Aluminum Pediatric Dosing in Vaccines: Anonymous Aluminum Apologist Bloggers’ Fatal Error Totally Supports Our Conclusions

Aluminum Pediatric Dosing in Vaccines: Anonymous Aluminum Apologist Bloggers’ Fatal Error Totally Supports Our Conclusions

AS A WORKING SCIENTIST, highly trained and skilled in both the art and in the importance of bona fide scientific discourse, it bothers me when I see sorry excuses for scientific engagement such as the articles published, sans peer review, at the obscure Vaccine Risk and Injury Denialist website “Skeptical Raptor”. These articles use an immature style of attacking objective Science under the pretext of defending Science, composed of a mixture of ad-hominem attacks combined with a Gish-Gallop of throwing anything and everything they think might stick at bona fide Scientific inquiry, with a swirl of argument from authority while hiding behind the pretext of fear of being attacked by anti-vaccine, I mean, vaccine risk aware advocates. Science? I don’t think so.

The over-the-top high-horsed tone of the articles published at Skeptical Raptor may be amusing to those who enjoy a good street fight. However, Scientific discourse requires that we take a different tack than Romper Room tantrums in our response. I will indulge a bit in this about the website, however, by stating that in my experience, the anonymous Ghost authors of the (non peer-reviewed) articles at Skeptical Raptor have never met a vaccine-induced injury or death they did not like.

I am only responding to this blog because my colleagues thought I should. I hate to amplify SR; it’s a hate-filled place. I would have expected more from people who call themselves Scientists. Surely the vaccine risk and injury denialista could have found someone willing to take our peer-reviewed study on old-school style, in the pages of the Journal of Trace Elements in Medicine and Biology, where our study was published following blinded peer review (3 reviewers). Frankly, I’m disappointed by the lost opportunity for bona fide rational discourse. In contrast, their online attack is not peer reviewed; the author, or author(s), hid behind the above-mentioned pretext of fear of attack. Perhaps there is a conflict of interest or two they would prefer to not reveal. In contrast, my resume and biography are on the web and I make no income from the sale, manufacture and distribution of vaccines.

Ironically, in their online attack on Science, the ghost author, or authors, whom I will refer to as the anonymous aluminum apologist bloggers (AAAB), unwittingly attacked and destroyed FDA’s “Apology Study” research on aluminum in their attempt to attack our study. I’m referring to the Mitkus study, which was FDA’s attempt to dispense with empirical research such as age-appropriate dose escalation studies of aluminum hydroxide in mice to determine the actual per body weight dose limits for humans. The AAAB’s unwitting attack on the FDA’s Apology Aluminum study (Mitkus et al.) starts with four entire paragraphs of futile and pointless ad-hominem attacks. They cite measles, however, the live virus measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine does not contain aluminum, and thus their “anti-vaxxers are going to destroy us all” trope proves equally futile.

Because such attacks are irrelevant in Objective Science, we’ll move right along to see how they slayed the FDA’s Mitkus study.

The first error in reasoning that I point out might actually save the Mitkus study, for now. The aluminum apologist blogger claim that because none of the authors of McFarland et al. are toxicologists, we did not know that we should be focused on plasma clearance rates.

Right there, we are done.

Whoever wrote this critique clearly knows or cares nothing about aluminum toxicodynamics. It’s all spelled out in the peer-reviewed literature: aluminum injected into the human body, either by intramuscular injection (IM injection) or IV, has a strong affinity for solid human tissue, explaning thus precisely why its “bioavailability” as measured by plasma clearance is very low. It is not low because it is cleared from the body in urine, feces, sweat, etc. This is why we changed, in our first study, the language from “absorption” to “metabolic availability”: all of the aluminum injected in each vaccine (100%), and all aluminum that is absorbed by the intestine (0.3%) must be dealt with by the body, and in those systems, the toxic effects also manifest. The mechanisms of aluminum toxicity described in the literature ignored by AAAB are intracellular, and include mitotoxicty, disruption of the cytoskeleton, and endoplasmic reticulum stress. A full collection of references on the cellular mechanisms of aluminum toxicity is available here. AAAB cites none of this literature.

