Can a “Nonverbal” Person with Autism Learn to Read and Write?

The Place Where the Streams Came Together

A few years ago, on October 6, 2004, to be exact, at an amazingly opportune change point in my work at the University of Louisiana—at the coincidence of a confluence of seemingly unrelated streams of events involving multiple persons, organizations, and agencies that only God Almighty could have brought together at just that particular time and place—I received an open invitation to submit a proposal for a book or manuscript from Dr. Sadanand Singh, Chairman of the Board and CEO for Plural Publishing: International Publishers for the Health Professions. Sadanand had signed the letter along with his wife, Dr. Angie Singh, President of Plural Publishing.

Back then, I had no idea about the incredible story of the life of Dr. Sadanand Singh, the courageous entrepreneur, scholar, and philanthropist, who had extended the invitation. I knew him from my years as Head of the Department of Communication Disorders at UL Lafayette and as the founder of a couple of other companies including Singular Publishing which all of his colleagues understood as a play on his name. Later, he would multiply the linguistic fun by calling his next publishing company, “Plural.”

I remember him greeting me at our first meeting with a warm handshake on a sunny day in Palm Springs, California, in the spring of 1998. I was there as a representative of my university and department for the national meeting of the Council on Academic Programs in Communication Sciences and Disorders. Dr. Singh had arranged for one of those delicious mid-afternoon out-of-doors snack receptions—the kind where conference participants love to have a cool drink and finger foods while visiting with colleagues and friends. (Also, they can fill up and avoid paying for a more expensive meal somewhere else a little later on. :))

From the moment I first met him I felt as if I had known him all my life. He shook my hand in his right hand and put the left hand on my shoulder as if we were family. He had the warmth of kindness in his touch and the welcome light in his eyes. It was impossible not to feel the love inside the man.

Years later, after his departure from this life (just last spring), I would learn about his world before he founded Singular Publishing in 1990. He actually died on February 27, 2010, but I only learned of his death a couple of months afterward at the Starbucks on the River Walk in San Antonio, Texas, just diagonally across the river from the central Hyatt Regency that gives out onto the River Walk.

Dr. Stephen D. Oller wrote an email to say that he had just learned of Sadanand Singh’s death. I immediately did a search and began to learn about Sadanand’s life before I met him and before he became one of my most valued allies in the quest to get to the bottom of the autism epidemic. It was because of my work with Dr. Singh that my coauthors and I would connect up with Dr. Robert J. Titzer and his discovery that will, I believe, be of great interest to many families struggling with one or more cases of “nonverbal” autism.

But, before I get to that, I need to fill in a background scene that gives depth to the whole story and connects it with the posts preceding this one in a way that will, as they say, cause chills along the spines of my readers.

A Lifetime Before the One I Knew

Only after learning of Sadanand’s death did I find out about the lifetime before I ever knew him. I learned of a former wife, audiologist, Kala Singh, who died in the September 5, 1986 attempted hijacking of Pan Am Flight 73. The plane had been taken over by 4 members of the Abu Nidal Terrorist Organization in Karachi, Pakistan. It was a Boeing 747 en route to New York with a routine stop-over in Karachi. She, Dr. Sadanand Singh and their children, along with a grand total of 360 passengers were on board.

The terrorists were dressed as Karachi Airport security guards armed with assault rifles and pistols. It was learned later that they also carried belts loaded with grenades and plastic explosives. After boarding the plane and taking over, they were joined by a 5th terrorist, Zayd Safarini, who began to collect passports looking for Americans.

Safarini’s first victim was a 29-year-old Indian named Rajesh Kumar, a recently naturalized citizen of the U. S. A., who was headed back to his home in California. Safarini marched Kumar to the front of the plane, forced him to kneel with hands on top of his head, and then after 15 minutes of failed negotiations with authorities shot Kumar in the back of the head in front of many of the passengers. Meantime, while commandos awaiting an order to storm the plane also observed from a distance, Zayd Safarini shoved Kumar through the front door of the Boeing 747 aircraft where the fatally injured man fell to the tarmac about 30 feet below.

The ordeal climaxed 17 hours later when the frustrated terrorists opened fire on the 360 passengers. Moments later the Pakistani authorities ordered the commandos to storm the plane. Sadanand and 2 of his 5 children were injured in the shoot-out and his wife, Kayla at the age of 36 years, was among the 13 passengers and 9 other persons killed in the melee.

The Man I Knew

Before learning about his former life, based on our working relationship as author to publisher, I saw Sadanand Singh as a man of courage, depth, and intelligence. After learning of his former life, to think that he could have picked himself up after such the traumatic events of September 5, 1986, gave me a whole new appreciation for who he was. He had already won my admiration for his courage in permitting and even supporting my pursuit of a way to halt the evident autism epidemic, but knowing about what he had been through himself with the loss of Kayla as well as injuries inflicted on himself and two of his children put everything I knew of him in a different light.

In the course of our work in the author/publisher relationship, I learned that Dr. Singh himself had been approached by special interest groups, who it seemed had the intention of quashing our projects. I am quite certain this happened more than once. It seemed plain enough that they tried to persuade him to put a stop to our ongoing research, and to finished original work which he had already committed to publish.

In my judgment, they underestimated Singh. But in his wisdom, taking note of all the angles, Singh nurtured each of the book projects we did under his direction until he, and his team of editorial peer-review experts, were convinced the book in question was ready for the marketplace and could withstand the heat of professional scrutiny. He wanted gem stones and gold at the end of the examination in the crucible.

Also, as folks following the public dialogs about the autism epidemic know very well, you don’t have to be, as they say, a rocket scientist to imagine the opposition falling on any publisher in the health sciences who may dare to publish findings that clearly implicate power-brokers with looming liabilities. I know that Singh could not have known anymore than we did where our work would eventually lead, but it was clear enough at the outset that we were venturing into deep and shark-infested waters.

The Streams Ran Together

Nevertheless, in my judgment it was only by the grace of God, at such a time and such a place with the best of motives, determination, and a lot of genuine “positive energy” to quote Dr. Singh, that we joined hands. With Singh’s knowledge and full approval I recruited my coauthors Dr. Stephen D. Oller (then still a graduate student at UL Lafayette) and Dr. Linda Cain Badon, CCC-SLP (also a mentor and dissertation committee member for Steve) and the three of us submitted two book proposals.

Dr. Stephen David Oller, now on the faculty of the Department of Biological and Health Sciences at Texas A&M University (Kingsville), actually completed his dissertation in the very PhD Program which I came to the University of Louisiana to build. Interestingly, after 4 years worth of work and the winning of a perpetual grant from the Board of Regents and then Governor Mike Foster (one that has netted $800,000 at the time of this writing) in 1999, the Applied Language and Speech Sciences PhD Program was finally approved by the Louisiana Board of Regents in the summer of 2001. That same summer, Stephen D. Oller announced his independent (and complete surprise) decision to give up a full fellowship in the Cognitive Sciences PhD Program at UL Lafayette, in order, as he put it, “To support the home team” and to focus his attentions on the theory and research that most interested him.

