Autoimmune Psychosis: Fingerprints of Aluminum-Induced Autoimmunity?

Autoimmune Psychosis: Fingerprints of Aluminum-Induced Autoimmunity?

Autoimmune encephalitis is a condition in which the immune system attacks brain proteins.  It was first described by Dalmau in a patients with teratoma who exhibited high levels of autoantibodies that were reactive to neuronal tissue.  These patients also experienced severe psychotic and neurological manifestations, including anxiety, delusions, mania, short-term memory loss and seizures [1]. Immunomodulation and tumor resection reversed the symptoms.

It is well established that aluminum hydroxide can induce autoimmunity of many forms in animal models.  We recently had a paper on the issue of dose relevance to humans accepted and then not published by the journal Autoimmunological Reviews (first because it was too controversial, and then because we dared to have published a draft copy of the manuscript in the name of Open Science).  Our analysis showed that the per body weight aluminum hydroxide dosing in animal models overlapped the exposure experienced by humans when the animal model incorporated a genetic predisposition; a child at the age of two receiving 5 aluminum-containing vaccines would be receiving doses that overlap those with animals that reliably and consistently develop autoimmunity at those doses due to the combined genetic and environmental effects.

We also know that there is a genetic risk to many forms of psychosis.  Genetic variation at genes the encode for ion channel protein may increase individual risk for psychotic disorders. Specific variants at the L-type calcium channel locus are known to confer individual (specific) risk of psychosis within at least five neuropsychiatric disorders, including but not limited to schizophrenia and bipolar disorder [1].

A growing scientific and popular literature is pointing to autoimmune psychosis a real phenomenon, and to many people, it seems as if the whole world is going mad.  Social tensions on the rise in the US fomented by divisive political rhetoric has some pointing to a “Political Cold War” [2].

Earlier [3,4] and later [1] reviews list specific genes for which autoimmunological evidence is high.  However, these reviews call the condition “autoimmune encephalitis” or “synaptic autoimmune encephalitides”.  It is no longer useful to euphemize the condition, which should be re-labeled “autoimmune psychosis”.    Psychologists have also noted increase risk of psychosis in non-neuronal autoimmune conditions (such as Type 1 diabetes) [5], and some genetic variation at HLA-region genes are known to also be associated with psychiatric disorders.

It’s one thing to say that vaccines are for “the greater good” and point to belief in protection from herd immunity and not count the cost of vaccine injuries that society can recognize.  But it’s another to pump hundreds of millions of children with aluminum hydroxide against a backdrop of scientific knowledge that tells us that there may in fact be population-wide attendant consequences to the mental wellness of people in general, with some portion of the population doomed to psychosis – with no plan to work towards helping those individuals reverse the immunological dysfunction or remove the accumulated aluminum from their brains and bodies.

The lack of long-term whole health outcome studies on adverse events that may be associated with vaccination is reckless endangerment.  There is no impetus on the established allopathic model for practice and research to conduct studies of the combined role of genes and vaccines on chronic health – including mental health.  To me, that’s criminal negligence, and those who misinform the entire population that vaccines are safe for everyone – when in fact we know that they are not safe for some – do so at unknown risk to public safety.  We all live in the same society, share the same schools, shop at the same malls, eat the same restaurants.  Perhaps there are other risks that we should be more concerned about than having our kids miss a few days of school with historically mild illnesses.





