trying just yet. So I'll deal with the nay-sayers until I can prove them wrong or join them. Right now, I'm in the camp the says vaccines can cause disease (although not by themselves). The process is more complicated than that.
While I appreciate your response, I seriously question the ethics of you posting a cryptic, "I know something you don't know, but I'm not telling you," and suggesting the past science could - or probably is - all wrong. Nevertheless, it "might take awhile" to prove. This is unjustified "titillation," not the attitude of a credible researcher. You are doing nothing but contributing to the ongoing divisiveness these issue already provoke, and I fail to see the point.
Maybe there's an element of antagonism in my writing because of what I've been through and being tired of being stereotyped among anti-vaxers with no evidence or intellect. I worked as a technologist (with a master's degree in clinical immunology) in academic hospital labs for 35 years as a loyal employee built the lab at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and was ousted for questioning mainstream immunology (abbreviated version). We'll see how things go later this week as to whether I might be able to get some funding to get started with the next step. I am cryptic for reasons of caution and can't explain more than that. Sorry to disappoint you. Call it as you will.
Regarding the comments on aluminum as adjuvents in vaccines, the logic is flawed. No safety studies have been completed on "injecting aluminum". This data is based on ingesting it which achieves a first pass through the digestive system where nearly all of it is filtered out and excreted via urine.
Let me ask you this, if you went home and drank 4 shots of tequila, how would you feel? Depending on the person, you would feel some varying degree of intoxication. The next morning you may wake up with a hang over. Now repeat the same experiment by injecting 4 shots of tequila intramuscularly. Now how would you feel? Dead. You would very likely die of alcohol poisoning as it did not achieve first pass filtration via your digestive system and liver/kidneys.
The same is true of injecting aluminum. This bypasses filtration and accumulates in the bones and brain. A majority of children will be fine as the body processes this well documented nuerotoxin and excretes it over time. Another subset of children with a genetically limited ability to remove excess toxins are more likley to experience more severe side effects. Look up the study on premature babies being fed formula with aluminum in it. Many died as they did not have fully devoloped digestive filtration. Hence they banned aluminum from all injectables excluding vaccines, as an adjuvent is required to stimulate an immune response.
To note, vaccines do not cause autism. The genetic mutation limiting the child's ability to process these toxins allows them to accumulate in the brain thus causing autism. Parents of these children report a "regression" after vaccination. This is well documented, peer reviewed, and replicated numerous times in studies yet seemingly ignored by the medical industry and the "vaccinate everyone" crowd. Perhaps we should have a more measured approach to vaccinating that includes the testing of all children for these genetic markers that limit toxin processing and excretion. If a child has these markers, they should not recieve vaccines as the risk is too great.
So when we give iron infusions, are we injecting raw iron straight in? No. That's how ridiculous your alcohol example is. Nobody is injecting straight aluminium, it's in salt form, and it's a miniscule amount. Not enough to be a toxic dose at all. There have been plenty of studies that look at how it is excreted IM, and it all comes out through the urine. None of it is accumulating.
Also you've got no idea how our kidneys and liver work, do you? They're connected to your blood stream. Your kidneys filter your blood, not your stomach contents. Alcohol goes into your bloodstream straight from your gut. It doesn't go through the kidneys or liver first 🤣
Maybe I was not clear in my post. I am referring to ASD children. Yes, a vast majority of people have no issue processing the aluminum or other toxins in the vaccines. Autistic children do, hence why many experience a regression after vaccination. You can go look up the studies yourself. There are dozens, hence why nearly all autism agencies do not recommend vaccination in ASD children. Roughly 80% of children diagnosed with ASD are genetically incapable of processing these toxins (depeninding on the study - most are between 70% and 90%). We do not know the effects of vaccines on brain development in ASD children. Parents see their child get a vaccine, then experience a regression with ASD symptoms developing. Thus the strong link between ASD and vaccines. Vaccines are not the cause. Other toxins can also cause this regression, so it is not just vaccines to be clear.
On your point of ingestion versus injection, VERY little aluminum is absorbed into the bloodstream by the digestive system unless it is underdeveloped or there are gastrointestinal issues. Far less than 1% is actually absorbed where it is then filtered out by MOST people and excreted. So to your point of injecting iron or other vitamins for that matter, it is far more effective than than ingestion. It saddens me that even medical professionals continue this foolish regurgitated logic. 100% of injected iron ends up in the blood stream vs 10% or less via digestion. The same is also true of alcohol in my example. I am sorry if my point was not clear.
The problem I have with vaccination is that it is not a one size fits all. Every person is different and it may cause life long damage to a small percentage of people. Some simple pre genetic testing could identify risk factors for this small percentage of individuals and save them from irreversible life long damage. Is their well being not worth this simple extra step??? If this testing could drastically reduce the ever increasing prevalence of ASD and other disorders, would you not think this is a better approach?