Flashing ahead from the founding of the PhD program in 2001 to the spring of 2005, I will never forget the first telephone conversation with Sadanand. That day on the phone, Singh said he knew who I was, promised to treat me exactly as he would his “best-selling authors” among whom he mentioned Dr. Ray Kent. After being assured that Sadanand had not mistaken me for my famous brother D. Kimbrough Oller, whom he also knew well both by reputation and personally, Singh assured me that he knew me and my work and that he was very interested in seeing the proposals I had in mind. I will never forget his concluding words. He said, “John?” and then he paused until I confirmed that I was listening, and then he said, “Let’s keep the positive energy flowing between us.”

An Unexpected Discovery

Long before we began writing Milestones: Normal Speech and Language Development Across the Life Span which would appear under the Plural Publishing imprint in 2006, we realized that babies at a very early age were taking interest in printed words and the processes associated with literacy. Other researchers had observed that babies are often fascinated with books, more sometimes than their toys, well before they are able to say their first intelligible word. A couple of my own doctoral students at the time (ones whose dissertations I was chairing and in which Dr. Badon was also involved as a committee member), commented that their baby, from well before 10 months of age, would sit and turn the pages of a book as if reading it. (Both of those individuals, Dr. Liang Chen and Dr. Ning Pan, finished up their graduate work in 2005 and Dr. Chen joined the Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders at the University of Georgia.)

Why did babies seem so interested in print? Was the apparent interest just an unexplainable infant curiosity? Was the seeming interest only imitative behavior as some had supposed? Was the baby merely copying what he or she had seen the parents doing? Or was there something more going on?

One day early in the course of our work, I was talking with Dr. Badon about early language and literacy when she pointed to two bits of knowledge that would shape the entire Milestones project, and the Cases book to boot. First, she directed attention to the 4-D ultra-sound technology developed at Create Health Clinic in London by Dr. Stuart Campbell. His moving video images of babies in the womb, according to our reasoning in both the Milestones and Cases books, ought to (and we believe eventually will) vaporize the silly “gas theory” of infant smiling. (Though in 2010, there are still vestiges and hangers on to a theory that never did make sense!)

That false theory does serve another useful purpose however: It does show that ordinary people ought to ask reasonable questions of medical doctors and not to naively accept what they say. Doctors can be completely wrong and the gas theory shows that a majority of those trained in pediatrics and obstetrics are not thinking things through from a logical perspective. This lesson is especially important when it comes to the autism epidemic. Doctors with the MD and plenty of alphabet soup behind their names can be incredibly naive when it comes to thinking things through and many, as Brian Jepson, MD, has noted, do not read the research! But they ought to…

Dr. Campbell’s application of 4D Ultrasound has already helped to change the way human babies are thought of and the way students of human development see themselves. Human babies never do go through a fetal larva stage, or tadpole stage as naive evolutionists once claimed. Human babies have distinctly human DNA from conception and they do all kinds of things in the womb that were supposed to be impossible until weeks or even months after birth, like displaying a perfect social smile—a sign that Dr. Campbell agreed in my first conversation with him shows security and contentment, not stomach gas… In fact, our research shows that all the milestones keep getting shoved farther and farther back into the baby’s earlier and earlier experience, even before birth.

The second key bit of information about ongoing work that Dr. Badon pointed all of us to initially was the work of Dr. Robert J. Titzer. When we first got in touch with him to ask to use his documentary evidence of babies reading before they can talk, his willingness to share everything he had was heart-warming and inspiring. Before any of the really fancy infomercials hit the market, Dr. Titzer gave us permission to put his video clips on our DVD for Milestones and would later extend the same privilege to us for both of the other books pictured above, Cases and Autism.

What Dr. Titzer demonstrated was predictable, at least after the fact, by the theory of abstraction. That theory is explained in detail in the Milestones book. Dr. Titzer’s finding not only moves the age of reading readiness back to the time prior to the child’s first intelligible spoken word, but the theory of abstraction explains how the baby is able to achieve the pragmatic mapping of an abstract sign onto a particular object, e.g., the word “Mama” onto the person who responds to that name, at such an early age.

The principle illustrated in Dr. Titzer’s methods of teaching reading is simple: As soon as a baby, or anyone, is able to understand the meaning of a word or phrase, they have already reached a point in development where they will be able to read the same word or phrase presented in a printed form. In fact, as Aleka Titzer demonstrated at 9 months of age (with her dad’s help) she was able to learn to read lots of words, “bucketloads!” as my youngest grandson Brenden would say, before she could say them out loud. Even after viewing the process, skeptical teachers, speech-language pathologists, reading specialists, psychologists, linguists, and so forth, all need a little time to think it all through.

After they do, the realization that babies really can read comes with a bang. One of my favorite testimonials, recorded by my friend Chad Murdoch, President of M2G Media, features a mom, Lindsey, who happens to be a, yep you guessed it! speech-language pathologist (or if not she sure talks just like one). You have to hear what she has to say. The genius behind Lindsey’s videographed interview is none other than Chad Murdoch, leader of the team at M2G Media. Chad’s company, and he himself, is largely responsible for the “grand slam home run” of an infomercial he has put together for the “Your Baby Can Read” series.

To draw the logical inference about the applicability of Dr. Titzer’s findings, and the implication of the theory of abstraction, for individuals with communication disorders, say, “nonverbal” autism, is not difficult. Also, there is growing evidence that even persons who appear to be hopelessly “nonverbal,” that is, persons who seem unable to speak and thus confined to a kind of imprisonment within their own skins, will, in many cases, be able with appropriate therapeutic intervention following the essential path mapped out by Dr. Titzer’s pioneering work, to become literate.

For an example of a person who became literate, I believe after the age of 11, having become “nonverbal” from before his second birthday. Dov was diagnosed with autism at about the age of 3 years after a regression at about 15 months. See the story of Dov Shestack’s bar mitzvah celebration and the speech he was able to write and present, as told at the end of the lecture by Dr. Tom Insel, Director of the National Institute of Mental Health, that I will link right here. Dov could not speak at his recent bar mitzvah but he was able to type out a speech with a keyboard.

Dov's Bar Mitzvah

Dov gave this speech by typing it with his keyboard.

A reasonable inference from all the foregoing is that many persons with what is thought of and referred to as “nonverbal” autism may be able to achieve a substantial level of communication through literacy.

Posted in autism, autism epidemic, causation of autism, disease agents as factors in autism, etiology of autism, interactions of toxins and disease agens, toxins as factors in autism, treatment of autism | 1 Comment

Is vaccination or sanitation more effective against infectious diseases?

Those following the public discussion of vaccines and the known links to bioweapons research—connections that have become increasingly public since the anthrax attack of 2001 that was attributed to Burce Ivins—are not apt to be surprised by published evidence of deceptions and false leads. There are, unsurprisingly, therefore, some who think Ivins was too  convenient a fall guy. Prior to the alleged suicide of Ivins, while the FBI was supposedly hot on his trail, as is well documented, the same government investigators chased the wrong guy, one Steven Hatfill, and ended up losing a $2.85 million dollar settlement to Hatfill that would be paid out at $150,000 per year over the next 20 years at the expense, you guessed it, of the American taxpayer.