“The discovery of disorders that are associated with antibodies to neuronal cell-surface proteins has led to a paradigm shift in our understanding of CNS autoimmunity. These disorders can occur in patients with or without cancer—often children or young adults who develop psychosis, catatonic or autistic features, memory problems, abnormal movements, or seizures that were previously considered idiopathic”


Additional Reading

Neuroscience News – Brain on Fire: Puzzling brain disease could now be better diagnosed and treated

Psychology Today – Autoimmune Disorders Linked to Psychosis

PsychScence – Autoimmune Diseases Masquerading as Psychiatric Disorders- A Paradigm Shift in Psychiatry


Anti-brain antibodies are associated with more severe cognitive and behavioral profiles in Italian children with Autism Spectrum Disorder 

Weibel et al., 1998. Acute Encephalopathy Followed by Permanent Brain Injury or Death Associated With Further Attenuated Measles Vaccines: A Review of Claims Submitted to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Pediatrics 101

NB: Maternal antibrain antibodies are more often present in mothers of autistic children than in mothers of typically developing children (Rossi et al., 2013; see Braunschweig et al., 2012, for a review).

Pew Research Report: The Public Trusts Independent Science, Distrusts Corporate and Government-Funded Science

A new research report out by the Pew Research Center shows that Americans trust independent research science far more than they Corporate-funded Government-funded science.  This graphic from the report says it all:


Image credit: Pew Research Center

In other parts of the report, the results are sobering: Only 55% of Americans think scientists think objectively.  And only 6 out of 10 Americans have confidence in the Scientific Method.

In an era where profit motives appear to skew most biomedical research, slightly or entirely, IPAK was founded to carry forward the bright flame of objectivity into the future so others may partake in bona fide Science.

IPAK receives no funds from any government agency and does not represent any industry group.  IPAK exists 100% due to the will of the people who want truly independent science to exist in our world.

The best way to be part of the revolution in how our society funds science is to give monthly and to help others learn about the studies IPAK has done – and is currently doing.

As the CEO and Director of IPAK, The Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge, I want to thank you for doing your part to support truly independent scientific and biomedical research.

Become an IPAK Science Hero by clicking here or on the image below.

Spread the word by sharing the link on Facebook, Instgram, and Twitter.

Let us know by tagging us on your posts.


To reach the full PEW report, click here.

Why the Seat Belt Analogy to Vaccines is Flawed

Why the Seat Belt Analogy to Vaccines is Flawed

In forums around the internet, and in face-to-face discussions on vaccines, well-meaning proponents of vaccination sometimes invoke an analogy to the safety provided by seatbelts.  The argument usually takes the form of “seatbelts cause injuries, too, but you still use them, and states have laws mandating their use because the benefit outweighs the risk.  Vaccines are the same”, they argue, “and just like everyone should wear seatbelts, everyone should be required to get vaccines”.

Flaw #1.  Unlike vaccine injury, there is no genetic risk to seat belt injury; unlike vaccines, the risk of seatbelt injure is random, and is therefore truly share among all people.  People injured by one vaccine likely have a higher probability of serious adverse health outcomes from additional vaccines.

But is there truly a genetic risk of vaccine injury?  Observational data suggests yes.  There appears to be a higher incidence of autoimmune disorders in parents, especially mothers, of children who are reported to suffer neurodevelopmental disorders or serious autoimmune reactions.  The question is whether the risk of such health outcomes has a higher specific risk within families.  My reviews of the literature show that the correct types of studies to answer these questions have not been conducted.

Flaw #2.  Unlike vaccines, seat belts routinely are subject to recall due to injury lawsuits, providing essential product quality feedback to seat belt and automobile manufacturers.  By contrast, vaccine manufacturers are immune to liability lawsuits.  Instead, families of individuals killed or injured by vaccines have to sue the US government – specifically the Department of Health of Human Services, via the Vaccine injury Compensation Program.  Liability for vaccine injury was removed for vaccine manufacturers and for medical doctors and nurses in 1986 with the National Vaccine Injury Act.  No vaccine injury damages visited upon vaccine manufacturers compel them to improve their products.  Instead, vaccine manufacturers and the HHS are incentivizeded to deny that vaccine injuries and death occur.

