If you blinked, you might have missed this week’s announcement that the autism rate has remained at 1 in 68. That’s 1.5 percent of eight year olds born in 2004 and surveyed in 2012 (what’s the hurry, right?). Perhaps because the number hasn’t changed since the last report two years ago, the news didn’t make the splash it sometimes does. Yet it’s just as shocking, not least because it highlights the way the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention “manages” the autism epidemic.
Mark Blaxill, my co-author and colleague at AOA and HealthChoice, wrote about this powerfully earlier this week, contrasting the CDC report with evidence he obtained from a whistleblower lawsuit in Utah. The suit was filed by Judith Pinborough-Zimmerman, who was fired in the middle of working on Utah’s autism rate. It suddenly and inexplicably took a dive — raising serious questions about how those numbers are obtained, not just in Utah but around the country.
I asked Mark a few questions to try to get my mind around the significance of these major developments.
Dan: I just thought your analysis of the numbers was a really important look at how this sausage is made. Let me start with this: What would be the right way to do a task like this, to track over time a disease or disorder that’s of public concern, that people think might be increasing, and that they wanted to get an apples-to-apples comparison for over a period of time. In other words, if they wanted to really figure out was going on, what would they do: What would be best practices as they say in business?
Mark: You’d want to start early enough, in time to observe the trend in the epidemic. Yet the first thing that they (the CDC) do is start their surveillance in 1992, which is by all accounts after the inflection point — the autism rates were already starting to get elevated by 1992. We know from the data in Brick, New Jersey, that the difference between the rates in the ‘88 and ‘92 birth cohorts was huge — that was sort of the critical four years when the whole thing turned from zero to about the highest rates ever recorded. (See last slide)
Dan: The EPA has said that 1988 was in fact the inflection point worldwide.
In the film, Del Bigtree goes back to some colleagues from The Doctors, where he worked for 7 years before leaving to make this film. He presents documents to family medicine practitioner Dr Rachael Ross and pediatrician Dr Jim Sears, who are both “pro-vaccine” before reading them and shaken by what they read afterward. When Bigtree asks what Dr Ross will say to the next parent asking about the MMR, she says she will tell the truth. She will not be giving it her own children (she had a baby in November 2015), and worries about what we are doing to children’s brains. Del Bigtree, “I looked at the data that the CDC whistleblower was providing … and it is the most compelling evidence of fraud I have ever seen in my life. I realized … I was looking at probably the biggest story of my lifetime. As a journalist, I realized it was a story I had to tell.” — Del Bigtree, Producer of Vaxxed from Cover-Up to Catastrophe
Practically from the opening scene, the film Vaxxed grabs our attention and doesn’t let go until it has elicited every ounce of empathy and outrage the human heart is capable of. Back in 2013, William Thompson, PhD, a senior scientist at the CDC was so wracked with guilt about his participation in a CDC study on the timing of the MMR vaccine and autism that he finally picked up the phone and called Brian Hooker, PhD, biologist and autism dad, to tell him where to look for the evidence of CDC deception. Vaxxed is the story of what followed, revealing evidence of collusion, corruption, and fraud at the very agency charged with protecting the public health.
The film was accepted by and then unceremoniously ejected from the Tribeca Film Festival after a firestorm of media attention which almost unanimously condemned the film even though not a single reporter had seen it. The media attention may have turned out to be a blessing in disguise, however, as it has many people who haven’t investigated the topic before asking, Why? What is so special about this film that so many people wanted to kill it? And so it was that the film opened last night to a packed house at Angelika Film Center in New York City. As a long-time New Yorker, there was a particular thrill to seeing this film at this theater. Angelika is my very favorite theater in New York. I have many vivid memories of terrific and thought-provoking films seen there, while surprisingly I have no clear recollection of any films screened at the Tribeca Film Festival. …
Long before Americans were introduced to the new 9/11 era super-villains called ISIS and Khorasan, senior Obama officials were openly and explicitly stating that America’s “war on terror,” already 12 years old, would last at least another decade. At first, they injected these decrees only anonymously; in late 2012, The Washington Post – disclosing the administration’s secret creation of a “disposition matrix” to decide who should be killed, imprisoned without charges, or otherwise “disposed” of –reported these remarkable facts:
Among senior Obama administration officials, there is a broad consensus that such operations are likely to be extended at least another decade. Given the way al-Qaida continues to metastasize, some officials said no clear end is in sight. . . . That timeline suggests that the United States has reached only the midpoint of what was once known as the global war on terrorism.”