Sadly any resistance or suggestion of a more measured approach is met with the same aggression you have shown here. Attack those who don't follow the rhetoric. That is the problem. Confirmation bias does not allow even the most intelligent of people to use logic and reason to determine that maybe we should explore this as an option. We have the ability through simple tests to reduce risk, yet when discussed it is met with nothing more than vitriol.
PS This covers most all of your arguments/concerns.
https://www.factcheck.org/2024/04/scicheck-posts-raise-unfounded-concerns-about-aluminum-in-vaccines/
It isn't a matter of "rhetoric," it's your argument from ignorance that's the issue. You imagine that we do not have good evidence, that we do not know. The "increasing prevalence" isn't a result of vaccination; it's a result of better understanding of those problems and the ability to diagnose that has resulted in "increasing prevalence". You're not using logic and reason. You're using bias and fallacious appeals. If there was evidence that vaccination was causing this, then we'd have good reason to explore it, but that isn't the case.
Thank you for sharing. I assure you it is not ignorance. I have read the studies for and against. I agree aluminum is safe for most people at the concentrations contained in vaccines. However if you notice in this article and as I have pointed out now several times, there is no consideration given to ASD processing of toxins. None. So no, this article does not cover my argument! You are missing the point entirely.
Yes improved ASD diagnosis has made the prevalence increase. Roughly 3.2% of children are being diagnosed yearly. The question I pose is could this prevalence not be reduced with altered or spread out vaccine schedules as proposed by Dr. Sears? Or perhaps for high risk children with these genetic markers, forgoing vaccination entirely. The studies have not been done. That is my point and you have proven it by sharing this article as a rebuttal. No mention of ASD toxin processing anywhere. Look it up yourself and Google ASD toxin processing. Dozens of peer reviewed and replicated studies. Sadly overlooked by our medical professionals.
Do you not believe a known nuerotoxin injected into a child with ASD genetic markers to have no effect given they can't process it to the same extent? Studies have confirmed a small percentage accumulates in the brain. This percentage would be far greater in an ASD child. We don't know how how much as the studies have not been done, but could it not affect brain development and impede cognitive function? More research is needed, but with 100% certainty we can ascertain that aluminum in vaccines for ASD children is very risky due to this inability to process toxins, hence why ASD organizations almost universally do not recommend further vaccination in these children.
PS At this point, you can find at least one (if not several) "studies" to support nearly anything. That does not mean the studies are valid or even well conducted. I literally saw one recently where they evaluated if frozen human feces could be made into an effective "shank". (The well-supported conclusion was, No.) Do you have experience evaluating studies? Most people do not. Even among the scientist I know, many may need help evaluating studies that are outside their specific field. https://www.clearerthinking.org/post/how-to-read-an-academic-paper-and-tell-whether-it-s-bullshit?
You'd need evidence that there's a difference. The evidence we have supports that there is not. It's not a neurotoxin, not at the levels used. The evidence does not support that greater levels accumulate in the brains of ADS children. You're never going to get evidence to support anything in science with 100% certainty. Science doesn't deal in absolutes. Uncertainty is a feature of science. (Not a bug.) You're expecting an unreasonable and unattainable standard. "Most major autism organizations do not advise against vaccination. In fact, leading organizations, including the Autism Society of America and Autism Speaks, actively advocate for vaccination and promote vaccine education initiatives."
PS I appreciate your civility, sincerely.
I see Alle has already adequately addressed your tequila claim lol. But please do cite the peer reviewed literature that you are referring to in regards to autism.
Also to note, I am sure you are more than capable of using Google. Search ASD toxin processing. There are dozens of studies for you to read. It is not just vaccines but many other environmental toxins are not processed effectively by ASD children. This is likely also why there is a link between ASD and children raised in lower income families. Plastics, lead, highly processed food, and numerous other contaminents tend to be more prevalent in lower income brackets. This is theoretical at this point, but twin studies have shown lower prevalence of ASD and lesser symptoms in higher income families.
Telling someone to "Google it" is not supportive of the claim YOU made that seemingly goes against the evidence, hence the ask for the citation of which you refer. Google can yield you results on just about anything you ask it. That doesn't make it quality evidence by any means. The burden of proof is on you to provide quality evidence for that which you are claiming here. You seem passionate about this topic, so surely have you have some quality evidence at hand. More than just Googling ASD toxin processing. Maybe there are dozens of studies as you say, but it's also possible that zero of those studies are quality evidence.
See my other comments for some links to studies. There are dozens of them. You can easily look them up yourself with Google. That was my suggestion. I have read these studies over the past 10 years and don't have the time to dig through the bowels of the internet to find them all for you.