Vaccine mandates without the safety valve of philosophical, religious and medical exemptions pit the reality of the biology of vaccine injury risk, which is clustered in a potentially identifiable (albeit heterogeneous) subgroup of citizens, who should be afforded equal protection under the law.  Families forced to knowingly injure – or kill – their own child by acquiescing to vaccination will become increasingly agitated.  As I have published previously, vaccine risk denialism thereby fuels vaccine skepticism and grows the vaccine risk aware community – both by direct injuries that accrue every week, and by increased repugnance at the injustice of forced vaccination without choice.

The long-term effect of extreme and heavy-handed vaccine mandates without the time-tested safety value of exemptions is nothing short of revolution.  Those in power should consider undertaking meaningful reform, including revisiting codification of monopolies-by-contract for vaccines.  Currently, ingredients in vaccines do not have to be dose-tested for safety.

Science-based public health policies, not propaganda, may return confidence to the vaccination program.  Censorship, including overt programs by Facebook and Google, will only fuel awareness.  It’s amazing how large power factions and monied entities in society fail to learn that oppression of human beings has never proven sustainable.

So, honor your fellow citizen’s rights to informed consent, and respect their right to choose.  Don’t kick them out of your practice: work to change the way incentive quotas are calculated to exclude individuals with exemptions.  Read how no chemicals included in vaccines have to be dose-tested; indeed, only proteins are supposed to checked for safety.  Remarkable, I have never seen any published studies showing that proteins used in vaccines are safe to inject into humans.

It is illogical to retort that millions of people have been injected with no ill effect.  Nearly 54% of all children have a chronic illness.  Fetal demise has never been higher; our birthrate is at an “all-time low” – this after vaccination during pregnancy was adopted (TdaP and influenza) without consideration of the health of infants.   Autoimmune rates, neurodevelopmental disorder rates, rates of diseases of unknown origin are all higher than ever.

This after CDC expanded the vaccine schedule to include many aluminum-containing vaccines, without dose escalation studies or studies of the effects of using so many vaccines on infants and children.

Time will bear out the truths of the early warning system provided by mothers and fathers of the vaccine injured.  They will never cease their quest for rational approaches to immunity – even if that means accepting the risk of natural infection.  The fear that people will cease vaccinating has driven vaccine death and injury denialism.  it has twisted and warped vaccine safety science.  It had failed.

Looking to the future on the vaccine safety science issue, the question is: will governments choose reform, or revolution?

James Lyons-Weiler

Allison Park, PA






This effort is not funded by any means, except some meager ad revenue. Your support will help me offset costs. Won’t you pitch in?



David Gorski Tries to Salvage False Conclusions Drawn from a Wreck of Hemi-Study of Genes and Environmental Factors and Autism, Fails Miserably

David Gorski Tries to Salvage False Conclusions Drawn from a Wreck of Hemi-Study of Genes and Environmental Factors and Autism, Fails Miserably

I rarely address any contribution of the non-peer-reviewed writings of David Gorski, a person who appears to callously and cruelly deny every vaccine injury that has ever occurred.

But lest his meanderings into the design and interpretation of studies of the relative contribution of genetic and environmental variation to phenotypic variation lead souls far astray from reason, I must reluctantly address some of the issues with his attempt to salvage a study that is being misinterpreted as demonstrating that environmental factors contribute very little to ASD risk, when in fact the study does no such thing.

First, let’s dispense with the utterly futile. Of course David affords himself ample opportunity to cast about the usual impotent and tired slurs with the misapplication of the term “antivaccine” to someone whose sons are both fully vaccinated, and who has repeated called for improvements in vaccine design.

I find it odd that David finds it odd that I would take issue with the WebMD article, rather than the original study, since the WebMD article is flawed.  He has indeed set up a perfectly visible strawman. In his attempt to admonish me for criticizing the study for having limitations that the study itself reported (e.g., risk of under- and mis-specification), he tries – and fails – to pull a fast one.  It is most straightforward to see that David’s criticism of my concerns over model mis-specification can only exist if I criticize the study alone, because the study reported that as a limitation; but no, my criticism is correctly well-aimed at the WebMD article for misinterpretation of the study – they did not carry forward the limitations of the study (and neither has any of the news articles that picked up their info from WebMD).