Measuring aluminum in the the plasma (or serum, or blood) clearance does not reflect whole-body content and actual aluminum toxicdynamics: aluminum exerts its toxic effects while adhered to tissues, and inside cells. The body clearance, therefore is the concern. Whilst in cellular tissues, aluminum can be expected to act as an adjuvant on proteins from other viruses and bacteria, and oddly shaped human proteins expelled during cellular death following aluminum induced endoplasmic reticulum stress. The longer the whole-body retention, the more likely the aluminum is to induce harm during “detox-retox”, which we refer to in our study.

The long-term duration of aluminum in the human body is a cause for concern over chronic re-exposure via aluminum cellular release and recirculation. Take, for example, a recent study that focused on plasma concentrations and relative amounts to brain, bone and other tissues (Weissner et al., 2019). The authors report:

“Crude linear extrapolation from 100% on day 0 through the mean dose fraction of V1 remaining at the injection site on day 80 (77.7%) predicts that complete absorption of Al from AH-adjuvanted vaccines will take at least 350 days (1 year).

In contrast, linear extrapolation through the remaining dose fraction for V3 (14.5%) suggests that Al from AP-adjuvanted vaccines might be completed much earlier after ca. 120 days.”

Source: Weissner et al., 2019.

That’s a long time for the body to learn and reinforce autoimmunity – and that’s just absorption. That’s not whole body clearance.

Similarly, Flarend et al.’s rabbit study found that only 6% of aluminum hydroxide injected into rabbits had passed from the body after 28 days.

Flarend et al. Al elimination (whole body clearance)

That means that the aluminum resides in human tissue, including bone, brain, and other organs, actively impairing cellular function, inducing cell death. Aluminum in all of these tissues is not static. The aluminum apologist bloggers ignore that while the amount of aluminum that makes it into the brain is relatively small compared to bone, its retention is much longer in the brain, and aluminum salt molecules remain toxic, killing cell after cell. This would explain why 90% of aluminum measured in the brain is found in the extracellular matrix, as reported by Priest. If it was not cytotoxic, it would be found in the cells.

In attacking our lack of focus on plasma clearance, AAAB showed the soft underbelly of why the Mitkus et al. study is all but flotsum in the scientific literature on aluminum because it focused on plasma clearance. Plenty of peer-reviewed critiques are available[1] and see citations in McFarland et al. 2020.

Mitkus is, in my professional opinion, dead. That is part of the reason WHY we used Clark’s rule.

As for AAAB’s criticism of cherry picking, AAAB is/are guilty of this very offense, otherwise they would never claim (incorrectly) that we should all be concerned only about plasma concentration. Vaccine risk and injury apologists used the same tactic to try to convince the medical community and the public that Ethyl mercury was not a problem because it cleared from the serum more quickly than Methyl mercury. But hundreds of thousand of Americans are not complaining about symptoms of their plasma. “Doctor, my plasma hurts”. No. They are complaining about symptoms of whole-body toxicity. Our study made it perfectly clear that we are addressing whole-body toxicokinetics. It’s a pretty straightforward analysis, and the difference between plasma and cellular organs is readily apparent.

Unlike the AAAB, we are concerned about the effects of aluminum on the circulatory system, the digestive and excretory sytem, the endocrine system, the integumentary system, the immune sytem, the muscular system, the nervous system, the renal and urinary system, the reproductive system, the respiratory sytem and the skeletal system. Why? Because these are the systems about which the public is reporting symptoms. The previous literature seems to consider the relative amount destined for bone to be “reassuring”, and refers to it as a storage depot, ignoring the constant exposure of cells circulating through bone as source of constant flux, recirculation, and exposure. The long-term whole-body burden is relevant when such diverse conditions as neurodevelopmental and immunological disorders are attributable to aluminum.