But yes I am passionate about this topic. My son has autism and he experienced his regression after exposure to toxic mold we were unaware of it in a temporary home we rented prior to buying a house. He was not vaccinated as my wife's side of the family has a high prevalence of autism and we did our best to limit toxin exposure to all of our kids due to the countless hours of research I had done regarding environmental toxins and ASD. There is very clearly a link. Limiting plastics, organic food, etc.
This is anecdotal, but I can tell you that with the 100s of parents I have met who have ASD children and hearing their stories, almost every regression occurred after exposure to environmental toxins. Most commonly following vaccination. It is hard to watch a seemingly nuerotypical child disappear into their own head right in front of your eyes. Speech gone. Tics develop like hand flapping, spinning, banging their head on walls. Behavioral issues. No eye contact. The child you once knew disappears. The same stories told over and over again by all of these parents. Something is wrong and it is not just the aluminum in vaccines. Plastics, processed food, pesticides, etc. Vaccines are only one peice of the puzzle that is ASD. I tell most of these parents the vaccine did not cause the ASD, it merely triggered something already there. Anything could have triggered the regression such as mold in my son's case.
This is why I feel so strongly about it. More research is needed and acknowledgement that there is a link. Aluminum is a toxin and if not processed effectively, it may contribute to these regressions.
No she has not. It was merely an example of the absorption difference between injection and ingestion. There is a substantial difference. My point is that ASD children can't process these toxins after entering the bloodstream. After multiple injections, have we ever tested an ASD child on how much is excreted following vaccination vs non ASD? No we have not. We have also only tested individual vaccines, not the entire schedule. Do we know if the 30+ vaccines given to children over their childhood are safe when injected together? Please provide that study. I have yet to find one, so if you do know of one, please provide it.
You need a study showing what exactly? Please describe the study that you'd like to see in detail. Bc I think you're intentionally painting with a broad brush here and also seemingly ignoring the rigorous safety testing (and available) data that exists for vaccinations and how the vaccination schedule came to be. Maybe you're not, but that's how it reads. You can't just shrug off the safety data bc you can't find a single study that suits YOUR needs and wants. That's not how science works.
Go to the Vaccine Information Center at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia" https://www.chop.edu/vaccine-education-center/vaccine-safety/vaccine-ingredients/aluminum
Thank you for sharing. From this link you shared, below are the corresponding levels of aluminum injected(vaccines) or ingested(breastfeeding or formula) in the first 6 months of life.
Vaccines: 4-5 of 1,000 pieces
Food via breastfeeding: 7 of 1,000 pieces
Food via regular formula: 38 of 1,000 pieces
Food via soy-based formula: 117 of 1,000 pieces
Given a two year old child will receive approximately 27 vaccines, sometimes several at once, this would be approximately 10+ "pieces" (mg) of aluminum directly into the bloodstream. In one day, a child could recieve as much as 1 to 1.5 of 1000 pieces (1 to 1.5 milligrams) if following the vaccine schedule. That is a lot in a very short period of time comparatively to ingested formula or breastmilk. Let me explain.
In comparison, assuminging a very high 1% digestive absorption rate of aluminum, breastfeeding at 182.5 days (6 months) would result in 0.07 pieces absorbed into the bloodstream spread out daily (7mg x 0.01). Daily intake at this above average level of absorption would equate to 0.000384 pieces per day (0.07mg absorbed over 6 months/182.5 days).
For the high aluminum soy formula, this would result in 1.17 pieces absorbed spread out over 182.5 days. Daily intake would be on average 0.006 milligrams/pieces per day.
Do you see my point? There is a difference between injection and ingestion and you have confirmed my argument in sharing this link. This is a 166x increase in "absorbed" aluminum in a single day in comparing soy formula vs the 6 old month vaccines where 4 or 5 are given at the same time! It is a 2604 fold increase (single day) in comparison to breastfeeding. This is all sauming a very high 1% digestive absorption rate, so these numbers are conservative.
The article does go on to discuss this fact, but it assumes all people have the same toxin processing capabilities. They do not. Google ASD toxin processing and read the dozens of replicated studies identifying this issue. For most of us, we simply filter this aluminum out and a very small percentage ends up accumulating in our tissues, bones, and brain. Less than 1%. For ASD this number is much higher. But, no studies have been done to determine exactly how much. We simply do not know. What we do know is that aluminum in high enough concentration is a nuerotoxin. Now put two and two together and now we can start to see why there is a link between vaccines and the increased prevalence of ASD. As mentioned in other comments here, other environmental toxins can cause ASD regression as well. Vaccines are not the only culprit.
I simply advocate for a measured approach. It is not as simple as injecting everyone and expecting the same result. Vaccines are important, but would it not be prudent to identify higher risk children and possibly delay or forgo vaccination? Or should we continue mass vaccination and count the permanently damaged children merely as a cost to the greater good?
