Food for thought:

http://www.renegadetribune.com/court-ruling-confirms-mercks-gardasil-hpv-vaccine-kills-people-did-anyone-even-notice/?fbclid=IwAR1TSDoZcAMLbn3eyOMnq-cOEinxYNlIaikbynb7W0i696Owu8MaaMEJXI0

Code of integrity and professional conduct : Ask yourself whether any contemplated transaction or business practice would withstand the scrutiny of the public eye if expossed

Yes, Peter. Most of all, government agencies should listen to the parents when they tell them their son or daughter ran a high fever or experienced serious illness as a result of the vaccine, instead of telling them it had nothing to do with the vaccine. Many of us raised an autistic son (and in a few cases, daughters) as a result of deathly effects of too early vaccines. It was recently revealed in court that the US government has been hiding these complaints for years and that to be sure the parents could not sue for relief, they released the drug companies from all liability that arises as a result of too early vaccines. The government response has been to ridicule the parents as heretics and complainers without justification. It has been a very bad situation in our country because of it. Even when there are revelations like that above, the mainstream media here do not report it, because their largest sources of revenues are the drug companies. Hence, the need for serious discussion and note comparisons by researchers from all over the world. The problems like this will only be solved by sufficient publicity and widespread understanding that such policies are unethical at best, criminal at worst.

Thanks Max for your “ outstandin “ response ( I agree ) up here ” outspokenness “ of healthcare professionals maybe face gov . agents prostitution’s approaches! Take care , Pete

Unfortunately, this is (most likely) another example of incorrectly assumed causality. It is true only that autism presents at about the same time that children are given their first immunizations. So, a connection is made, but cannot be supported. Not even statistically, is my bet.

The result is that deadly diseases, that were thought eliminated, have been making a comeback.

For those who swear by this correlation, autism and vaccinations, is there no historical data of autism, prior to, say, the 1950s? Remember that autism was not called "autism," prior to the 1950s, but that condition definitely existed. The question should be, what was the occurrence of this condition, called by whatever name or names it was given, in the past?

Not a simple task, I realize, because of the many conditions that need to be investigated. But that only makes the effort more valuable. So, even if a precise mechanism linking vaccines with autism cannot be dismissed explicitly, at least we can see whether this assumed correlation is even sensible statistically, or not.

Albert, when your newborn is normal, healthy, has all the reflexes, such as Moro's reflex, then they get the MMR+ vaccine and they run a 105-106 fever for 2 days or more like our son did, and then their developmental reflexes disappear, and they end up autistic, do you not see a direct causality relationship? Multiply this by thousands of similar or identical parent experiences and there is no one on earth that can tell us there is not causation. We are the ones who have to live with it and struggle to raise our children the best we can in an education system that is ill-equipped to handle them. I can tell you from long experience that the government's cover up and industry's biased, tainted research that bolsters their cover up is unraveling as time goes on. Case History multiplied many times over is the gold standard in such matters, not the manipulated research designs and insensitive instruments of measure employed by those with a vested interest in the outcomes. I've long advocated waiting until the children are mature enough to have these vaccines, but instead officialdom has these infants innoculated at birth, the worst possible time in their development to experience such an immunological assault.

Max, I don't know your specific case, and the days-long high fever does seem worrisome, in your example. But we have a nephew who was also diagnosed with Asperger's. His parents also attributed the condition to vaccines. However, in truth, and in retrospect, some of the behaviors, like the constant rocking motions, were troubling even before any vaccinations, long before he was three years old. So, at least in that case, and likely many more just like it, there is no simple answer like vaccinations.

I really think that a statistical study, from before the vaccination era, would be informative.