Plasma clearance rates are irrelevant to our study, other than the transient period of time that aluminum moves from tissue to tissue as it induces apoptotic and necrotic cell death. Priest largely focused on rates determined with co-administered citrates, which enhance the absorption, or adsorption, to tissue, and would expedite the plasma-based “bioavailability”. Importantly, Mitkus assumed that 90% of aluminum in whole blood was found in plasma (not 90% of whole body), with the rest adhered to erthrocytes, where it causes eryptosis (red blood cell death), and therefore likely causes anemia, so says Science. [ ] Note that animal studies of Lupus use aluminum hydroxide to induce SLE-like symptoms.

The diseases of the blood to which aluminum may also contribute are significant sources of morbidity and mortality in the US population, and in the population around the world. Having read all of the studies that use aluminum hydroxide to induce autoimmune conditions in mice, I’ve determined that the per-body-weight doses approach those in humans if the study use an animal that is a genetic mouse or rat model that predisposes the animal to the autoimmune condition. Conditions like asthma, allergic rhinitis, lupus, Sjogren’s syndrome, and so on are routinely and reliably induced by injections of aluminum hydroxide. But that’s just Science.

Similarly, animal studies reliably and reproducibly induce asthma and other autoimmune symptoms in mice using aluminum hydroxide. These are serious diseases with serious mortality burden; about 45 people in the US die from asthma every day. Readers can search Pubmed for studies that induce autoimmunity in mice and rats here:

The doses in these studies were systematically analyzed to compare them per body weight to a single dose in a single vaccine that a two-year old human receives on the CDC schedule, resulting in the following table:

This table and the paper in which it can be found, along with all of citations, is available here. (That paper survived peer review, but the publisher found a link to it on the IPAK website and claimed that we already published it. So much for the ‘open science’ and ‘open review’ experiment!)

Mitkus, based on Priest, used data from single or a handful of clearance rates of isotope-labeled aluminum. Our study took a different approach to a pediatric dose limit that introduces the question: since plasma-based bioavailability does not inform on whole-body toxicity corrected for body, weight, if 850 mcgs are “safe” for an adult, how does that scale to infants, newborns and toddlers? We also explored the effects of successive doses on accumulation and clearance, and introduce the problem that not everyone might be able to clear aluminum at the same rate as others, including those with genetic impairment of any number of biological pathways involved in detoxification, and newborns, which only have 20% glomular filtration rate of adults. None of the available studies on aluminum toxicology have considered aluminum toxicogenetics. Yet there is a patch for testing for aluminum allergy – clearly some people could be screened for aluminum allergy, yet pediatric practice ignores this reality.

The aluminum apologist bloggers also incorrectly interpret our results: They claim that we conclude that all of the aluminum injected simply accumulates:

“As it reads, the authors are trying to claim that under no circumstances aluminum is eliminated from the body and that the aluminum injected will accumulate in the body during the first 18 months of life.” – AAAB

None of our assumptions or conclusions even remotely resembles this straw man, and, as a straw man, it deserves no further attention than to say they must not have read, or understood, the full study.

We estimated a pediatric dose limit (PDL) based on a presumed per-dose safe level used clinically by FDA regulations, and compare the Priest equation results. By considering both body weight and cumulative retention, scaling their enforced per dose limit, we come to a very different conclusion than Mitkus. Notably, the McFarland et al. study did not derive the PDL estimate, it was already published in 2018, and we merely cited that previous estimated PDL. Why the FDA has not published and certainly does not enforce a per-body weight pediatric dose limit per day for aluminum hydroxide from vaccines is a mystery. On catch-up days, children can receive 5-9 vaccines in a single day.

Given their interest, I am surprised the aluminum apologist bloggers did not critique Mitkus and Priest for basing so much of their modeling on citrate-bound aluminum, which has a much higher absorption rate, thus clearing the plasma more quickly, making even our results (McFarland et al.) overly optimistic.

A salient question is why do AAAB not present their own whole-body PDL based on their own proposed methodology and submit it for peer review? The answer, I believe, is that they are afraid of (a) finding that their estimates would be similar to ours, and (b) they would be labeled “anti-vaccine” and lose their jobs, and perhaps (c) they may suffer from a cognitive blindness due to financial conflicts of interest (see (b)). (NB: Being in a School of Pharmacy as reported induces a COI).

