09 April 2014

Viral Article on Vaccination


Dear parents, are you being lied to?


Untitled
I came across a post last week entitled “Dear Parents, you are being lied to. “ In it the author attempted to essentially tell parents who choose not to vaccinate that they are wrong, victims of a deceitful web of lies, and the equivalent of “vaccine preventable disease receptacles.” I was so hoping this article would not be popular because to be honest, I didn’t want to address the flaws in her argument (where does one start?) and I certainly didn’t want to increase her blog traffic.
But reading that article was like dangling a carrot in front of a ravenous rabbit or a carcass in front of a starving wolf. Okay, maybe it’s more like throwing a red flag at an attorney (can someone say charge!).  Either way, this article got shared, and posted on my wall, and posted on other walls, and people began to wonder “Are they being lied to?” Well, yes…you are…if you actually believe what you read in that article.
Here is how the article should have read:
Dear Parents, 
You are being lied to. There are pharmaceutical companies who claim to be acting in the best interests of your children, but they’re putting your health and even lives at risk for the sake of profits. There are some doctors, who, despite not being trained on the history of, lack of science behind, adverse reactions, or additives in vaccinations, refuse to read the package inserts and contrary scientific evidence, and do not inform you of the true risks of a vaccine so you can make an educated decision. You’re being lied to…because you’re told you’re just a parent, and you don’t have a say. 
They say that measles is a deadly disease. But it’s not…unless you look at a fact sheet from the World Health Organization (cited in the opposing article) which looks at measles rates globally. You know what else is deadly in third-world countries? A sneeze. Do you know how measles presents most of the time? A rash. 
They say that chickenpox is a big deal. But it’s not.
Before the licensure of the vaccine, only 4 million cases of chicken pox occurred annually and the varicella mortality rate was only 0.4 deaths per 1 million people. In the 25 yearsprior to vaccine licensure, only 2,262 people died (about 90 people per year). Let’s put that into perspective…more than 1,000 people die every year falling down their stairs and200 people die each year from accidentally drowning. I think the real epidemic here centers around your staircase.
They say the flu is dangerous. But it’s not.
The data on influenza statistics is a messCurrently influenza/pneumonia is the 9th leading cause of deathAccording to the CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics, “influenza and pneumonia” took 62,034 lives in 2001. Most people would hear that number and run out and get a flu shot. Funny how they lump two “illnesses” in together like that. What they should have said was “61,777 people died from pneumonia and 257 from the flu and in only 18 cases was the flu virus positively identified.”
Since the flu shot is ineffective and often exposes one to the flu. I’ll opt out and take my chances.
They say the vaccine prevents whooping cough. But it doesn’t. According to the pertussis prevalence dataincidence of pertussis was decreasing before the licensure of the vaccine in 1949. After licensure pertussis incidences increased, stabilized, and then reached a 50-year high in 2013. (Do check out the lovely chart on p. 64 here). And now, the CDC admits they’ve discovered vaccine-resistant pertussis and that children who receive the vaccine can become asymptomatic carriers and spread the bacteriaWhat? So the vaccine is to blame for the outbreaks occurring in an almost exclusively vaccinated population? I’m shocked (okay, not really).
Here are your real options: increase your child’s chance of getting (and spreading) whooping cough by getting a harmful, ineffective vaccine associated with brain damage (DTP), one that may cause autism and enhances the growth of parapertussis bacteria, which can cause a typically milder strain of whooping cough (DTaP) or makes one anasymptomatic carrier (Tdap). No thanks. I don’t want my child to get pertussis (or give it to anyone else) so I’m running as far away as I can from that vaccine.
They give credit to vaccines for eradicating diseases, but they didn’t. 
Polio (licensed in 1955), hepatitis A (1995and B (1991), mumps (1967), measles (1963), and pertussis(1949), were all on the decline before the vaccines were introduced. Small pox and pertussis ultimately saw an increase in prevalence after the vaccine and rubella and tetanus was practically nonexistent prior to the vaccine. Mortality in all areas with all diseases were significantly decreased before the vaccine came on the scene. Instead of looking at deceptive CDC graphs that give credit where credit’s not due, try plugging in the year of licensure on both prevalence and mortality charts and discover where the decline occurred for yourself. (For prevalence of polio refer to “Incidence of poliomyelitis in the USA from CDC, 1972 and for measles prevalence use healthsentinel.com).
What eradicated and decreased the prevalence of these diseases? Considering germs only live in environments conducive to their growth,” the stark declines in disease can be attributed to better living conditions, quarantine programs, hygiene, clean water, indoor plumbing, and better access to acute care. But if you want, we can pretend that maggots, parasites, microbes, and other germs don’t respond to changes in their environment. They’d much prefer a clean house to a rotting trash can.
They say vaccination is better than “natural infection.” But they’re wrong. 
Yeah, it completely makes sense that we are all born with immune systems that have absolutely no clue how to function. Instead of exposing ourselves to viruses in nature which build our immune systems (like every other mammal) and give us lifetime immunity, we’ll expose ourselves to the mutated, live, and attenuated viruses and harmful additives in a vaccine, that may or may not work, and if it does only affords temporary immunity. Makes complete sense.
They say that vaccines have been rigorously tested for safety and are subjected to a higher level of scrutiny than any other medicine. But they’re wrong.Medical drug approval is rigorous and requires pre-clinical testing in animals, an application and review, three phases of testing, and another review before it is approved. Studies are usually done with inactive placebos (like a sugar pill or saline solution) to determine side-effects, and then later compared to other treatments for the same disease, but not without passing the prior phase first. The dying cancer patient who did not get into the clinical trial will not get their hands on that experimental drug until it’s licensed and approved. Period.
Vaccine approval is a cake-walk in comparison. Usually two small studies (where test subjects are followed for a mere 5-15 days) are all that a pharmaceutical company needs to have before approval is granted (except in the case of the meningitis vaccine, which is being distributed without a license and is not approved for use in the United States). Most studies are not even done in this country – they are done in other countries and disposable children in Africa. Oh, the CDC conveniently leaves out the  part about clinical trials being done with prior vaccines, adjuvants, or complex vaccines.
Indeed, the FDA has never even spelled out in regulations the criteria it uses to decide whether a vaccine is safe and effective for its intended use. - Bruesewitz v. Wyeth LLC 
They say doctors readily admit the side effects of vaccinations, that side effects are well-known, and except in very rare cases, are “quite mild.”  Actually, mostdoctors haven’t read the package inserts, don’t inform the patient of side-effects that go beyond “redness, pain, and swelling at the injection sight, dizziness, or fainting” and in all actuality, they don’t have to because the U.S Supreme Court exempted physicians and pharmaceutical companies from vaccine liability in their infamous landmark case that declared vaccines to be “unavoidably unsafe.” 
So the side-effects of a vaccine are “quite mild” but the rash associated with chicken pox isn’t? Tell that to the recipients of rewards from the Vaccine Compensation Injury Act or the parents of children listed on the VAERS database. Yeah, I know you got paralysis, cancer, guillain barre, and your baby died of SIDS but hey…good thing your baby didn’t get that 3-5 day flu people used to get or that ugly red rash.
They say vaccines are safe. But they’re not.
The DTP vaccine caused brain inflammation and death in children. The oral polio vaccine crippled children and adults with vaccine-strain paralytic polio and caused cancer. The pertussis vaccine causes pertussis, the MMR vaccine causes irritable bowel diseases and neurological disorders, the flu shot causes paralysis, and they’re all associated with hundreds of side-effects you can find by reading the package inserts, court cases, and studies.
Until vaccines are subjected to double-blind placebo controlled studies using an inert saline solution (the standard of evidence-based medicine) and until the benefits outweigh the risks…they’re not safe.
They say MMR doesn’t cause autism. But it might.
The vaccine court has ruled that evidence of a causal relationship between autism and MMR does exist and that MMR can cause brain encephalopathy leading to permanent brain injury or death. Study after study after studyvaccine inserts, and countless court cases have confirmed this link. I don’t know about you, but I am not a fan of the “inject now worry about it later” mentality and I certainly didn’t choose my stance because I saw an unsubstantiated, inflammatory media attack on Dr. Wakefield. It’s time to stop bashing Wakefield and start addressing autism.