Like every doctor/scientist/nurse that presents this exact argument about breastmilk or forumla, these numbers do not differentiate the amount of aluminum ABSORBED into the bloodstream. 100% in the vaccines versus less than 1% in digested breast milk or formula. It is a foolish argument especially as it pertains to ASD where far less is excreted through filtration. Prove me wrong!
Two studies you need to examine that clearly are at odds with your argument:
1) This 2023 study is a thorough & comprehensive examination of the effect of Al in the human brain and the accumulated risk of subsequent development of Alzheimer’s Disease, ASD, Alcohol Use Disorder, Multiple Sclerosis, & Parkinson’s Disease. Aluminium in the Human Brain: Routes of Penetration, Toxicity, and Resulting Complications. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10139039/#sec3-ijms-24-07228. You will note that it concludes, ""The risk of Al toxicity via vaccination is minimal compared to the benefits presented by vaccinations alone, and data regarding skin Al absorption appear to be limited."
2) This 2023 study is a general safety study: "Aluminum salts are by far the most widely used adjuvants for human vaccines, showing acceptable safety and efficacy... In conclusion, this study provides a reference for the application of adjuvants in vaccines by studying the physicochemical properties and adsorption conditions of different aluminum adjuvants and antigens." https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405844023060085. Physicochemical properties and adsorption state of aluminum adjuvants with different processes in vaccines.
Thank you for sharing. The first article you shared indicates that the science is not conclusive surrounding aluminum adjuvents and ASD (section 3). My suggestion is more research is needed to understand the risks due to environtment toxin exposure. I don't disagree with you in that aluminum is safe for most people in the small amounts contained in vaccines.
Other environmental toxins are also linked to a higher prevalence and severity of ASD. The jury is still out on aluminum. Below are a handful of studies completed. There are many more. The current status quo is vaccinate everyone as the benefit outweighs the risk. I believe with further understanding and research we can determine children who have the genetic markers for ASD and alter, delay, or completely forgo the current vaccine schedule to mitigate these risks. Why do this? Because the science is becoming clear that ASD children are more severely affected by envirmontal toxins, including those contained in vaccines.
For the majority of us, aluminum is safe. I 100% agree. The current vaccine schedule is safe, although I personally feel some are unnecessary. I also think Dr Sears suggestion of spacing vaccines out instead of several during one visit is a wise consideration to mitigate adverse reactions.
https://www.sciencealert.com/increased-toxicity-risk-identified-for-children-with-autism-adhd
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S001393511830269X
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0147651323000659
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-021-01142-w
Your "fact check" shares no facts about ASD toxin processing. Try again!
With all due respect, I have offered you concise & specific research regarding Al accumulation in the brain, and safety & efficacy studies that are not only contemporaneous, but validated and accurate. Your response is help rejecting complaining, which is not altogether unexpected. Further, you have completely ignored my rather lengthy post detailing the undeniable heritability of ASD, and would continue this unfounded, uncited argument of a debunked association between aluminum and ASD. And with that, I leave you to your own devices with my best wishes.
Not debunked I am afraid. Even the articles you shared auggest more research is needed as the results are unclear. I liked that description you posted to note and I appreciate the commentary and challenging my opinions. It is important to have proper discourse and debate on these topics. Too often it is merely shut down as some anti vax conspiracy nut. Labeled and discredited just for disagreeing. Science is often not a straight and concise road to truth. Repeated replication is the key.
Would you agree that aluminum is a nuerotoxin in high enough concentrations? I think the science is clear on that myself.
Would you agree that ASD children have difficulties processing toxins? I think more research is needed, but I would say with a fairly high degree of certainty yes.
Would you agree there is a strong enough correlation between vaccination and ASD regression? At this point I would not, but my anecdotal experience suggests ther is a strong link based on the 100s of stories I have heard from other parents of autistic children. The science here has been flawed as it was previously tested from the basis of vaccines being the cause when it is more likely a combination of environmental toxins before and after birth. Maybe the straw that broke the camels back if you will. More research needed.
https://www.factcheck.org/2024/04/scicheck-posts-raise-unfounded-concerns-about-aluminum-in-vaccines/
If only there were some way to know.
The safety studies you claim do not exist, do. We know how the aluminum contained in some vaccines is processed by the body. All of your assertions are contradicted by numerous well-conducted studies. Before you ask for evidence, two things. What evidence would convince you? Second, please don't reverse the burden of proof. You made a claim, and it's your responsibility to provide evidence to support it, not for me to provide evidence to disprove it. If you can think of something that would convince you, then I suggest you look for that. If nothing would convince you, you aren't thinking scientifically or critically. Extra points for claiming that all studies conducted for aluminum are based on eating it, which differs from injecting it, then claiming that premature infants eating it is why aluminum is "banned" for injections (which, according to you, would differ).
Those studies were not conducted on ASD children, were they? That was my point. A vast majority of people have no issue processing this aluminum, you are correct. I am not talking about this group.