This type of translational sleight-of-hand by both WebMD and by David is academically disingenuous, misleading, and a potential danger both to public health and to the public’s trust in Science.

David criticized me for repeating (in an image) a concern over how previous studies of vaccines have been designed – but he has no criticism whatsoever for the dozens of times those steps have been repeatedly misapplied to make associations of adverse events from vaccines go away by CDC and their contractees.

David guesses (incorrectly) that I “apparently” prefer “the simplicity of the raw, unadjusted analysis that doesn’t control for confounders”.  And this is where David steps into the deep end of the pool and drowns in a water of complex data analysis.

I have never, ever stated that I prefer “raw, unadjusted analysis”.  I prefer adjustments when they are based on well-documented, well-accepted functional relationships among variables. In a study tha ostensibly would test whether environmental factors are associated with, say, neurodevelopmental disorders, one cannot – no, I should say one should not – “adjust” for covariates of those exposures without removing variation that covaries with those exposures.   Since in the studies I have criticized that have abused covariates as confounders were in fact (at least ostensibly) testing vaccination, as an environmental factor, it has seemed, each time I have seen it, foolish to assume that vaccines do not cause autism by removing variation associated with vaccine exposure and then conclude “Look! Vaccines are not associated with autism!”

I have repeatedly stated that I prefer objective model selection criteria.   In curve-fitting modeling, there are a number of such criteria that those who have studied the association of factors and autism are evidently unaware of.  But more importantly, I prefer to use covariates as co-predictor variables in models that can, and are, tested.  Such models are tested empirically for generalizability with blinded, set-aside test validation sets, so we might be better able to surmise which risk factors are important in predicting poor health outcomes, which would then of course empower the medical community to improve clinical practices, and thus perform science-based medicine.

The IOM admonished the CDC for not working out how to predict or identify which subgroups are at highest risk of vaccine injury:

“[R]esearch should be encouraged to elucidate the factors that put certain people at risk.”

In 2011, the IOM reported that this research had still not been done:

“Both epidemiologic and mechanistic research suggest that most individuals who
experience an adverse reaction to vaccines have a preexisting susceptibility. These
predispositions can exist for a number of reasons—genetic variants (in human or
microbiome DNA), environmental exposures, behaviors, intervening illness, or
developmental stage, to name just a few— all of which can interact as suggested
graphically in Figure 3-1. (emphasis added)

Some of these adverse reactions are specific to the particular vaccine, while others may
not be. Some of these predispositions may be detectable prior to the administration of
vaccine. … [M]uch work remains to be done to elucidate and to develop strategies
to document the immunologic mechanisms that lead to adverse effects in individual

[source], [source] and [source]

Of course, the paragraphs above are blank to David.  He sees no adverse events worth predicting.   In reality, 1994 to 2011 marked seventeen years of scientific malfeasance and, the IOM called the CDC out for doing nothing to fill the knowledge gap – and the studies have still not been done TO THIS DAY.

This kind of call for useful prediction models has instead been met with two types of studies – those that focus on environmental factors alone, and those that focus on genetics alone – never the twain shall meet.  Even David sees the flaw in the study of Genetics and Environment that ignores the interaction term (Genetics x Environment) as valid, but he has to dismiss the importance of this flaw because it is fatal.  He betrays his wicked and complete lack of comprehension of the fundamentals of generalized linear modeling works by how he attempts to dismiss the flaw.  He writes:

the problem is that we don’t know the size of this term, and it would have to be pretty darned large to push the genetics-only risk factor down to the second or third most important risk factor. We have no good evidence that this is likely, and, if you click on the review article cited, you’ll find that the examples cited by Lyons-Weiler are all supported by small studies, the largest of which had only 408 subjects. It’s wishful thinking to believe that these potential examples are going to overshadow the contribution of genetics to overall risk of autism and ASDs.