The foregoing facts do not tend to inspire confidence in the government’s capacity to protect the public from bioweapons threats. But there is much more to be taken into consideration.

The anthrax attack according to reports about Ivins involved a peculiar variant of the bacterium that could be traced back to the labs at Fort Detrick, Maryland. It can be inferred from this that whoever perpetrated the attack, given a choice would have presumably used a weaponized variant. However, deadly as it was for 5 individuals, the attack largely fizzled as a cruel and frightening experiment in bioweaponry.

Similarly, the so-called “outbreak” of weaponized smallpox in 1971 in Aralsk, Kazakstan in which, according to a published report, Ten persons became infected with smallpox, and three died” (Tucker & Zilinskas, 2002, p. 1), of which 4 of the 10 persons infected had, according to the same source, been previously vaccinated against smallpox.

Nonetheless, in response to revelations coming out in a publicized congressional hearing with defector Kantjan Alibekov, the U.S. government authorities subsequently authorized the stockpiling of 300 million doses of smallpox vaccine to counter the supposed threat. In the murky world of spies, defectors, and the turns and twists of disinformation among the players, it seems reasonable to wonder just how much Kantjan Alibekov, a former director of the Soviet bioweapons research should be trusted. He supposedly defected in 1992 to the west, but his secret revelations suddenly went public when he appeared before a congressional committee in 1998. Why just then? After that, he made a series of additional very public revelations following which the U.S. authorities committed hundreds of millions to the production of an immense stockpile of smallpox vaccine, as if that were the only bioweapon threat on the horizon—and all, evidently, on the basis of the “outbreak” in Aralsk 39 years ago that infected 10 people, 40% of whom had been vaccinated but got smallpox anyway. Was the vaccine an effective preventative?

While thinking persons will no doubt be scratching their heads and wondering just what the CDC experts, not to mention the FBI and the clandestine services are up to, there seems to be little likelihood of the bioweapons people telling the public anything more than they think we can handle.  Independent researchers and thoughtful persons everywhere may be interested in the empirical evidence concerning the century and a half of history of vaccines—this is especially important to examine in view of the virtual flood of praise for the virtues of vaccines flowing from the vested interests involved in the multi-billion dollar industry involved in manufacturing, promoting, and distributing a growing number of vaccines. Is it true that vaccines have saved millions of lives and have protected the world from deadly outbreaks of smallpox?

Is it true, as claimed in a recent broadcast interview with Paul Offit (see his outrage against Andy Wakefield regarding published evidence that MMR is associated with gut disease and that measles virus has been found in a substantial percentage of persons with the autism diagnosis), that his Rotateq vaccine saves 2,000 lives per day from death by diarrhea? Is the CDC, on that basis, recommending the shipment of huge orders of vaccines, especially Offit’s patented Rotateq, say, to Pakistan to prevent dysentery among the tens of thousands of flood victims there? (Thoughtful persons will want to hear the story from Wakefield’s side of the lab in his lecture at Carnegie-Mellon on the autism epidemic, and more recently in his conversation with Joseph Mercola, MD, after his resignation from Thoughtful House.)

Not to make light of any of any disaster, much less of the horrors presently associated with the flooding in Pakistan, it is worth noting that clean drinking water and food, along with adequate waste disposal, and effective temporary sheltering of victims are the rational priorities in Pakistan and in crowded refugee camps and unsanitary conditions wherever they may be found—not rush order vaccination programs.

Why is that?

In addressing this question, we should probably keep in mind that weaponized variants of the supposedly deadly variants of smallpox and anthrax in 1971 and 2001 respectively infected fewer than 50 people in all and resulted in the deaths, if the reports are to be believed, of exactly 8 persons.

Was the rest of the populace protected by having been recently vaccinated against anthrax? The answer is, No. The persons in Congress and the postal workers exposed to the anthrax spores were unvaccinated against it. Did the CDC rush order vaccines to protect them? No, they washed the exposed persons with water and disinfectants and administered prophylactic antibiotics. They also took precautions to disinfect the areas in which the germs were known or believed to have been introduced.

So, why was it that so few were infected and the feared “outbreak” did not occur?

The answer appears to be sanitation rather than vaccination. In fact, the CDC’s own data shows that by the time each of the currently mandated vaccines were introduced to the American public, the deaths formerly attributed to the disease agent in question had, in the much noted case of polio, already bottomed out. Figure 7-9 from Autism: The Diagnosis, Treatment, and Etiology of the Undeniable Epidemic, p. 219, shows that the introduction of each of the currently mandated vaccines produced little or no discernible impact on the declining rate of recorded deaths from infectious disease as reported by the CDC from 1900 to 1996. The chart shown combines data from two different CDC sources and was published for the first time in Autism 2010. It was Dr. Stephanie Cave, MD, who first suggested to me in 2004, that the introduction of vaccines generally came after the disease in question had already been reduced to minimal cases.

Our research found that after the introduction of the polio vaccines cases of polio actually increased. Trevelyan, Smallman-Raynor, and Cliff (2005) note that sanitation played a large historical role during the 20th century in reducing the number of polio cases and according to these experts the Sabin oral polio vaccine itself caused 94% of the 133 confirmed cases that occurred after its introduction. The CDC itself is the ultimated authority for this information (see CDC, 1998). Also, it was through the same polio vaccines that the retrovirus, SV40 , now linked to many cancers and other diseases (see references on pp. 302f in Autism 2010), was distributed to the world population. The CDC admits that the vaccine was the means of the distribution of SV40 but downplays its role in cancers and related diseases. To the contrary, however, leading scientists Urnovitz and Murphy (1996) have argued in a Letter to the Editor of Clinical Microbiology Reviews that the foamy type of simian virus, SV40, may even have transmogrified into human immunodeficiency virus, HIV-1.

This comment has led more than a few in the scientific world, especially those who wonder about the murky realms of bioweapons research, to reflect on World Health Organization efforts to distribute polio vaccine at the time and in the place where the nonhuman retroviruses are suspected of having made the hypothetical jump to the world’s human population. (Just try a Google search on “Polio vaccine in Africa 1970s” and see what pops up. You will be amazed.)

Figure 7-9 from

Oller, J. W., Jr., & Oller, S. D. (2010). Autism: The diagnosis, treatment, & etiology of the undeniable epidemic. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers, p. 219.

Cutting to the chase, what caused the spike in deaths beginning in 1914 and peaking in 1918? Answer: World War I. Why? Because of a lack of vaccines? No, but because of crowding, unsanitary conditions, trench warfare, and so forth. As soon as the war ended, in 1918, the number of deaths from infectious disease dropped precipitously. Was this because of vaccines? No, it was because of improved living conditions and sanitation. Men were no longer crowded on ships, in trenches, and so forth.

The fact that epidemics are associated historically with unsanitary conditions is well documented, for instance, in the book, War Epidemics: An Historical Geography of Infectious Diseases in Military Conflict and Civil Strife, 1850-2000, by M. R. Smallman-Raynor and A. D. Cliff (2004) published by Oxford University Press.