Instead, they prefer childish Romper-Room Taliban-wanna be tactics.

If they do accept the challenge to actually engage in Scientific Discourse, I would expect them to start with the questions that began my research into aluminum pediatric dosing:

(1) How did the FDA come to determine that 850 mcg of aluminum is ‘safe’ for a single dose? (Answer: oral doses of oral forms of aluminum in adult mice levied via assumption after assumption into a per-injected dose amount of injected forms in humans. Then they abandoned all that, cherry-picked and misrepresented the Golub et al. study, and based it on the dose needed for a significant immune reaction).

(2) Why is aluminum dosing in vaccines expressed as “per dose” and why do the limits ignore both body weight, time and multiple doses?

(3) Why is there only one only published aluminum dose limit (4-5 mcg/kg/day) from parenteral sources (btw, anonymous aluminum apologist blogger, ‘parenteral’ means ‘non-dietary’, look it up, it arguably could include vaccines and not only IV sources.

(4) What IS the pediatric dose limit of aluminum hydroxide for humans, is it enforced, do pediatricians use it, does CDC consider it for catch-up days, or are we just arbitrarily injecting infants, newborns, and toddlers with toxic doses of aluminum and not realize it?

(5) AAAB represent themselves as stewards of Science. Why not join the increasing number of Scientists who are joining me in calling upon the FDA to do the dose increment studies in infant mice for all forms of aluminum used in humans so we know precisely which ill effects are likely to be expected by citizens who provide informed consent for vaccination with aluminum-containing vaccines?

Who’s afraid of a little Science?

PS If AAAB prefers anonymous bloggers, try Vaccine Paper’s execution of Mitkus and other “aluminum in vaccines is safe” apologist Science-Like Activities.

Memo to HHS et al:Personal Exemptions are an Essential Safety Valve on Whole-Population Vaccination Programs


Date: 10/24/2019

TO: Office of Infectious Disease and HIV/AIDS Policy (OIDP), Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Office of the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

FROM: Dr. James Lyons-Weiler, PhD

RE: Request for Information (RFI) From Non-Federal Stakeholders: Developing the 2020 National Vaccine Plan

Non-experts in vaccine science such as policy makers and lawmakers have no frame of reference for skepticism of the claims of wholesale and universal safety of vaccines.  To non-expert who have not read vaccine safety studies, and who do not have knowledge of important principles and proper practices of clinical trial study, claims of universal vaccine safety and the robustness and reliability of vaccine safety science appear reassuring.  The thinking is that universal vaccination will lead to “herd immunity”, and thus individuals “should” vaccinate for the “greater good”.

However, a few cogent facts, such as the existence of a National Injury Compensation Program, the existence of a limited Table of Vaccine Injuries (published by HHS), the fact that the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program has paid out over US $4Billion in settlements and awards to families who have members who have experienced on-table and off-table vaccine injury. 

A moment’s reflection on these facts, however, should cause such individuals to pause and realize the following:

  •  Any paradigm of 100% forced vaccination will reveal, by injury, maiming or death everyone in the population who is susceptible.
  • Science has not defined any way (yet) to identify, contra the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, the individuals in the population who are most susceptible.
  • Susceptibility to vaccine injury and death almost certainly has a genetic risk that is not universally shared across the population.
  • By placing some potentially identifiable individuals at risk, universal forced vaccination is discriminatory and therefore places some families at increased risk of carrying all of the burden of morbidity and mortality
  • Under the 14th Amendment, this potentially identifiable, albeit heterogeneous population, is entitled to Equal Protection from harm from vaccines.
  • Families learn, via direct, personal empirical observation and experience, ahead of the ability of science, that they are at increased risk compared to the general population
  • Non-medical exemptions, put in place by past generations, provide citizens who have already tried to participate in the whole-population vaccination program to opt out without carrying an undue burden of vaccine injury and harm.
  • Vaccination programs without non-medical exemptions are cruel and inhumane to an identifiable subset of individuals and families who should not vaccinate..
  • Vaccine injury and death denialism based on the absence of studies that have yet to be conducted is cruel.

