Has 'science based medicine' proven vaccine-induced autism doesn't exist?
By Jennifer Hutchinson
“It was very moving at the end of the rally when Jenny McCarthy asked parents to hold up the posters of their children and show the media their proof. The crowd was silent as the cameras spanned the beautiful faces of child after child who had developed autism after a vaccine. They couldn’t all be coincidences, I thought.”
This is an excerpt from my book, Unlocking Jake: The Story of a Rabies Vaccine, Autism & Recovery, where I described the Green Our Vaccines Rally held in Washington, DC, in June 2008. To be among so many people who just get it was an experience I was privileged to be a part of.
With Autism Awareness Month and the announcement of the new autism numbers, the rally has been on my mind quite a bit. I keep seeing the faces of those children and feeling like my heart will break when I think of the damage that has been done to them and their families. I remember Jenny saying that she had spoken with more than 50,000 parents, and they all had the same story. Their children were developing normally, had an MMR or a DTaP or some other shot, and then something went wrong. I remember RFK Jr. saying that we are raising the sickest generation of children in the history of our country. I remember the passion and determination and love that emanated from the parents. Parents who were fighting for their kids. Parents who will keep fighting until they are heard.
Most of all, I remember Jenny’s words: Their proof. Those are powerful words. If you’re the parent of a child with autism, you have your proof that vaccines can cause or trigger autism. There’s a lot of proof out there. For anyone who is willing to see it. Unfortunately, that doesn’t include our government and most of our doctors. I’m not saying they will admit that there could be a problem with vaccines—far too much money tied up in the vaccine program. Way too much to lose. But I have to wonder, what would they consider proof?
Define “proof”
Science. They like that word. “Science has spoken when it comes to the theory that some childhood vaccines can cause autism. They don’t, the Institute of Medicine concluded three years ago.”[1] The AMA. The AAP. The WHO. They have spoken, too.
Thousands of parents of vaccine-injured children have also spoken. So what if it’s “anecdotal evidence”? Anecdotal evidence can be a start, right? After all, they are personal experiences, which “may be the first indication that there is a meaningful biological effect in play.” With proper documentation, they can be useful for “pointing the way to future research.” The findings or conclusions should then be “verified by controlled prospective clinical studies.” [2]
What could qualify more as a personal experience—and a more reliable one—than a mother who carries her baby inside her body for nine months, gives birth to him, and then watches him around the clock, catering to his every need? A mother who knows what every look and sound mean because she knows her baby better than anyone in the world. She wakes at night, her full breasts leaking, just seconds before the baby begins to cry. Her body is in tune with his body. She delights in the first smile, the first word, the first everything. She dutifully takes him for every checkup and comforts him as he’s given his vaccines. Two months. Four months. Six months. Twelve months. And so on and so on. Right on schedule.
Eventually, things start to change. She watches in horror as her precious, beautiful baby she loves with everything in her is sucked into a black hole called autism. She takes him to the doctor—the same one who gave her baby all those vaccines. You know what she is told. You’ve been there. We’ve all been there. Coincidence. Imagination. Your baby was always like that. You just missed it. Same ole, same ole. It has nothing to do with the vaccines. Vaccines are safe.
Would this scenario be any different if a doctor or a scientist observed this baby from day one? All day every day, through many sleepless nights, through every developmental milestone, through all those vaccines … and the day that everything changed? And what if he had documented it all with journal entries and videos? Proof. Would that make what happened real? Valid? Would it be called a vaccine injury?
What are they thinking—or are they?
How do doctors keep quiet? Say nothing? How do they ignore what parents are telling them? Do they ask themselves, even for a second, as they inject multiple vaccines into a 6-pound baby, if it is safe? Do they lie awake at night like the parents of our sick and damaged kids, scared to death that maybe it’s not safe? That maybe a vaccine the baby got earlier in the day is responsible for making him sick? Maybe triggers autism that robs the child and the family of the life they once had? Does it even cross their minds? How do they continue to defend the vaccine program? Do they even know how vaccines work? If they did, could they give one to a sick baby with an already-overloaded immune system? Could they give so many all at the same time? Can they be that ignorant?