More importantly still, as we show in our research book on Autism: The Diagnosis, Treatment, and Etiology of the Undeniable Epidemic (2010), the touted success story of the smallpox eradication, supposedly owed to deliberate exposure to the cowpox, the basis for our very word “vaccine” (from Latin vacca), not only did not prevent epidemics of smallpox, but contrary to the popular story-telling about Edward Jenner, actually caused epidemics of infectious diseases, including smallpox, in England, Japan, Germany, Italy, and notably in the Philippines.

The most notorious case occurred during the U.S. occupation of the Philippines. The record of that epidemic of smalpox was reported to the U. S. President by Chas M. Higgins in 1920. It showed that the population of approximately 10 million Filipinos received 25 million doses of smallpox vaccine at the hands of the U.S. military personnel between 1905 and 1918 when the Philippine population entered into what appears to have been the worst epidemic of smallpox in history: “there were 112,549 cases of smallpox notified, with 60,855 deaths” and yet as Dole (see the same source) points out this grand total amounted to less than 1% of the population. Still, it was remarkable that deaths from smallpox would be at a rate just above 54% with a population that had been vaccinated at an average rate of 250% (that is, with each person being vaccinated on average more than twice).

Not only did the vaccine not protect the people from smallpox, but, on the contrary, the vaccine seems to have been the tipping factor pushing the Philippines into the epidemic. There are other records of similar results, for example, in careful records kept by the people of Leicester, England, who suffered fines by the British government rather than accept mandated smallpox vaccination.

At first the people rigorously followed the recommended regimen of vaccination. Records kept for the whole community from 1849 through 1867 show that during this time, the population of Leicester increasingly submitted to the vaccination requirement until by 1872, 100% of the population had been vaccinated at least once and many individuals more than once.  Then, in 1873, public willingness to submit to vaccination in Leicester fell after the community experienced an epidemic of smallpox and 360 persons died. From then until 1901, the vaccination rate for new birth cohorts continued to fall until by 1901, the rate of vaccinated individuals was less than 10%.

The astonishing outcome of the data kept throughout that period and reported by J. T. Biggs in 1912 (see Autism 2010, pp. 210ff) was that death by infectious diseases in Leicester, including smallpox itself, was higher during the period of higher vaccination rates, while the rate of all such deaths dropped as vaccination rates fell reaching a minimum when the smallpox vaccination rate was its lowest in the decade from  1889 to 1899. During that decade, deaths from smallpox in Leicester were less than half the rate of smallpox deaths during the same period in the British military.

Not to minimize the significance of any epidemic of infectious disease, or any death of any person, but the significance of the threat of smallpox even during the worst periods of history and the most widespread epidemics, has been greatly exaggerated by the promoters of vaccines. In the worst smallpox epidemic in history, the 1918-1920 epidemic in the Philippines, on the average only one person per hundred got sick, and of those who did, fewer than 6/1000 died. Clearly, vaccines were over-rated from the smallpox case forward. It appears that the benefits have been greatly overestimated and the risks have been underestimated.

Considering the fact that the autism epidemic now affects more than 1 child per 100, we may well begin to look questioningly at the current vaccination schedule for infants. The evidence, as pointed out some time ago by Stephanie Cave, MD, an author/researcher/clinician, has shown all along that sanitation is far superior to any number of vaccinations as a rational means to control infectious diseases. This fact was first shown by Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis in 1847 when he insisted that doctors assisting in childbirth should wash their hands before doing so. His procedure reduced deaths from infections from a rate of 19% on the average to less than 2% immediately following the change.

Shortly afterward,experimental demonstrations by Louis Pasteur would take place and the germ theory of disease would be widely accepted at least from about 1864, just about a decade after smallpox vaccination had been mandated by the British government in 1853. All this is documented in the Autism book along with a penetrating look at the theory of immunology in relation to sanitation, hygiene, and the much promoted and growing use of vaccines.

The upshot of that work, which I hope you will read and examine critically, shows that vaccines have been over-sold to the world-wide public. It is now plain that they have served as unintended vehicles for toxins, adventitious disease agents (Simian virus 40, pig viruses, and so forth), and interactions between their disease agents and those other factors which have undoubtedly contributed to, and in well-documented particular cases, have caused neurological problems, disorders, and diseases. For a several cases, consider Hanah Poling, Bailey Banks, and Robert Fletcher. In fact, it is necessary to conclude that the harmful consequences of vaccines themselves are now reaching epidemic proportions.

In each of the specific cases mentioned (with hyperlinks) in the previous paragraph, lawyers wisely eschewed the term “autism” in the complaints they filed on behalf of injured parties. The fact is that the government (the CDC and its subservient entities; see documentation in our Autism book 2010), has taken the stand that vaccines cannot cause autism, presumably on the theory that the government will not be able to pay the freight if it admits that indeed many cases of autism, perhaps the vast majority, are directly linked to vaccine injuries. It seems that a round of vaccinations is often the precipitating cause of SIDS/SUID, seizures, encephalopathies, and so forth. This was determined to be so for Robert Fletcher according to independent researchers who are considering his family’s 18 year battle. Present research evidence shows that vaccines are causally associated not only with multiple encephalopathies (diverse forms of brain damage), SIDS/SUID, gut disease, and a host of neurological conditions, but also with autism.

I urge readers of this blog to follow the ongoing story of what is causing the autism epidemic at the Age of Autism and through the links found there.

The long and short of it is that sanitation ought to be greatly preferred over vaccination. Sanitation is more effective and less risky. In fact, as has often been asked by thoughtful theoreticians, does it make any sense to put disease agents and toxins into the living tissues of human beings, especially tiny infants, in order to help them fight off diseases they might encounter later in life?

When you think about it, as the Italian doctor, Carlo Ruata observed in the latter part of the 19th century,”Whereas the aim of therapeutics is to cure sickness in our bodies, and that of hygiene to maintain them in health by a salubrious environment, vaccination undertakes to modify our robust, healthy bodies in order to adapt them to an insalubrious environment. It belongs neither to therapeutics, nor to hygiene; it belongs to that fatal, fanciful, spurious science which, rejecting the teachings of experience, rests on dogma and creed, which in other departments of sociology have produced as many evils as vaccination has produced in medicine” (Ruata, 1898; quoted in Autism 2010, p. 215).

Sad to say, all this talk about injuries and epidemics could be depressing…

In the next post, I will turn to evidence for a form of therapy for autism and related disorders that offers hope for release from the nonverbal prison to which many individuals with autism have seemed to be consigned.

As always, comments on this post or prior ones are welcome!

Posted in autism, autism epidemic, causation of autism, disease agents as factors in autism, etiology of autism, interactions of toxins and disease agens, toxins as factors in autism | Leave a comment

Uncovering International Intrigue Behind the Autism “Mystery”: The Sinister Side of Vaccine Research

In doing research on autism and related issues, especially in writing the three books I recently published with colleagues, Dr. Stephen D. Oller, and Dr. Linda C. Badon, on autism (2010), communication disorders and related diseases (2010), and normal child development (2006), it became evident that the vaccine question could not be set aside. It had to be examined critically. For a deep look at the theory and research on the issues at stake, see my intensely peer-reviewed monograph-sized contribution to the special volume of Entropy edited by the distinguished European semiotician, Soren Brier.