The above points alone are sufficient to warrant the continuance of universal personal exemptions to vaccine mandates (aka “philosophical exemptions”).

The counterarguments to this position are falsifiable, and include

  • CLAIM: Vaccine studies have been conducted that should have detected the adverse events claimed by citizens who no longer want to vaccinate.

REALITY: Most vaccine safety studies that could have detected serious adverse events now being claimed by tens of thousands or in some cases hundreds of thousands have been too brief, too small, correct for outcome variables related to likely vaccine adverse events, or exclude individual likely at high risk of serious vaccine adverse events.  Unlike trials for drugs, clinical trials of vaccines have short outcome follow-up periods.  We rely on post-market “surveillance” studies that employ passively collected vaccine adverse events, which capture less than 1% of vaccine injuries[1].  This means that although they are required by law to do so, most doctors fail to report ill health following vaccination to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS).  The requirement to report any ill health following vaccination exists whether the physician thinks the ill health is due to the vaccination or note, but there is no penalty to physicians who refuse to submit reports to VAERS. Post-market surveillance studies of VAERS data therefore cannot find new, real vaccine adverse events that doctors think are attributable to vaccines. Further, by most short-term randomized clinical trials on vaccine safety have been conducted without a proper inert placebo. Remarkable, nearly all have been conducted comparing the safety to other vaccines or to active vaccine ingredients such as various forms of aluminum, an adjuvant designed to activate the immune system Fig 1; [2].

Figure 1. Comprehensive literature analysis and review of vaccine safety studies by ICAN (Informed Consent Action Network) published in 2018[2] reveals the absence of studies that use inert placebo in a control group to study vaccine safety.

The absence of appropriate control for potential harm to health from aluminum adjuvants puts the US vaccination program in a state at risk of being rejected by the public as poor science.  The reliance of observational studies for long-term health outcomes and the lack of studies focused on the effects of receipt of multiple vaccines at once also places the vaccination program at risk of rejection by an increasingly vaccine-risk aware public.

CLAIM: Vaccines are such a boon to public health that individuals are not entitled to a choice or to informed consent.

REALITY: Current vaccines – and post-market surveillance studies – are not exempt from Federal rules and laws protecting the individual’s right to informed consent.  Nothing in the Code of Federal Regulations, for example, distinguishing individuals’ rights to decline to participate in vaccine safety studies, including whole-population human subject post-market surveillance studies.  Vaccination programs without personal exemption violate provisions of the National Research Act [Title II, Public Law 93-348], Regulations for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research [45 CFR 46] and revisions of various regulations, rules, and laws ([21 CFR 50, [21 CFR 56], [45 CFR 46 Subpart D], [10 CFR 745]. Pregnant women and fetuses are afforded special protections by [45 CFR 46 Subpart B], and children are afforded additional protections by [45 CFR 46 Subpart D]. Currently, rights of pregnant women and fetuses are violated with each and every vaccine administered to them because not only is there a paucity of pre-licensing clinical trials, no vaccine has been licensed for use to protect fetuses, and pregnant women are not told any of this as they are pressured to get vaccinated. Of note, in the Common Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects (“Common Rule”) [10 CFR 745] Sec 745.103(b)(3), none of these rights were revoked by any subsequent legislation, including [21 CFR 50.24], which allows the relaxation of requirements for informed consent during emergencies. In fact, the Common Rule re-asserted safeguards both for informed consent, and for special protections against coercion:

I cite here section §46.116, “General requirements for informed consent”:

Except as provided elsewhere in this policy, no investigator may involve a human being as a subject in research covered by this policy unless the investigator has obtained the legally effective informed consent of the subject or the subject’s legally authorized representative. An investigator shall seek such consent only under circumstances that provide the prospective subject or the representative sufficient opportunity to consider whether or not to participate and that minimize the possibility of coercion or undue influence. The information that is given to the subject or the representative shall be in language understandable to the subject or the representative. No informed consent, whether oral or written, may include any exculpatory language through which the subject or the representative is made to waive or appear to waive any of the subject’s legal rights, or releases or appears to release the investigator, the sponsor, the institution or its agents from liability for negligence.