This is pure wishful thinking combined with utter guesswork.  Stating that the G x E term must “overshadow” the Genetics term is like saying that the mass of an object must “overshadow” its weight.  Just as mass contributes to an object’s weight, genetics CONTRIBUTES to the G x E term, and unless the E term is truly residual noise, one cannot expect that the G x E term will not be larger than the  G term in a model that includes G, E, and G x E.  One does not compare the significance of G to the G x E across models; and thus David’s claims that we have “no good evidence” that the G x E term WILL be more important that the G term in a more completely specified model is answered by the obvious reply:

Then let’s do some appropriate and relevant science, and find out.

This, by they way, does not make me “anti-vaccine”.  It makes me “pro-science”.

David ignores my critique of the WebMD article for not even mentioning the fact that the study did not measure a single environmental variable, and he ignored my critical comment of the study that the study assumed that one type of environmental contribution was measurement noise.

It seems that David, like all who have refused to accept the reality from Dr. William Thompson, who told Dr. Hooker that all vaccine studies that come out of the CDC are sanitized before they are submitted for publication wish to imbibe in the continuing saga of confirmation bias that leads inevitably to the conclusion that all vaccines are magically perfectly safe for all people because they are vaccines.

David appears to think that vaccines are magically immune from being an important variable in generalized linear models – because they are vaccines.

And David appears to think that it’s just fine that WebMD draw conclusions about vaccines that are not supported by the published study, even when the study does not study vaccines.

Reminds of those those fMRI studies that are over-interpreted as showing that vaccines do not cause autism because unique variation exists early in life in kids that go on to develop autism after vaccination.  Those studies are misinterpreted because (a) the moms were likely vaccinated while the infant was a fetus, in utero, (b) the infant was likely vaccinated with HepB vaccination on Day 1 of life, and (c) those studies could actually be onto a useful biomarker to prevent vaccine-induced encephalopathy-mediated autism (terminology per the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program).

Vaccine pseudoscience itself is a wreck, it is making a wreck of our health and our society, and it can only be salvaged by Science.



This effort is not funded by any means, except some meager ad revenue. Your support will help me offset costs. Won’t you pitch in?


Yet Another Highly Unethical and Socially Irresponsible “Genes-Only” Study Fails to Show that Autism is 80% “Genetic”

Yet Another Highly Unethical and Socially Irresponsible “Genes-Only” Study Fails to Show that Autism is 80% “Genetic”

In a WebMD article, the results from a large genetic-factor-only study gleefully reports that the newest, highest-ever estimate of the percent liability of autism risk that can be attributed to “genetics” is 80%, leaving the remaining 20% to environmental factors.

The article also claims that this new, highest estimate is reported by the study authors to be “…roughly in line with those from prior, smaller studies on the issue, further bolstering their validity“.

Consistent Results From Invalid Methodology Does not Make Those Results “Valid”.  It Makes Them “Consistent”.

The “roughly in line with” is an appeal to consistency.  But the Liability Threshold Models differ from other approaches methodologically. Previous studies, one of which was conducted by the same group of researchers, had estimates that ranged from 0 to 99% heritability.  The average, until this group started using liability-threshold models, was around 40% attribution to genetics. Their studies increased the average, but it still hovered around 50% liability.  Only the liability threshold models, used by this group, show results around 80% liability.  So their method is consistent with itself.  No surprise there. But that’s nowhere near “roughly in line” with all prior studies.


One of those studies is discussed in the article “Non-genetic factors play surprisingly large role in determining autism, says study by group“.