The estimated 1,000 claims that the VICP anticipates being filed in 2016 are projected to cost $224 million. Although the VICP was originally created by Congress to shield drug companies producing government licensed, recommended and mandated vaccines for children, today it is not children but adults injured by influenza vaccine who are receiving most of the compensation.
The majority of compensated flu shot injury claims are for nerve inflammation diagnosed as Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS), an autoimmune disorder that attacks the nervous system and can result in life-long paralysis.3 Also on the rise are government conceded claims for shoulder injuries (SIRVA) caused by vaccine providers failing to properly administer vaccinations. GBS and SIRVA are in the process of being added to the federal Vaccine Injury Table 4 to expedite the administrative vaccine injury claims process for those two injuries….
From examiner.com – a new article in the journal Pediatrics is calling on health professionals to stop saying that breastfeeding is natural, arguing that doing so gives the impression that natural parenting practices are healthier. The authors have started a public campaign to end the positive use of the word natural, claiming that it is associated with such “problematic” practices as home birth, homeschooling and the rejection of GMO foods, and that natural parenting movements are interfering with vaccination efforts.
“Building on this critical work, we are concerned about breastfeeding promotion that praises breastfeeding as the “natural” way to feed infants. This messaging plays into a powerful perspective that “natural” approaches to health are better… Promoting breastfeeding as “natural” may be ethically problematic, and, even more troublingly, it may bolster this belief that “natural” approaches are presumptively healthier.”
The authors are especially concerned that promoting natural practices such as breastfeeding will harm vaccination rates, since many parents who follow natural parenting practices also delay or decline vaccinesfor their children. Thy also cite other examples of the “fallacy” that natural choices are intrinsically better, including the rejection of GMO foods, the preference for organic over conventionally grown foods and concerns over water fluoridation. …
(NaturalNews) (UPDATE: Registration is now open for The Truth About Cancer (FREE). The videos start streaming for free on April 12th. Click here to register now.) In case you didn’t notice, we are living in an age of extreme medical censorship. Over the last week or so, we’ve all watched in fascination as the entire mainstream media called for the outright censorship of a vaccine documentary they had never even seen. That documentary — “VAXXED” — was so dangerous to the medical establishment that orders went out to the media to attack it and destroy it.
Similarly, a book called “A Mind of Your Own,” authored by a holistic doctor named Dr. Kelly Brogan, was blackballed by the entire mainstream media after orders went out to crush the book. It recommends a holistic, nutrition-based approach to mental health while exposing the lies and science fraud behind antidepressants and SSRI drugs.
Now, the shocking docu-series known as The Truth About Cancer, is about to be re-launched to the public beginning April 12. And right on cue, the drug-pushing media science trolls will be either ignoring it or attacking it, depending on what orders they receive from Big Pharma.
Mind-blowing, lifesaving information that could collapse the for-profit cancer industry
This docu-series is so powerful that it threatens to collapse the for-profit cancer industry. That industry earns its revenues based on repeat business from cancer treatments that don’t prevent cancer or reverse cancer. Instead, today’s fraudulent cancer treatments like chemotherapy and radiation actually CAUSE more cancer!
The absolute last thing the cancer industry wants is for knowledge of cancer prevention strategies (and cancer cures) to spread among the public. Such knowledge threatens their very existence and takes away the profits they’ve been counting on from treating cancer in 1 out of 3 people for the foreseeable future…
(NaturalNews) In November of last year, California state officials placed an indefinite hold on the commercial crab season, in order to protect public health. The reason given by the state was dangerously high levels of algal toxins in the bodies of the crabs.
But according to New York radio station 95.1 FM (SuperStation 95), insiders from the California Fish and Game Commission have revealed that the real reason for the ban was dangerously high levels of radioactivity resulting from the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster.
Radioactive crab are so dangerous to eat that state officials felt the need to protect the public, Superstation 95 reports. But officials were unwilling to publicly admit the true reason for the ban, which contradicts official claims that the Fukushima disaster poses no threat to the U.S. West coast. …
SuperStation 95 says it was contacted by workers from the California Fish and Game Commission, who chose to remain anonymous in order to avoid retribution. The station reports that these workers said that crab, especially Rock crab, contained levels of radiation so high that state officials were concerned they could cause immediate sickness in anyone who ate them.
“If people started connecting the dots proving radiation in seafood was making them sick, it would utterly destroy California’s seafood industry in days,” SuperStation 95 quotes the sources as saying. …
Among the radioactive isotopes already detected off the U.S. west coast is strontium-90, which mimics calcium in the human body and therefore accumulates in the bones. There it can cause cancers of the bone and blood. ….