“When some or all of the subjects are likely to be vulnerable to coercion or undue influence, such as children, prisoners, pregnant women, mentally disabled persons, or economically or educationally disadvantaged persons, additional safeguards have been included in the study to protect the rights and welfare of these subjects.”

Any whole-population vaccination program that does not include personal exemptions subjects the entire population to coercion, thus violating the US Code of Federal Regulations.  Personal exemptions allow individuals to react to adverse events they experience while participating in post-market surveillance studies, and such decisions should be respected.  The rights of any individual to opt-out of human subjects experimentation should be preserved.

The question of the value of entire vaccination on public health has two problems at this time (10/2019) based on two points.  First, some studies show significant population health reduction from vaccination (e.g., 3-6). Current vaccines are aging, and many appear to be no longer effective at preventing transmission of the wild-type pathogens they were designed to protect against.  These include influenza vaccines (annually announced in the press as inexact), pertussis vaccines [7,8], and the MMR for mumps[9], rubella[10] and possibly measles [11].  Outbreaks of pertussis and mumps in completely vaccinated populations are now commonplace, and individuals up to date on measles vaccination now develop measles after exposure to other vaccinated or unvaccinated who are infected. For influenza and measles, vaccinated individuals tend to have milder symptoms, but can carry the pathogens into schools and other public places. For mumps, rubella and chickenpox, break-through infections in vaccinated persons can be more serious, Instead of acknowledging the role of asymptomatic transmission, now routinely reported in numerous studies and discussed openly in the vaccine science literature [7], public health policy and the whole-population vaccination agenda blames the 1-2% who are not vaccinated.  This is different from individuals “shedding” vaccine-type live organisms, it is now also known that a large percentage of individuals who were diagnosed with measles in the 2014 Disneyland outbreak had breakthrough viremia and symptoms of measles from the vaccine type. It is now impossible to blame unvaccinated individuals on outbreaks, which will continue even if the US achieves 100% vaccination coverage in all children for all vaccines on the CDC schedule.  No form of herd immunity can exist when the vaccine in question masks the infection. The vaccinated asymptomatic carriers of infectious agents can carry infections into schools and into other public places just as well, but for longer periods of time, because, unlike the unvaccinated, they have no symptoms.  It is even reasonable to assert that the unvaccinated serve an important public health service by alerting schools of the presence of an active transmission chain of viruses and bacteria that can threaten the lives of the immunocompromised.

Given these realities, the claim that vaccines are such a boon to public health that individuals are not entitled to a choice or to informed consent is clearly falsified.

Clearly, those pushing for universal vaccination with current vaccines are hoping to continue their contracts by masking symptoms of illness from circulating wild-type pathogens that their vaccines no longer effectively target.  A case in point in the case in a PA court in which two whistleblowers report that their supervisors at Merck told them to spike human samples with rabbit-derived anti-mumps virus antibodies to defraud the FDA and the US public to continue Merck’s contract for the MMR vaccine. The systematic fraud is not sustainable, and removal of personal exemptions will not prevent the obvious failure of many of the current vaccines.

In the meantime, US citizens are asserting their rights under the US CFR and will continue to do so; no parent who has witnessed serious adverse events in their child or children will continue to vaccinate no matter what laws are passed to coerce them.  Personal exemptions are a safety valve not only the vaccination program – they are the way our society enacts the ethos embodied by our own national, and international laws protecting human beings from harm from human experimentation.  Loss of personal exemption options may appear to be a trivial change to the majority of Americans, but for some, it means certain death and destruction of their lives.

For these reasons and realities, it would be both immoral and unethical to remove or deny personal exemptions to vaccination.


Dr. James Lyons-Weiler, PhD

2912 Kilcairn Lane

Allison Park, PA 15101


[2]ICAN. 2018. Letter to US Department of Health & Human Services re:HHS Vaccine Safety Responsibilities and Notice Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-31.