Why Autism is Not “Genetic”

The article skips over the fact that the newest, latest study, like the prior studies, fails to actually measure the contribution of a single environmental factor.  While the article rails against “anti-vaxxers”, the study ignores the vaccination status of those involved in the study.  The mantra of so many studies never showing association has to be tempered with a mature, responsible and realistic interpretation in the context of how those studies were conducted: restricted to one vaccine (MMR), and then there is this:


Assumptions Without Measurement Lead to Assumptions as Conclusions

Their entire methodology is based on familial correlations. In the current study under consideration, no exposure levels to pesticides, medical exposures in utero, smoking history, nothing environmental was measured.  And yet somehow the study authors pretend they can estimate the % liability from environmental factors.  How do they pretend to achieve such a feat?

The first problem is that they have not measured any interaction between genetics and environmental factors.  There is, in fact, established knowledge of special risk of autism that involves combined risk of specific genes and specific environmental factors.  Check out, for example, Bowers and Erickson (2014):2

Their Liability Threshold Model Approach is Both Under- and Mis-Specified

You really have to understand population genetics a bit to get this next part, so I apologize to the lay public, but please take what understanding you can from this:

Their model (generically represented) is

ASD risk  =  “Genetics” + e

where = measurement error, leaving whatever variation appears to be unexplained to Environment.  That’s unusual because the usual interpretation of such unexplained variation is “Error” and “Unknown Variation”.   In technical terms, their model is underspecified.  Environmental variation is not “Error” in a genetic model, it’s “Environmental Variation”.

If they HAD measured environmental factors, say, vaccination exposure, their model form would be

ASD risk = “Genetics” + “Environment” + e

but this model would still be underspecified.

The more fully specified model would be

ASD risk = “Genetics” + “Environment“+ “(Genetics x Environment)” + e

And if the interaction term “(Genetics + Environment)” is more highly significant than “Genetics” or “Environment“, a reasonable interpretation would be that we cannot interpret genetics in a vacuum, that the significance of many ADK risk alleles must be modified by environmental factors.  If during model selection, G or E is significant, but then in the full model G x E is significant, we attribute liability to both G and E working together.

Instead of this standard approach to studying genetic and environmental contribution to phenotypic variation (ASD phenotype), they do something very odd.

In the Supplementary Material, they report that they made assumptions about environmental factors.  Non-specified “Shared Environmental” effects are ASSUMED to be 1.0 for siblings and 0 for cousins.  Families quite often stop vaccinating after an older sibling experiences seizures.  The study authors also EQUATE “Non-Shared Environmental Factors” with “residual errors”, which is patently absurd.  That’s “e“, which is unspecified variation (error), not designated environmental factors.

If I had conducted an analysis of environmental factors and their contribution to ASD, and used their methodology, I would be able to attribute any unexplained variation to “Genetics” after allowing “Environmental Factors” to consume most of the variation.  I might arbitrarily add in some assumptions, such as assuming that risk from dominant alleles were 1.0 (which they are not, if the impact of those alleles are modified by environmental factors) and all recessive risk alleles contributed zero risk, which would be, as described, arbitary.  Their conclusions draw directly from their assumptions.

Evidence? What Evidence?

The WebMD article cites the entire team of researchers as saying “the current study results provide the strongest evidence to our knowledge to date that the majority of risk for autism spectrum disorders is from genetic factors,” [‘said a team led by Sven Sandin, an epidemiological researcher at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden’] – as quoted by WebMD.

Evidence?  What evidence? If you assume no contribution of environment, measure no environment, and conclude no contribution, there is no evidence.

There are over 850 genes that have been determined to contribute to ASD risk – and not one of them explains >1% of ASD risk individually.  Most of these are Common Variants – meaning they are ancient – as in, they pre-date both the ASD epidemic (and yes, there is an epidemic) and vaccination.  Here’s a figure from my book, which reviews all of the genetic and environmental studies published to mid-2016:



This explains why ASD pedigrees look like humanity dipping its toes into a toxic soup:


The study also does not explain why >20% of children with ASD have higher copy number variation – de novo genetic variation – compared to the rest of the population, nor why people with ASD – and their mothers – have anti-brain protein antibodies – nor why people with ASD have strange misfolded proteins, lifelong microglial activation, why studies of replacing the microbiome show a reduction in the severity of autism traits by 50%… a feat for a diagnosis that is allegedly 80% “genetic”… and so on, and so on.