They say thimerosal in vaccines doesn’t cause autism, but it might.
There are over 15,000 articles in the medical literature describing the adverse health effects of mercury exposure on the human body, so it seems logical that one might be concerned. Although thimerosal has been reduced or removed from most vaccines, it is still present in the yearly influenza vaccine (unless you request one without) and was present in three vaccines (DTaP, Hep b, and Hib) all of which either listed autismbrain encephalitis, or neurological damage as possible adverse reactions. Considering the most recent autism statistics are from 2010 and aluminum was the replacement of choice for thimerosal – the verdict is still out. Is replacing something harmful with something harmful any better? We should probably make sure there’s no chance of autism before we go injecting any neurotoxin into our children. 
They say a child gets more exposure to aluminum in breast milk and that aluminum is safe. Wrong again. 
The biggest sources of aluminum exposure our children face comes from formula and vaccines. A minute amount of aluminum (0.04 mg/L) may be present in breast milk (which differs from mother to mother and goes through the digestive tract and easily exits viafeces), but 0.1 – 0.5 mg/L is present in each dose of a vaccine and gets carried through the blood stream to be eliminated by the kidneys. That’s alarming considering a baby doesn’t obtain full kidney function until they are 1-2 years old and can’t properly excrete aluminum. So a child gets 49 doses of various vaccines injected into the bloodstream before age 6 and that’s not concerning? Can you say, heavy metal toxicity?
Regardless, there is no logical justification for exposing a baby to more of something that is harmful. Aluminum is  classified as a hazardous substance that triggers an immune system pathway response associated with all sorts of chronic medical conditions like allergies, eczema, lupus, inflammatory bowel disease, autism, hyperactivity disorders, dysfunctional immune system, neurotoxicity, diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosisbrain encephalopathy, bone diseaseand interferes with a variety of metabolic and cellular processes in the nervous systemHere’s a good read on the toxicological profile of aluminum.
They say that claims made to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) and National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP) don’t prove vaccines are harmful. But they do.VAERS is a database that one can go to report an adverse reaction to a vaccine. It is estimated that only 1% of the population actually reports these side-effects. And it’s true, no “cause and effect” relationship has ever been established between the millions of reported side-effects and deaths associated with vaccinations. How convenient, no “cause and effect” relationship was established in the clinical trials either, or on any other pharmaceutical or government-funded study. Doing otherwise would de-regulate the entire billion dollar vaccine industry. Besides, its much easier to blame your child’s brain encephalitis or post-vaccine seizure on the weather anyway. 
As for the NVICP, this program was founded because there was so much tort litigation as a result of vaccine injuries that an attempt was made to stabilize the vaccine market. There’s a tax on each vaccine that goes into a fund to pay these claims which a petitioner will not get compensated for unless their condition has no other proven cause but the vaccine. “As of December 1, 2011, the program had awarded $2.35 billion in 2,810 separate claims, including compensation for 390 deaths.” And so many people have reported the development of autism post-vaccine that the  Autism Omnibus Proceeding was established to handle these cases.