This article, for example, is about the recurrence of measles:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/measles-outbreak-grows-in-area-with-low-vaccination-rate-most-patients-unimmunized/ar-BBSoU5h?ocid=spartandhp

And this is what the CDC says on the subject (which I'm sure you have seen a million times):

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/parents/parent-questions.html

Yes, many different stressors cause developmental delay in children, including premature birth, mother's smoking (a huge one), heavy metals in the environemnt (especially around heavy industry and military bases, and below large river dams), common food additives, many common medications, childhood illnesses, parental abuse, accidental injuries....there's quite a list that I've covered in my book on the subject.

But the elephant in the living room in the United States is overly aggressive vaccines too early in life for infants (my son was 3 weeks old when he received his and was a clear cut case of vaccine-inspired delay, as were many that come to my attention over the years).

I advise all parents to wait until at least 3-6 months of age and they know the child is demonstratively healthy before administering the first round of vaccines and even then to do so conservatively--let's not bombard under-developed immune systems with hepatitis etc. Most American infants are innoculated at birth, which I consider medical malfeasance of the worst sort, something that Hippocrates would have railed against. Even the CDC and FDA guidelines advise waiting one year from the full battery.

Now, you mentioned the 3 year old whose parents suggested vaccine-inspired Aspergers, but I have to ask how old was the child when he first received any vaccines? When we hear of 3 year olds getting this kind of damage in case histories, we nearly always find that they already had a weakened immune system before then. We could refer back to the long list I made reference to above, but we must particularly pay attention to earlier vaccines and possible reactions.

Now, another thing that our research committees kept bumping into that is virtually ignored in academia just about everywhere is the effect on males vs females, for we find measurable developmental delays to occur 9:1 male to female. This is important because many more males than females die at birth, experience more serious childhood disease, repeat first grade, have accidents, die under age 21 (even thought there are 4-5% more boys than girls at birth, by age 22 there are an equal number of each, we found in a study we did about 15 years ago)-suicide is up to 6x times that female even though attempted suicide and suicide ideation is about 2x as high in females. Drug and alcohol addictions are much higher in males, and of course, by the time we get to the prison population, we find almost exactly the same proportion of male to female there that we find in learning disabilities in the schools, 9:1.

So, I ask my fellow scientists to be objective and climb down from the politically correct notions that vaccines are perfectly safe. We know they are not, especially not as safe as the homeopathic method, which seems to work at least as well as allopathic vaccines, without the risks in the countries where that is standard fare. We should be in this enlightened day and age focused on making things safer for our children, not loading down every concievable disease into their fragile immune systems before they've even had a chance to achieve natural immunity on their own.

Our public health policies should center on making our populations healthy not focusing so aggressively on the other side of immunology. It was quite revealing to me while serving with a research committee on Ebola a few years back: no one was asking why one of third of the exposed population Africa did not get Ebola virus. And, of the ones who did contract it, one third of those (approximately) survived it. We started asking on our committee: what made so many immune to such a deadly disease? Our answer? They were immunologically the strongest and healthiest of the population, had developed a great deal of natural immunity, and had developed traits of hygiene that was missing for most of the population. To me, that should point to our first line of defense, not in endless innoculation that wear out our body's ability to make anti-bodies to keep antigens in check.

Food for thought:

http://www.renegadetribune.com/court-ruling-confirms-mercks-gardasil-hpv-vaccine-kills-people-did-anyone-even-notice/?fbclid=IwAR1TSDoZcAMLbn3eyOMnq-cOEinxYNlIaikbynb7W0i696Owu8MaaMEJXI0

Three keywords to keep in mind when it comes to public health policy: objectivity, freedom of choice, and long term beneficial. If it is beholden to a particular industry or business interests, acceptance must be guarded until proven it meets the other two objectives (freedom of choice and long term benefits). Freedom of choice is important so that the government doesn't pre-empt the possibility that there might be something better out there that might reduce unwanted side-effects AND allows for personal volition instead of heavy-handed governance. Finally, if the long view is not taken in such policy, we might reduce some suffering up front but end up shortening lifespan and increasing healthcare costs for older adults.