Then There is Phenomimicry

The study ignores the fact that environmental factors can impact genes, proteins and biological pathways in a manner that is identical to the effects of genetic variation. This is called Phenomimicry – a term so cool I wish I had invented it.  Examples of Phenomimicry are known in science relevant to ASD.

3“Guess What? Being Human is Heritable”

It’s worth pointing out that thousands of human “traits” are heritable, and that includes traits that contribute to sociality, language ability, intellect, and even perhap tendency toward repetitive motion.  That means that genetic studies must subtract the heritability of these traits in the non-ASD population from the estimate of heritability in their contribution to ASD.


The WebMD article, and the research report itself, lauds the study for involving over 2 million people from five countries.  This is not impressive because the study falls into the category of “Science-Like Activities“.


It is highly unethical – and socially irresponsible  – for “Genes-Only” studies to be conducted that claim to rule out environmental factors.  All “Yet Another Highly Unethical Genes-Only Study”s – YAHUGS – should be replaced with fully and correctly specified models. That means measuring and studying both vaccination patterns and genetics.

WebMD article on

James Lyons-Weiler

Allison Park, PA

Note: A layman’s example will help.  Let’s say you want to understand thumb injuries among carpenters,and you specify a model

Risk of Injury = Hammer Size

You SHOULD also include Length of Nail, i.e.,

Risk of Injury = Hammer Size + Length of Nail

but it is socially unacceptable to conduct science on the Length of Nail.  So you leave it out.  You then model

Risk of Injury = Hammer Size + e

and incorrectly attribute variation in the “Length of Nails” to “e“.

You SHOULD specify

Risk of Injury = Hammer Size + Length of Nail + (Hammer Size x Length of Nail) + e

But that pesky social pressure to ignore Length of Nail goes a long way.

So you don’t know “(Hammer Size x Length of Nail)“because you do not know Length of Nail.

So you attribute everything to “Hammer Size”, totally ignorant of any direct or interactive effect of the “Length of Nail“and “Hammer Size“.

So you conclude “Hammer Size explains more than Length of Nails” when you should publish

“We Do Not Know the Effect of Length of Nails in Isolation nor with Interaction with Hammer Size”.

You can support me in my initiatives – going live in the fall with the WWDNYK Studios – join on Patreon where these and other pressing issues will be discussed with live guests.



This effort is not funded by any means, except some meager ad revenue. Your support will help me offset costs. Won’t you pitch in?



A Brief Lesson for the Press on Vaccine Injury

While in Columbus, OH, educating legislators on the balance of the science, I witnessed a reporter interview a mom of a vaccine injured child.  The mom no longer consents to vaccination for her daughter because, as she said, if she had continued to vaccinate her daughter would most likely not be here.

The reporter seemed to struggle forming one question.  The cognitive disequilibrium was obvious. After explaining  the history of events that led to her daughter’s eventual diagnosis, and being told that a functional neurologist has determined that the vaccine did, in fact, cause her injury, the reported asked:

“And what do you say to people who say you are putting children who cannot vaccinate in harm’s way?”

The mom answered the question gracefully: she said she does not tell anyone else to not vaccinate, that other parents have the choice to vaccinate, and so on.

But here’s the rub: the reporter ignored the fact that her own daughter is in the population that people think they are protecting.

Is it me, or is society clueless that the vaccine injured are among those who cannot vaccinate?

Parents of vaccine injured children or of children killed by vaccines should never be asked to promote to support a pharmaceutical product that has injured or killed their child.


Full stop.

Carry on.


This effort is not funded by any means, except some meager ad revenue. Your support will help me offset costs. Won’t you pitch in?