Consider this scenario. A mother rushes her child to the emergency room because he is having trouble breathing. I bet that the doctor on call would ask what the child was doing just before it started. He would want to know if he’s on any medication. If so, what kind, and for how long. “No medication,” the mom says. But then she tells the doctor that a few weeks ago her son had diarrhea shortly after eating a piece of candy with peanut butter in it. A couple days after that, he ate some more of the candy and got hives. “I have a friend whose little girl is allergic to peanuts,” she tells the doctor, “and I’m wondering if this is the case with my son. The symptoms are similar, and they seem to be getting worse.” What do you want to bet the doctor would suggest some allergy tests and, “In the meantime, keep him away from anything with peanuts in it”? Do you think he would tell the mom she was crazy or imagining it? Or that she’s anti-peanut butter? Now suppose this happened before doctors were “aware” of peanut allergies and their symptoms. What do you want to bet he’d start talking with other doctors, maybe doing some research of his own, to see if other professionals had seen children with similar symptoms? He might even end up writing an article in a medical journal on the subject. Do you think the pediatric or scientific community—or the parents of these children—would tell him he’s crazy? Has a vivid imagination? Missed it until now? Is anti-peanut butter?
Pretty clear cut, right? A child with a peanut allergy eats a peanut and has a reaction. Why? Because of whatever it is about peanuts that makes him sick. But a child who is sensitive to a vaccine and is injected with it and has a reaction couldn’t possibly have the reaction because of the vaccine. Something else caused it. I covered many of the proposed causes in my last article. I think a few more have been added since last week. You gotta give them credit. They’re quick with the ideas. Pathetic, but quick. Let’s see. What are the latest? The mom was too fat when she was pregnant. The dad was too old. They lived within two blocks of a freeway. … And they call autism after a vaccine a “coincidence”?
“As study findings are reported, researchers are hoping to see repetition—confirmation, that is—that certain factors are playing significant roles.” [3] Repetition? Confirmation? They have both. All they have to do is look at our children and listen to us.
Wrong, wrong, wrong
Does anyone remember hearing that “More doctors smoke Camels than any other cigarette”? You can watch a video of a 1949 TV commercial on YouTube. [4] I won’t bother quoting from it. It’s priceless. Just watch it. Do it now—it’s short.
We know that lung cancer kills 1.3 million people worldwide every year. “There is clear-cut evidence of the link between tobacco use and lung cancer. The number of tobacco-related lung cancers is 90% for men and 78% for women in the US.” [5]
I love this one:
“In the 1940’s, cigarettes were seen as a harmless way to relax. Soldiers were given them to take the edge off and for a short escape from the battlefield. The connection between cigarettes and health problems was still years off. In the 1950’s, the first reports began circulating that proved a connection between cigarettes and cancer. It wasn’t until 1964 that the US Surgeon General finally issued a report that concluded that ‘excessive cigarette smoking’ caused lung cancer. By that time, doctors had stopped hawking cigarettes. But the ill effects lingered on for years.” [6]
The doctors were wrong about cigarettes. Look how long it took someone to realize there was a problem. Then look how long it took for our government to admit it. Over a decade between the time the studies started showing a direct correlation between smoking and lung cancer and the Surgeon General issuing a report. How many people died of cancer during that time period? How many could have been saved?
How long before there is an admission of a POSSIBILITY that vaccines might cause autism? And once it’s admitted, how long before someone actually does something about it?
I repeat. They were wrong about cigarettes. And they’re wrong about vaccines. The real kicker? They KNOW they’re wrong. We’ve shown them the proof.
References
1. www.usatoday.com/news/health/2007-06-04-3419893127_x.htm
2. www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/the-role-of-anecdotes-in-science-based-medicine/
3. www.usatoday.com/news/health/story/2012-04-09/researchers-autism-causes/54129282/1?csp=34news
4. www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCMzjJjuxQI
5. www.lungcancerresearchfoundation.org/lung_cancer_facts.htm
6. http://brownecompany.com/blog/2012/03/13/more-doctors-smoke-camels-than-any-other-cigarette/
No comments:
Post a Comment