From the beginning of the excursion into the toxicology research related to the autism epidemic, it was plain that certain neurotoxins and their interactions must exacerbate all kinds of neurological and communication disorders, including autism. The only question from the beginning of that toxicology work was whether any particular mix could produce autism. Suspects included the ethyl mercury in vaccines (thimerosal, a.k a., thiomersal, a. k. a. Merthiolate) that had been singled out for special public attention at from about 2001, and the measle’s virus which had been implicated much earlier and re-addressed by Dr. Andy Wakefield and colleagues in 1998. No one could deny the upsurge in the autism diagnosis and intelligent independent thinkers everywhere were beginning to wonder what could be causing it. The inevitable fact that it could not be uncaused, was staring us all in the face. The best data, e.g., see the excellent interactive compilations at Thoughtful House, showed that the diagnosis was growing on a smooth exponential curve at least from the 1980s.

That question about possible causation was not easy to answer, but there was no doubt going in that the neurotoxic impact of mercury in almost undetectible quantities could only make neurological conditions worse. It also came out early on that the mercury in the silver dental amalgam is highly unstable and leaks mercury vapors more or less constantly and in an extremely toxic form. What is more this particular offender, is also highly genotoxic. That is to say, it damages germ cells in the male sperm and female egg… Could these variants of mercury be harmless when injected, ingested, or breathed as vapors? Nonsense. It’s harmful all right. That is not in doubt.

The toxicology research findings (though not the public commentaries by certain well-paid pundits, journalists, and spokespersons!) were already overwhelming and unanimous in showing that it had been a really bad idea to inject any amount of a mercury based preservative into mature adults, much less infants or pregnant women, and that it was preposterous (to put it nicely) for the American Dental Association along with the American Academy of Pediatrics and the pharmaceutical industry (not to mention the watchdog agencies of the Centers for Disease Control and the Food and Drug Administration) to persist in saying that the mercury which is unsafe to remove from your teeth, or to hold in your hand, or to be exposed to from a broken flourescent light, is safe to put in infants or to wear in your teeth. The research by Lorscheider and colleagues at the University of Calgary, Faculty of Medicine, from an article published in Neuroreport in 2001 (also generously provided to us for the DVDs associate with all three of the books mentioned at the top of this blog), and explained in an animated video, shows how mercury damage occurs in living nerve cells.

Given all this, any thinking person will ask (as my students always do when we are working through the toxicology), why hasn’t the CDC, FDA, not to mention the medical community, already put a stop to these dangerous practices? In fact, more to the point, why are they still recommending the continued use of dental amalgam, and arguing that mercury in shots never was harmful and is safe for flu shots even today. For anyone who will look at the actual toxicology findings, such claims are utterly false. There is no rational independent researcher on the face of the earth who can claim that a preservative such as Merthiolate does not have a damaging impact on living cells. The very idea of a disinfectant designed to kill micro-organisms that could be harmless to living organisms is contrary to the very definition. To function, such an agent must have killing power and ethyl mercury, the kind used in many vaccines, has it. Similarly, it has long been known that measle’s virus can cause or exacerbate symptoms of autism and that it is the principal factor in causing what is known as Sub Acute Sclerosing Pan Encephalitis (SSPE)… a fatal neurological condition that looks very much like an extreme form of progressively more and more severe autism. Also, initial research into the Vaccine Safety DataLink published by Chen and colleagues (1997), showed significantly increased seizure risks for multivalent vaccines and combinations of them—210% increased risk of a seizure (the kind that would land the victim in the hospital emergency room) from simultaneous administration of DTP (commonly containing thimerosal) with MMR (containing measles and rubella, both associated with increased risk of autism), and 300% increased risk of seizure (all within a 30-day window) if the MMR preceded the DTP by 8 to 14 days. By careful statistical manipulation, the authors argued they could make the interaction disappear, but all the clinical trial data (see our book examining the research) show increased likelihood of fevers and other symptoms with the multi-threat shots (that is, ones containing multiple disease agents simultaneously). When the multiple threats are presented at the same time or when the recipient is already sick, the chances of injury are greater. The common defense of the advocates for combining many disease agents into just one vaccine is that seizures and subsequent full-blown epilepsy or even death, as in Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (or Sudden Unexplained Infant Death Syndrome, a new category that seems to have been invented to diminish deaths in the former) are unrelated to autism. That claim runs afoul of the fact that about 30 percent of persons with the autism diagnosis have full-blown epileptic seizures (the most common cause of death in autism) and at least twice that many have epilepti-form seizures that are detectible only with training or special equipment. However, the idea that seizures are unrelated to the autism epidemic is indefensible and the notion that vaccines cannot cause the latter (autism) seems less and less plausible to folks who are considering the research rather than the propaganda.

Inevitably, the question that must come up, and it is one that undergraduate students who are new to the field invariably ask, is, “Why do the proponents of vaccines continue to churn out all the false claims about safety, for instance, saying that the mercury in shots never did any harm? Why, for instance, invent a new category called SUID (Sudden Unexpected Infant Death) to compete with SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome); see this discussion on this compliments of M. Fowlkes and Clint Andrus in our autism book? Given that the research (see Braun & Ellenberg, 1997) shows that 92% of deaths reported under the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) that involve death occur within 2 weeks of a vaccination? Similarly, how come about half those reported deaths occur on the day of the vaccination? Is this just a statistical coincidence as argued by Paul Offit in his interview with Sanjay Gupta? Offit says, “Statistically it has to happen. Some children will get a vaccine, they will have been fine. They get the vaccine, then they’re not fine anymore.”

If Paul Offit’s argument were sound, there should also be reports of cases, where the child was really sick, went in for a vaccine, and came out completely well. We do have evidence that children often get vaccines when illness, fever, or a runny nose ought to preclude the event. But the research shows that pediatricians and clinicians administering the shots often do so when the shots are contraindicated (should not be given at all). So, Offit’s argument should entail that statistically some kids ought to come in not fine, and go out fine. The statistical argument sounds persuasive in his voice and yet makes about as much sense upon a moment’s thought as saying that burns are only statistically related to fires and that flood damage is only statistically related to hurricanes.

If the killing agent thimerosal did not kill anything would it have been in so many of the shots to keep them from being infected by microbes? If the disease agents in the vaccines presented no challenge whatsoever to the immune systems of humans, why not just skip the shots? His entire argument is poorly conceived and yet his is called on to appear in defense of vaccines all over the world. In our book on autism (especially pages 17ff) we document a death we believe was caused by vaccines in which a four month old child, Vance Walker, received 20 disease agents and a multitude of toxins along with them in one “well-baby” visit. Within 56 hours he died bleeding and frothing from the mouth, nose, and eyes. After weeks of waiting, the autopsy report said it was SIDS, and a representative from the CDC said the vaccines had nothing to do with Vance’s death.  Within two weeks of that event, two other similar deaths occurred in the same clinic in a small town in Idaho. One of the vaccines administered to Vance was Rotateq which along with other rotavirus vaccines that have been in the news much of late. We now have strong evidence that Rotateq, though protected by the CDC, and the basis for about a $29 million pay off a short while back to none other than Paul Offit, contains a pig virus that causes “wasting disease” and that is even more harmful than the virus that resulted in the recent withdrawal of Rotarix just a few months ago.