[3]  Aaby, Peter.  2019. “This Vaccine (DPT) is Killing Children”  Symposium on Scientific Freedom, Copenhagen 9 Mar 2019.

[4] Mogensen SW, Andersen A, Rodrigues A, Benn CS, Aaby P.

The Introduction of Diphtheria-Tetanus-Pertussis and Oral Polio Vaccine Among

Young Infants in an Urban African Community: A Natural Experiment.

EBioMedicine. 2017 Mar;17:192-198. doi: 10.1016/j.ebiom.2017.01.041.

[5]Bodewes et al., 2011. Annual Vaccination against Influenza Virus Hampers Development of Virus-Specific CD8+ T Cell Immunity in Children J Virol 85:11995-12000.

[6] Cowling, BJ et al., 2012. Increased risk of noninfluenza respiratory virus infections associated with receipt of inactivated influenza vaccine. Clin Infect Dis. 54(12):1778-83. doi: 10.1093/cid/cis307.

[7] Cherry, JD. 2015. Epidemic Pertussis and Acellular Pertussis Vaccine Failure in the 21st Century Pediatrics 135(6):1130-1132.

[8] Althouse, BM, SV Scapino. 2015. Asymptomatic transmission and the resurgence of Bordetella pertussis. BMC Med 13:146.

[9] Atrasheuskaya AV, Neverov AA, Rubin S, Ignatyev GM 2006.Horizontal transmission of the Leningrad-3 live attenuated mumps vaccine virus. Vaccine. 24(10):1530-6.


[11] Muller, CP. 2001. Measles elimination: old and new challenges? Vaccine 19:17-19.

Congressman Bill Posey Takes on Mark Zuckerberg on Facebook Censorship of Discussion of Vaccine Risk

Congressman Posey: Thank you madam chair and ranking member McHenry for holding this very  informative hearing For many of us Facebook is the reality in our business and our personal lives. I communicate with my constituents as well as my friends through the platform daily many benefits accrue from the service yet in the midst these great benefits great challenges have emerged and I want to welcome you to this hearing Mr. Zuckerberg.

I believe Facebook is a great innovation that as much potential for good that we welcomed an innovation together with the controversies that have spawned unfortunately some in politics and the media see their role as cajoling Facebook to censor its users speech. In April I wrote to you that I was disappointed at Facebook would consider restricting free speech rights to communicate the risk associated with vaccinations – and I support vaccinations of children and adults.

But I also support open and frank communication of the risk of vaccination every person should make vaccination decisions with full information in recognition of the uncertainties the risk of vaccinations. The federal government has created a vaccination trust fund that has paid out over four billion dollars to compensate those who have been injured by vaccinations. There’s no more clear or persuasive statement about the risk associated with vaccinations then the existence and the payment record at that fund. From time to time medical research has established case and context of specific risks associated with vaccinations. I wrote you when another member of the House made claims that the risk of vaccination should not exist and that Facebook should police communications related to vaccination risk. Today you testified you believed in giving people a voice.

Mr. Zuckerberg, is Facebook able to assure us that it will support users fair and open discussions and communications related to the risk as well as the benefits of vaccinations?

Mark Zuckerberg: Congressman thanks for the question we do care deeply about giving people of voice and freedom of expression. Those are some of the founding values of the company. At the same time we also hear consistently from our community that people want us to stop the spread of misinformation. So what we do is we try to focus on on misinformation that has the potential to lead to physical harm or imminent harm and that can include especially misleading health advice. There was a hoax that was going viral a number of months back that those are saying…

Congressman Posey: Look for this subject because our time is very limited. Are you 100% confident that vaccines pose no risk of injury to any person is planet?

Mark Zuckerberg: Congressman, I don’t think it would be possible for anyone to be a hundred percent confident, but my understanding of the scientific consensus is that it is important that people get their vaccines.