Even the U.S Supreme Court recognizes vaccines have risks (including death). Let’s get on board guys and stop ignoring the millions of vaccine-injured children who live among us.
They say unvaccinated children put vaccinated children at risk. But they don’t.
Yes, that’s completely logical. How about I take birth control so you don’t get pregnant. Maybe I should run an extra mile too so you can lose weight. Put your burger down…it’s going to go straight to my butt. Seriously, if you’re vaccinated and you believe you’re protected then you have nothing to worry about right?
They say unvaccinated children are causing outbreaks of “vaccine preventable diseases.” But that’s impossible to prove and the opposite could be true. Someone please tell me how one can scientifically prove a disease outbreak is caused by an unvaccinated child, when the “outbreaks” are occurring almost exclusively in the vaccinated population? In some cases, vaccination rates have been at 100%. It’s like trying to figure out which of your 600 cows pooped in the pasture and coming to the ultimate conclusion that the cow poop came from your  chicken.
Now…we know from reading the studies and vaccine package inserts that vaccines can cause the very diseases they’re designed to prevent. We know from studies conducted on MMR that some children experience vaccine-strain measles post-vaccination. We know that chicken pox vaccine can cause chicken pox, Tdap can cause outbreaks of pertussis, and the oral polio vaccine caused vaccine-associated paralytic polio. We know that meningitis is a side effect on several package inserts and that the old HiB meningitis vaccine was removed from the market because it caused meningitis. We know thatmumps outbreaks have occurred in the fully vaccinated population. And finally, we know that live-virus vaccines like yellow fever, MMR, and varicella shed and that people who get inactivated viral vaccines can become asymptomatic carriers. 
Logically and scientifically, I am having a really hard time blaming the chicken for the cow poop.
They say vaccine herd immunity exists. But it doesn’t.
Herd immunity 101: Herd immunity is the belief that if a certain portion of the population becomes immune to a disease the rest of the population will be protected from infection. Sounds great, except herd immunity only applies to diseases derived naturally that give one lifetime immunity. A vaccine is deemed effective if it introduces an antigen but that antigen may not cause an antibody response but if it does, won’t necessarily give one immunity, but if it does, only provides temporary immunity. In other words, effective doesn’t equal protective. You can have the antibodies and still get sick. Major fail.
A.W. Hedrich, founder of the herd immunity concept found that a 68% exposure rate was all that was needed (not 95% as people have been mistakenly led to believe). By that definition, even if herd immunity did apply to vaccinations we should not see outbreaks of any vaccine preventable diseases especially in exclusively vaccinated areas. (For more on herd immunity check out this article and this book).
They don’t believe the body’s immune system serves any useful purpose. But it does. They say vaccines are one of the greatest public health achievements but they’re not. They say injecting 49 doses of 14 vaccines by age 6 is safe, but it’s not. They believe vaccines are the only way to prevent disease, but it’s not. They say “anti-vaccine activists” aren’t educated and haven’t done their research, but just because one comes to a different conclusion, doesn’t mean they haven’t. They say vaccines are science-based, while ignoring conflicting scientific studies.
So why are they lying to you? Pharmaceutical companies are doing it for profit, and are scared out of their minds of the liability that would fall upon them if vaccines were the admitted cause of any number of medical conditions (think asbestos and tobacco litigation). The government won’t question because of their conflict of interests and profit margin. Some doctors don’t want to admit they’re wrong. Some people are looking for someone to blame. A few people truly think vaccines work and have made their choice but don’t think you have the right to make yours. And some people…hate others who don’t vaccinate more than they hate bad science.
Like the original article suggests, I too encourage you to educate yourself. Of course there are parameters:
First, pretend that there is no split among the scientific community on this issue. Next, pretend that the hundreds of brilliant doctors and researchers who have spoken out against vaccines are all quacks. Then, pretend that vaccines are the only drugs in the world that conveniently have no harmful side-effects. And finally, if you don’t know where to start, look to the media, people who haven’t done their research, and random internet blogs that throw out citations that have absolutely nothing to do with their premise.
As the original article quoted, an astrophysicist once said “The good thing about science is that it’s true whether or not you believe in it.” Great quote, but might I point out that sometimes people refuse to acknowledge the real science because of what they believe.