It is not doubtful that vaccines are implicated in the causation of a lot of problems including autism. Independent research shows that no other conclusion is even plausible. So, again, why all the controversy.

The controversy is being ginned up by vested interests seeking to avoid discussion of the significant, positive, replicated, and ubiquitous evidence that toxins, disease agents, and their interactions are causing neurological disorders including autism. It is also evident to thinking researchers that some of the same toxins implicated in causing autism and related disorders are also causing the genetic damage that causes “genetic” tendencies in successive generations. As noted in an earlier post, genetic explanations of any disorder come up short of a complete ride on account of the fact that something has to cause the genetic problems before they are passed on to later generations. The idea that autism has always existed in its present form and at its present rate of incidence, is a nonstarter. Again, see the earlier post, “Is the autism epidemic an illusion?”

Much of the foregoing is discoverable by any independent and intelligent person with access to published works in libraries, on the internet, and especially in our vast scientific databases. But to save yourself the trouble, read the autism book.

My personal goal was to dig to the bottom of various questions about the role of various forms of mercury, its interactions with other bodily chemicals, and so forth. I was also interested in the role of disease agents such as the measle’s virus(es) as well as others that might do damage to the immune systems, mitochondria, DNA and so on. It came out immediately that mercury in various forms is extremely reactive with bodily biochemicals, especially in nerve tissues, and that a particular form of it had been used in disinfectants even ones placed in the bodily tissues and bloodstreams of millions of persons. Examining the theory underlying this practice led to a series of additional discoveries about germ theory, the role of sanitation, the desirability of keeping disease agents outside the body if possible and killing them before they can invade and cause infectious disease, etc. It also led to a question that thoughtful medical practitioners have been asking intermittently since the study of disease agents began to make scientific headway just about the time of Louis Pasteur’s famous experiments.

However, in doing the work I came upon a connection, a sinister one that I never would have thought of. It has to do with bioweapons and was the underlying reason that David Kirby wrote his book, Evidence of Harm. For him it all started in a midnight effort in Congress to attach a protective rider to the Homeland Security Act in 2002 that would have protected vaccine manufacturers from any legal actions owing to harm produced by thimerosal in particular. Why were they doing that secretly in the middle of the night? We tell more of the story that unfolded in our own book, but the point I want to make here is that there was a hidden connection between the vaccine research and the dark world of bioweapons research.

Here is a brief segment from the book Autism: The Diagnosis, Treatment, and Etiology of the Undeniable Epidemic about the Russian, Kantjan Alibekov [Alibek] and his supposed defection and public revelations to the west:

“Alibekov allegedly defected to the United States in 1992. We say “allegedly” because Alibekov’s secret background began to be presented to the public through an appearance before a congressional committee in 1998 and then through a series of interviews with the press. In view of his remarkable account—a sort of spy legend still being critically examined—he is a former enemy of civilization who helped to develop some of the most insanely criminal devices on the face of the earth” (Autism, p. 200).

Is this intriguing? Important? I hope to tell you that it is both. You gotta read our book and get into the connected literature that is being produced by independent researchers. A key fact to be born in mind, one that invariably comes out in the research, is that the so-called “peaceful” research on vaccines, as Alibekov has pointed out to the American Congress and public, and as any thinking researcher will easily confirm, is impossible to fully distinguish from the destructive purposes of individuals and regimes intending to create chemical and biological weapons.

Thus far, from the fizzled attempt in 2001 to spread weaponized anthrax spores through the mail resulting in the death of 5 persons, and the touted “outbreak” of Soviet weapon-grade smallpox in 1971 reported by Alibekov and documented by Tucker and Zilinskas (2002, p.4)—a supposedly earth shattering event that actually killed a grand total of 3 individuals, one thing seems clear: The weaponized biological agents appear to have been remarkably easy to contain with sanitation and clean up. Flush your hands, eyes, nose and exposed areas with soap and water…. If these dreaded bioweapons were effective, why did they not spread as in the movies, e.g., as in Dr. Dustin Hoffman’s fictional Outbreak world?

Does the history of pronouncements by authorities including our U. S. Presidents about swine flu, ebola, bird flu, and H1N1 ring any bells? Evidently, the propaganda is failing in spite of all the money being spent to promote the vaccines that supposedly can prevent the fictional epidemics. Last year over half the world and about 2/3 of U. S. citizens said, “No thanks,” to the H1N1 shot and lots of people who got it regretted doing so. For one case, see the story on Desiree Jennings and its sequelae.

Meantime, the U. S. Congress and the Centers for Disease Control are spending hundreds of millions and requiring taxpayers to spend billions on nonexistent epidemics and the threat of a weaponized smallpox variant that killed 3 people back in 1971. All the while, as they secretly protect us from huge disasters,  they inadvertently are undoubtedly helping to produce the real epidemic of autism and related disease conditions.

Even the CDC admits that autism is now affecting more than 1% of the babies being born this year, but they deny vehemently that the ongoing upsurge has anything to do with the toxins, disease agents, and interactions that they are injecting into the bodily tissues and bloodstreams of neonates, tiny infants, toddlers, and so forth. Their advocacy of increasing the load of vaccinations on younger and younger and less and less mature immune systems actually makes about as much logical sense as supposing that putting live coals on newborns will protect them from burns later in life.

The germ theory of disease is not false, but sensible persons who read the research will conclude that it is better to keep germs on the outside our tissues. If we need to kill them to keep them out, let’s do it before they get into us.

That is why God gave us the multi-layered barriers of skin, mucous membranes, excretory systems, and so on. We should kill germs and viruses before they get inside our bodies. Sanitation, not vaccination, is the key to prevention of infectious diseases. And, unsurprisingly that is what the research shows, and the subject for my next post in this series.

Got a question or a reaction? Comments are welcome. All kinds, stripes, and varieties. But, I do agree with my former student, Dr. Stephen D. Krashen, who said, “If it is praise, I need it now.” Nevertheless, objections and questions are welcome too!

Posted in autism, autism epidemic, causation of autism, disease agents as factors in autism, etiology of autism, interactions of toxins and disease agens, toxins as factors in autism | 6 Comments

Is the autism epidemic an illusion?

Here Are Some of the Key Questions

Is it true that the ongoing upsurge in autism cases in the youngest birth cohorts is merely an illusion? Is it true that autism is strictly a genetic problem? Could it be, as some say, that the evident upsurge in the diagnosis—see for instance, the remarkable growth curve documented at Thoughtful House—is owed to a broadening definition? Or a tendency to change the diagnosis of various disorders to autism? Or just better awareness by the doctors and the public? Can autism rationally be regarded as merely a special form of giftedness as some have claimed? Are parents merely following funding sources as suggested by Dr. Eric Fombonne? Or does the combination of these factors result in the illusion of an epidemic as argued by Gernsbacher, Dawson, and Goldsmith (2005)? On the other hand, see Newschaffer et al. (2005) as well as Newschaffer (2006) who argue that the epidemic is not illusory.