A Few Key Points About GSK’s Priorix Vaccine

Merck’s MMR vaccine has been against the ropes for some time, with critics cautioning against possible contribution of the vaccine to autism, whistleblowers alleging Merck spiked rabbit antibodies into samples to defraud the FDA, and studies showing waning vaccine efficacy and lack of boosting power. GSK’s Priorix is about to be adopted for use in the US, and there are a few points to keep in mind, using information from the scientific literature and a Canadian PRODUCT MONOGRAPH:

Priorix targets a different type of measles than the MMR. GSK’s vaccine targets the Schwarz strain, while the MMR targets the Edmonston-Zagreb measles strain. A study in Bangladesh in 1987 showed that vaccination against the Schwarz strain led to half the seroconversion rate (35%) as the E-Z strain (62%).


The side effects can be serious.

From the Canadian Monograph:

“Page 21 of 23
In subjects who have received immune globulins or a blood transfusion, vaccination should be delayed for at least three

If a tuberculin test (skin test to check for tuberculosis) is to be performed, it should be done either before, at the same time as, or 4 to 6 weeks after vaccination with PRIORIX, otherwise the result of the tuberculin test may not be correct.

Your doctor may decide to give PRIORIX at the same time as other vaccines. A different injection site will be used for each vaccine.”

[JLW: Your doctor may decide? This ia presumptive consent, not informed consent.]

In case of drug overdose, contact a health care practitioner, hospital emergency department or regional Poison Control Centre (Oh, Canada!) immediately, even if there are no symptoms.

The vaccine must be administered by a health professional.

A single 0.5 mL dose of the reconstituted vaccine is recommended.

Usual dose:

PRIORIX will be injected under the skin or into a muscle either in the upper arm or in the outer thigh.

PRIORIX should not be administered intravascularly (into a blood vessel).
Different injectable vaccines should always be administered at different injection sites.”

It is not likely to be “either MMR or PRIORIX”. It will likely to offered in addition to, and doctors will be performing new experiments on patients with untested combined use in an untested schedule.

“PRIORIX may be given as a booster dose in subjects who have previously been vaccinated with another measles, mumps and rubella combined vaccine.”

ACIP has never taken a vaccine type off the schedule, no matter how old the vaccine formula is. They have changed recommendations for one age group for the HPV vaccine, dropping the third dose for teens and younger adults.  According to the American Cancer Society, the reason is parent/teen conflict – not HPV vaccine injury:

From the ACS website:

Debbie Saslow, PhD, senior director, HPV Related and Women’s Cancers at the American Cancer Society, said the new recommendation will make it easier for people to get protection from HPV. “It’s a burden on parents to get teenagers to the provider’s office. The new recommendations not only cut down on repeated trips, but also spread out the recommended interval. This adds the flexibility that allows the second shot to be given at a time when the child will already be at the provider’s office for something else – an annual checkup, a sports physical, or even something like a strep test.”

That’s a load of baloney to represent this is parent/teen strife.  Many of the teens won’t go back because the second dose made them intolerably ill.  It’s family/doctor strife that’s the problem – the doctors will not attribute vaccine injuries to vaccines. Nope, never vaccine injury.  Can’t say that in the US.

If Priorix and Merck’s MMR are both given to patients each according to their own schedule, it would double the number of measles, mumps and rubella live attenuated virus vaccines exposures.   CDC says that a second MMR vaccine, usually given at 4 years of age, “can be given early”, as long as it is has been 28 days since the last MMR.

I wonder if, therefore doses of a measles, mumps and rubella vaccine are in the works for children and teens without evidence of immunity?

Given that this study shows 24% efficacy of the MMR against mumps 20 years after vaccination, lifetime immunity is clearly not available via vaccination.

Merck also has the MMRV vaccine, which, in addition to measles, mumps and rubella contains the varicella-zoster virus, which causes chickenpox and shingles.




This effort is not funded by any means, except some meager ad revenue. Your support will help me offset costs. Won’t you pitch in?