06 April 2014

Pseudoscience: Forbes reports on disappearing medical paper

Medicine Or Mass Murder? Guideline Based on Discredited Research May Have Caused 800,000 Deaths In Europe Over The Last 5 Years

(Updated)– Last summer British researchers provoked concern when they published a paper raising the possibility that by following an established guideline UK doctors may have caused as many as 10,000 deaths each year. Now they have gone a step further and published an estimate that the same guideline may have led to the deaths of as many as 800,00 people in Europe over the last five years. The finding, they write, “is so large that the only context in the last 50 years comes from the largest scale professional failures in the political sphere.” The 800,000 deaths are comparable in size to the worst cases of genocide and mass murder in recent history.
In their new article published in the European Heart Journal, Graham Cole and Darrel Francis continue to explore the extent and implications of the damage caused by the Don Poldermans research misconduct case[Update: the EHJ article has been removed from the EHJ website. For more on this see the bottom of the story.] The earlier paper demonstrated the potentially large and lethal consequences of the current European Society of Cardiology guideline recommending the liberal use of beta-blockers to protect the heart during surgery for people undergoing non cardiac surgery. The guideline was flawed because it was partly based on unreliable research performed by the disgraced Poldermans (who also served as the chairman of the guideline committee). This may seem like a highly technical question but it effects many millions of people and may, as Francis and his colleagues have demonstrated, led to many thousands of unnecessary deaths.
The new article, the first of two parts, makes no new scientific claims, but instead begins to consider the broader implications of the story. Cole and Francis briefly consider the dilemma of clinicians who may “feel unable to act in contravention of guideline recommendations recognized as ‘state-of-the-art’ by the European Society of Cardiology” and who may even be penalized for failing to follow guidelines.
They note that more than half of the lives lost– potentially more than 400,000– may “have occurred after the research was discredited,” though some of the damage may have been mitigated if doctors  changed their practice after reading about the controversy. (There was a 2 year delay after the start of the Poldermans affair until the ESC  withdrew the beta-blockade recommendation.)

19 March 2014

Payback Time: Is Flouride the Next Asbestos?