This Post

In this post, the common arguments suggesting that the autism epidemic is illusory are examined critically in light of the book Autism: The Diagnosis, Treatment, and Etiology of the Undeniable Epidemic published in 2010 and the extensive research reported there. (See the cover at the upper right on this page.)

Let’s take the arguments one by one and then consider all of them together as a possible explanation for the accelerating upsurge in the number of children being diagnosed with autism.

Strictly a Genetic Problem?

First, is it true, or is it even possible, that autism could strictly be a genetic problem?

Among parents consulting with medical professionals on this question, it is common knowledge (and a well documented fact) that doctors often tell them that the problem is either strictly genetic, or that it cannot possibly have anything to do with the sorts of toxins and disease agents children are getting through an increasing number of vaccinations along with the continuing use of neurotoxic chemicals such as mercury in dental amalgam and in the manufacture of vaccines.

Meanwhile, the same medical professionals will point to ongoing research to find the elusive genetic causes of autism. Some will naively refer to the search for “the autism gene”—along the lines of the touted discovery of “the stuttering gene.” But logically the proposed genetic explanation of the autism “mystery” falls short. It is like sweeping the problem under the carpet, or like Scarlet O’Hara’s decision to postpone thinking about the vanishing life now Gone with the Wind. She said, “I’ll think about that tomorrow.” Logically speaking, however, the genetic explanation of the autism epidemic comes up short of its intended goal: we must ask what is causing the genetic damage in the parents, or grandparents, that might result in autism in the child?

Given the fact that genetic damage can be caused by the same toxins, disease agents, and interactions that the mainstream medical professionals swear cannot possibly cause autism in any individual—namely, toxins such as mercury, aluminum, formaldahyde, and so forth, not to mention the disease agents, monkey viruses, pig viruses, and other animal protein fragments, etc. in vaccines—the toxicology research shows that the strict genetic explanation for autism is a nonstarter. That dog, as President Bill Clinton might have said, won’t hunt.

There must be some combination of factors beyond the child’s genetic inheritance to explain autism. Also, current research shows that DNA throughout the body, including mitochondrial DNA which is so critical to the efficacy of our immune systems and communications throughout all of our biochemical systems, can be dramatically disrupted by a neurotoxin such as mercury vapor, for example, in parts per billion. So, the “it’s all genetics” theory of autism fails.

Don’t They Keep Expanding the Definition?

Next, there is the theory that the apparent epidemic may be attributed in large measure to the broadening of the definition of autism, e.g., to include Asperger’s syndrome. However, a careful examination of the literature and the current empirical record of studies trying to refine the definition of autism show that the definition has hardly changed since 1943. It was then that Leo Kanner diagnosed the first 11 cases in the United States. A year later, Hans Asperger reported on a milder form of autism that now appears to be a syndrome indistinguishable by the best measures available, according to recent work by Ritvo and colleagues 2008, from what is termed “high functioning autism.”

It must be noted that in 1994, the year when the definition of autism was officially changed to incorporate Asperger’s syndrome, the accelerating growth in the upsurge of autism diagnoses did not show a sudden spike, but, rather the same steady acceleration as was occurring for a least a decade beforehand and that has continued smoothly even to the present day. (Again readers are referred to the best current data being kept at Thoughtful House.)

So, the supposed broadening of the definition of autism, something which has not actually happened according to a careful reading of the diagnostic literature and something that is inconsistent with the smooth growth curve we are witnessing, fails as an explanation for the evident epidemic.

What About Public Awareness and Better Diagnosis?

Next there is the theory that autism is merely being noticed more frequently and in ever increasing numbers. The research, as documented in the most recently published of my three books coauthored with Dr. Stephen D. Oller (two of them with the Dr. Linda C. Badon also as third coauthor), shows that the majority of cases being diagnosed involve younger and younger children with symptoms that could hardly have been overlooked in the past. As Dr. Jay Gordon, a pediatrician and professor at UCLA Medical Center said recently in the Foreword to one of Jenny McCarthy’s blockbusters: “I know that I am not 400% to 800% smarter than I was years ago” (McCarthy, 2008, p. xvii). If doctors were just getting better and better at spotting autism, the upsurging number of diagnoses, a value that has grown by thousands of percentage points from before 1970, would imply that diagnosticians have become more capable than they used to be. That seems unlikely to Dr. Gordon. There must be something else.

Besides, if it were true that autism cases, ones that have always been there, were just being noticed more frequently, the newly diagnosed cases should be distributed evenly across the age range (from birth to old age) throughout the whole world’s population. But that is not what we find. The vast majority of the cases being diagnosed are under 18 years of age, Dr. Tom Insel, Director of the National Institute of Mental Health estimates 80%, and as we can see from the data at Thoughtful House, the proportion of children being diagnosed is also trending higher in younger birth cohorts. Something is happening to the younger cohorts to produce the observed differences.

On top of all that, the empirical evidence defies the notion that the illusion of an autism epidemic is being produced by greater public attention. In fact, it makes a lot more sense to suppose that the reverse is true. The reason we are seeing and hearing more about cases of autism, in the news, in the movies, at school, etc., is because there are more cases occurring. It seems that everyone I talk to tells me they have a child, nephew, or grandchild on the spectrum. Could it be that there is greater public awareness because there are thousands, tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands more cases? You gotta wonder… Are the naysayers thinking things through, at all?

To add to the difficulty of defending the notion that better diagnosis can explain the illusion of an epidemic, there is the small inconsistency in the fact that increasing public awareness, better educated practitioners, and improvements in the diagnosis ought to reveal more valid cases of autism only if there really are more cases. Contradicting this reasonable expectation, however, folks who promote the idea that better awareness of what autism is is producing the illusion of an epidemic of it, also tend to accept the notion that many of the new cases of autism involve merely substituting (falsely) one disorder, say, mental retardation or Down syndrome, for what is now being called “autism.” The trouble with the latter idea is that keener awareness of what autism is ought to sharpen the boundaries across distinct disorders rather than blurring it. Better educated diagnosticians ought to give better, more reliable and more valid diagnoses. Again, those who deny the growing epidemic come to an inherent contradiction in their own argument.

Then There Are the Edgy Theories

What about the fringe theories proposed by some that autism is really just a form of giftedness, or alternatively, that parents are just seeking out someone to provide a diagnosis of autism so they can get more money from insurance companies and health care providers? The giftedness theory, sometimes advocated by articulate moms such as Dr. Morton Gernsbacher, has a certain appeal in view of the true life stories back of the Rain Man movie, Mozart and the Whale, and astonishing feats of intellect by the likes of Stephen Wiltshire. You must see the video where he is able to draw a view of Rome in minute detail after a brief ride in a helicopter. Who can deny that it is a good thing to look to the highest and best capabilities in every person and to help them develop and augment their strengths? We all agree in that much.

But, are parents ever inclined to seek a diagnosis of autism for monetary gain? Or, is autism in general a form of giftedness? Setting aside the fact that the meager money available from insurance companies, never mind government health plans, falls far short of the needs faced by families trying to cope with severe autism 24/7,  is it true that “autistic savants” are gifted above their non-autistic peers?