Fluorides Under Fire: see flouridealert.org
Legal Community Awakens as Federal Fluoride Harm Case Proceeds to Oral Arguments and Fluoride Harm Newspaper Advertising Appears

Legal community interest in the long-smoldering controversy over use of fluorides is growing as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has agreed to hear oral arguments in the fluoride harm case of Nemphos versus Nestle Waters North America, Inc., et al.

The case centers around “dental fluorosis” disfigurement of teeth caused by childhood ingestion of fluorides in water and other products.

The Washington D.C.-based law firm Public Justice has joined other plaintiff firms to help argue the case. Public Justice has more than 3,000 affiliated attorneys.

In another development, advertisements seeking students with dental fluorosis are beginning to appear in newspapers at universities, such as The Hoya newspaper at Georgetown University.
The advertisements show photos of dental fluorosis teeth staining and inform students that those with fluoride teeth harm may be entitled to monetary damages.

“There are a lot of harmed people out there that were not told the facts about fluorides, nor have they seen documentation of what dental leaders knew and admitted amongst themselves about fluorosis,” says attorney Chris Nidel.

“Fluoride providers and promoters are now under the microscope as the Fluoridegate scandal unfolds,” he says. “In their own publications, dentists warned of a day when fluoride litigation would arrive.”

Nidel’s law firm and the firm of Paulson and Nace have been with the case from the beginning. Public Justice is adding its expertise to argue that defendants in the case cannot use federal laws to preempt state legal actions on fluoride harm.

The plaintiff in the Nemphos case is a mother who purchased fluoride-containing products for her daughter, believing she was helping her child avoid cavities. The mother claims she was not warned about the possibility of costly-to-repair disfiguring fluorosis that later manifested in her daughter’s teeth.

Major dental organizations continue to promote use of fluorides, claiming the fluorosis stains are mostly barely visible and fit in a designation of “mild” or “very mild.”

“The so-called ‘mild’ fluorosis of the Nemphos girl is certainly not barely visible,” says Daniel Stockin, a career public health professional opposed to water fluoridation who now speaks regularly with law firms about fluoride issues.

“The fluorosis classification system used by dentists hides the severity of it,” Stockin says. “The system specifically tells dentists to ignore an individual’s worst fluoride-stained tooth in classifying a person’s fluorosis severity, and the system does not take into account the total number of teeth affected. Twelve teeth or two teeth with stains, both are allowed to be called ‘very mild’ or ‘mild’ fluorosis. This revelation will be deeply disturbing to citizens and elected leaders who were misled about fluorosis.”

An article in the Journal of Dental Research acknowledged increasing amounts of fluorosis, calling it undesirable and saying it “places dental professionals at an increased risk of litigation.”
Another article in the journal Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology echoed the warning about lawsuits, specifically addressing fluoride supplements: “It is only a matter of time until a case is brought that gets public attention. The risk is that noticeable fluorosis will be perceived by the public as a toxic consequence of fluoride ingestion – which, arguably, it is – and there will be a reaction against all uses of fluoride…”

On its website, Public Justice describes the advertising of fluoride-containing products offered by defendants in the Nemphos case: “Advertising like Nestle’s and Dannon’s, which induce consumers to purchase a product by touting an ingredient’s benefits without warning of that same ingredient’s known hazards, is generally prohibited by state tort and consumer protection laws.  Those laws allow wronged consumers to sue for injuries the product caused.” 

“Fluorides are a concern for both young children and college students and others,” Stockin says. “For college students seeing the fluorosis newspaper advertisements, they know that fluorosis impacts their job interviews, their self confidence, their professional relationships, and even personal and dating relationships in a very real way. For parents of young children, fluorosis on their child’s teeth can mean financial costs in the future, and of course they wonder what other harm has also occurred, such as impact on kidneys, thyroid glands, bones, and even IQ. So I think perhaps it’s not surprising that what consumers are hearing about fluorides from product sellers is changing.”
A toddler training toothpaste referenced in the Nemphos case filings warns of white spots on children’s teeth from swallowed fluorides. Several companies now sell an unfluoridated toddler training toothpaste described as safe if swallowed because they are fluoride-free. 
REFERENCES:
1. Fluorosis advertisement in The Hoya: http://issuu.com/the_hoya/docs/issuu_3.4.14/7?e=3568114/6958776
2. Journal of Dental Research 69 (Spec. Iss.): 539-549, February 1990
3. Journal Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology; 1999; 27: 72-83
4. Public Justice website information about the Nemphos case: http://publicjustice.net/what-we-do/case-stories/NemphosvNestleWaters
5. Email for Washington D.C. attorney Chris Nidel: chris@nidellaw.com
Daniel G. Stockin, MPH 

18 March 2014

Does Chemotherapy Cause Cancer?

Systematic screen of chemotherapeutics in Drosophila stem cell tumors

  1. Norbert Perrimonb,c,1
  1. Contributed by Norbert Perrimon, January 21, 2014 (sent for review December 19, 2013)

    Significance

    In this article we report a large-scale chemical screen in adult Drosophila to find inhibitors of stem-cell–derived tumors. To our surprise, we found that some Food and Drug Administration-approved chemotherapy drugs have the dual property of reducing growth of stem-cell–derived tumors while also stimulating hyperproliferation of their wild-type counterparts. Since hyperproliferation is one of the hallmarks of cancer cells, this side effect could contribute to refueling the growth of the very tumors that these chemotherapeutics are intended to inhibit. We show that this side effect is driven by the evolutionarily conserved Janus kinase-signal transducers and activators of transcription (JAK-STAT) inflammatory pathway, raising the possibility that the JAK-STAT pathway may also be activated in humans who are treated with some chemotherapeutics.

    04 March 2014

    Carcinogens in Your Drinking Water

    Take Aim Against Fluoride in Drinking Water

    An Issue You Can Sink Your Teeth Into

    March 4, 2014Dear Citizen for Health,As a supporter of CFH, we know you work to stay informed about the issues that affect your ability to maintain your health and wellness. We emailed you last week to draw your attention once again to the potential negative health effects of water fluoridation, and are working to bring you resources for staying informed, as well as opportunities to take action.
    There are reasons to be concerned:
    --"Fluoride amounts to public murder on a grand scale." A shocking quote from Dr. Dean Burk, former head of the National Cancer Institute's Cytochemistry Sector, co-discoverer of biotin and publisher of more than 250 scientific articles. Why was he so concerned about the link between fluoride and cancer? Watch an interview with Dr. Burk here.
    --Residents of Bernalillo County, home of Albuquerque, take note: Your Water Utility Authority Board is considering a reversal of a decision from 2011 to stop adding fluoride to drinking water. The move would cost taxpayers $400,000 initially, and $100,000 per year thereafter - read more here.
    --And we noted in our last email that the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) own National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory says that fluoride is a chemical with "substantial evidence of developmental neurotoxicity". We think this bears mentioning again. And often.
    The good news is that people all over the world are taking this fight to the grassroots, and we here in the U.S. must follow the lead set by nine states proposing anti-fluoridation bills last year. Stay tuned for more on this issue, and for how you can add your voice to the chorus calling for an end to forced fluoridation of our drinking water.

    26 February 2014

    Genetic Risk Factors for Autism

    Patrick Bolton and Hilgo Bruining on connecting genetic risk factors to specific symptoms in autism
    Posted by Biome on 24th February 2014 -  0 Comments

    Genome wide association studies, genetic epidemiological investigations and numerous gene sequencing approaches have led to a growing appreciation of a genetic component to autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Genetic variations have consequently been linked to a broad spectrum of behavioural symptoms that fall within the classification of ASD. However, for the large part, these risk factors have not been correlated with specific symptomatology. Such a correlation might be important to dissect the heterogeneity of ASD, which is urgently needed to develop more targeted treatment possibilities. In a recent study in Molecular Autism, Patrick Bolton from King’s College London, UK, Hilgo Bruining from the Brain Centre Rudolf Magnus, the Netherlands, and colleagues, investigate the genetics of ASD with a view to determining whether specific behavioural signatures can indeed be linked to certain genetic traits. Bolton and Bruining explain how they were able to discern behavioural symptoms unique to specific genetic disorders that are known to carry an increased risk for ASD, and moreover discuss how this machine-learning approach could be applied to idiopathic ASD.
    ------
    Frequency Research Foundation has reported previously that about half the population has mercury, flouride, and measles virus in the brain along with other viruses and heavy metals. See:
    http://blog.frequencyfoundation.com/2006/05/evidence-of-harm-mercury-in-vaccines.html

    However, only a subset of these people are autistic and they have particular problems with the measles virus in the intestinal tract along with heavy concentrations of mercury in the brain. This suggests genetic factors that disrupt the elimination of mercury and make the intestinal tract susceptible to the measles virus. Thus this latest research is of interest because it shows a genetic predisposition to autism.