The research suggests that savants are, in fact, a little below par even in the areas of their special gifts with respect to performances that can be evaluated by standardized observational procedures. The gifted mathematicians who display amazing abilities in producing a string of very long prime numbers may actually perform below average on ordinary tasks of computation. This is not to deny the amazing minds of persons such as John Forbes Nash, nor of any human being. But consider his remarks in the interview linked to his name, describing the nature, in his case, of his tendency to mistake imagined events for real ones as well as the dissatisfaction that made him wish to be even wiser and more important than he was. Also, keep in mind that until 1979, in keeping with the position originally taken by Kanner, autism was considered to be a form of childhood schizophrenia and the Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders was, up to that time, known by the title: Journal of Autism and Childhood Schizophrenia.

In any case, to try to make autism out to be a form of giftedness when it commonly involves full-blown life-threatening seizures, inability to speak, extreme difficulties in forming and sustaining normal social connections, and, for a substantial majority of persons on the spectrum, loss of the hope of an independent livelihood later in life, stretches the limits of reason.

Is it not amazing that the same people who sometimes accuse the parents of children being diagnosed with autism alternately of being “refrigerator mothers” (a theory that goes back to none other than Leo Kanner; see the documentation in J. W. Oller and S. D. Oller, 2010) or of being desperate enough to try anything to cure their child can turn around, blink twice, and then suppose that ordinary, intelligent parents would choose the autism diagnosis in order to get federal or other money to treat it. Would it make any less sense to surmise that the increase in the current host of epidemic diseases such as childhood multiple sclerosis, diabetes, asthma, allergies, and so forth is being caused by the prospect of universal health care?

It seems clear to me that such theoreticians are not actually hearing the conversations going on around them. Have they not read or heard Jenny McCarthy’s story about her little boy Evan? Do they know nothing of the exquisite documentation of Ethan Kurtz’s case provided by his father? Does the testimony of the dentist who removed the amalgam from Ethan’s mother’s teeth mean nothing? What world are they living in that they can miss all the evidence that is so plain to anyone who will just have a look?

The Epidemic Is Undeniable

All three of the books pictured at the top of this page have dealt increasingly with the growing autism epidemic. You can read about those books on my web page, or view a Youtube video about why we developed them.  I have written another post at our publisher’s web site about why we focused on autism in particular in our third book. In that instance, we began by examining all of the arguments denying an epidemic. We examined the research in the hopes that the epidemic would turn out to be an illusion. No one wanted to find that the epidemic is real. However, after examining all of the arguments in the light of reasonable theory and the best available data, we concluded as noted in our title that the epidemic of autism is undeniable.

Our method, as we have stressed with all of our interlocutors on all sides of the complex issues at stake— readers, colleagues, students, collaborators, and even with those who sometimes have been extreme in their support of what we now know to be mainly propaganda produced by deeply vested interests with astronomical liabilities at stake—was and is to research,  research, research, and re-examine the research some more.

You can see a review of our work at the Age of Autism web site by Anne Dachel. Also see remarks by Dr. Mayer Eisenstein, M. D. about vaccine research coming to the fore and Ray Gallup on the numbers of persons being diagnosed.

The bottom line is that the autism epidemic is real. It continues to grow at an increasing rate. No one wanted this outcome, but those who are the most adamant in denying the facts that are staring them in the face, are the stake-holders with vested interests. They are typically agents working in or benefiting from the industries and professions that are undoubtedly contributing to the problem. They include our own government watchdog agencies, the Centers for Disease Control, the Food and Drug Administration, the pharmaceutical manufacturers and promoters of vaccines, the professional medical organizations that those manufacturers underwrite, and, believe it or not, the U. S. Congress…. All I can say is God help us. You have to read the book documenting the undeniable epidemic and showing why it is occurring.

All the while, the mainstream authorities are swearing that although they know nothing about the mystery of autism, they are sure it has nothing to do with the  toxins they themselves have placed in the bodies of human adults and children. The Director of the CDC, Dr. Julie Gerberding, for instance, said in an interview with Sanjay Gupta, that she was sure that the toxins, disease agents, and interactions between them that are invariably being introduced into the living tissues of younger and younger persons in an ever increasing number of vaccines have nothing to do with causing autism. According to her, the CDC researchers have looked and looked without finding anything.

Meanwhile the Toxicology Results Are Clear

While government watchdog agencies acknowledge that a tiny amount of mercury in your hand or spilled in your home or office is a dangerous hazardous waste, they hold that the form found in dental amalgam, the kind put into the mouths of 100 million Americans by dentists according to the American Dental Association’s current web site, is safe. They say, “. . . the mercury in amalgam combines with other metals to render it stable and safe for use in filling teeth” but the research with the amalgam used in human teeth and the scientific toxicology shows that claim to be plainly false.

Similarly, the CDC, through its many meetings of the Institute of Medicine, has now exonerated the ethyl mercury in many vaccines and flu shots. They say it never was harmful. Yes, they admit that back in 1996, 1999, they waffled a little and thought that mercury in bloodstreams and bodily cells might be harmful, but now they know that the good old CDC did no harm. The pediatricians who gave the shots and the dentists who placed all that amalgam… All can breathe easy.

Yet years of toxicology research and thousands of studies show their claims about the safety of injecting such toxins (never mind the other toxins, disease agents and adventitious  accompanying components such as pig and money viruses and aprotein fragments, many of which are only now coming to light) to be false. There are also, within the key groups at the CDC and in the watchdog agencies, a few courageous dissenters who are objecting, as we document in our autism book. Would to God there were thousands of them with the courage and good sense to examine the research with the intensity and tenacity of Andy Wakefield. Many of the toxicology studies documented in our book, to which Dr. Wakefield contributed a Foreword, have been conducted with human subjects. It was known from the earliest research with humans that ethyl mercury was biochemically active and lethal in extremely dilute concentrations. We now know that parts per million can kill and parts per billion interfere with normal biochemistry and immunity in particular. In fact, the chemist who patented the widely used thimerosal, Morris Selig Kharasch is also credited with inaugurating organic chemistry and introducing the idea of free radicals and the peculiar non-additive damage they do in biochemistry.

The Sinister Side of Vaccine Research

The question that must be addressed as soon as the epidemic is admitted to be what it is, an epidemic, is what is causing it. We know what the main causal factors are from the toxicology research and the dark history of vaccines, a story that until recently has been shrouded in obscure medical jargon, pretentious claims of persons and entities with large vested interests, and of wolves sometimes dressed in the white frocks of medicine. If ever there was an area of study prone to secrecy, deception, and disinformation on account of its nefarious and evil objectives, this is it.

The research that is just now coming into the public view, it turns out on closer inspection, has an occult side that merges in the murky waters of political propaganda with the clandestine and largely forbidden research on biological and chemical weapons of war. For this reason, as noted by  Dr. Kantjan Alibekov [also known as Kenneth Alibek], a former high-ranking Russian bioweapons expert, peaceful research on vaccines cannot be sharply separated from devious work to build chemical and biological weapons. But that is a story for a later post.

The short answer to the question posed in this one is that the autism epidemic is real.

Posted in autism epidemic, causation of autism, disease agents as factors in autism, etiology of autism, interactions of toxins and disease agens, toxins as factors in autism | Tagged , , , , , , , | 1 Comment