Congressman Posey: But you said your platform you want to you believe in giving people a voice. Shouldn’t somebody have the opportunity to express an opinion different from yours? I mean over four billion dollars has been paid out by the fund to thousands of people. Don’t you think people should be able to have information to make an informed choice?

Mark Zuckerberg: Congressman I do, and that’s why we don’t stop people from posting on their page something that’s wrong but if someone wants to post vaccine anti-vaccination content, or if they want to join a group where people are discussing that content we don’t prevent them from doing that but what we do is we don’t go out of our way to make sure that our group recommendation systems try to show people or encouraged people to join those groups. We discourage that.

Congressman Posey: Okay, well how do you discourage that?

Mark Zuckerberg: Well, there are a number of different tactics, for example if someone is typing into the search results into the search box something that that might lead to anti-vax content we don’t recommend anti-vax searches to them. If you type in the name of a group exactly you can you can get the group, we’re not gonna hide it, we’re not going to prevent you from joining it. But we’re not going to recommend or go out of our way to show people content that would encourage people to join those groups but people can share that content.

Congressman Posey: Many people harmed by this policy are in fact parents with disabled children, and I don’t think we or you should be so quick to turn our backs on them. If you look at the statistics, I think you’re making a bad mistake.

My time is expired I yield back thank you.

The Present and Future of The Society of Corporatist Control in the United States and Western Countries

This is first essay in a series that may become a book, “How to End Corporatism”. NB, the title is NOT “How to End Corporations”

Regulatory capture of agencies by corporate interests in the US is nearly 100%. The will and the interests of the people are diminishingly present in agency policies that exist and how they are implemented. How did we get where we are today? For that we need a timeline of contemporary history. Most timelines of cultural periods in the Western world seem to be unable to put a label on the post 1960’s era in terms that captures the essence of the character of the cultural. Compare the period 1973-2019 – a very long period – to the “Gay 20’s”, the WWII era, the Postwar Era boom, ‘beat-nik’ or ‘counter-culture’ periods. All had a dominant mode of existance – represented by large shifts in cultural attitudes and mores that seemed to slow down to a sludgy 1970s pop era followed by a brief maturation into the current tech era. Cultural evolution, or its mythos at least, it seems, died in the 1980s. Large changes involving radical shifts in the popular mindset that can be compared from decade to decade ceased occurring, by my estimate, somewhere between 1983-6. The largest differences from decade to decade are technological, not cultural. The emergence of cable television, especially 24-hour news, the multi-purpose cell phone, and the public’s use of the internet for social media make of the majority of the differences between 1975 and the present. Each of these also increase in the access that agents of control had over cultural identity via direct constant, direct access to the minds of consumers of information. In the Post-Modern Age, large events in life have seemed to be dominated by scripted international imperial agendas designed to bring cheap oil to the US and its coalition partners. Other imporant major (relatively more recent) major shifts in cultural attitudes include a normalization of encouragement of career-mindedness of women, election of women into public office, a rebuke of intolerance toward minorities, the use of identity politics to (at least on the surface) enforce the ideals of equality among people,

Do We Just Continue Adding “Post” to “Post-Post-Post Modern”? Or Has Something Fundamental Shifted of Which Many Are Vaguely Aware?

Surely, in the political realm, the processes of new left transitioning into neoliberalism and the new right into neoconservativism have dominated as the priority polarizing themes. The issues that divide us culturally – abortion, environment, religion – are identified by pollsters using multivariate analyses to identify a winning campaign platform. The left/right dichotomy, however, is a falsehood, a tactical distraction, a layer of control: in the post-post modern era, the left has discovered corporatism, and top-down party politics are in now full force on both side of the aisle.

I contend that the major shift away from a society of discipline (Foucault) toward overt culture of control (Deleuze) began in the 1980’s, and its evidence became crystallized by 9/11, but that the post-post-modern epoch only truly became apparent somewhere between 2010 to 2018 when members of society began to realize that, by definition, the corporate aspects of the US government means mass surveillance by an oligarchy made of careerist government appointees bent on saving their valuable pensions. Even the mass economic causalities of the 2008 Black Monday due to toxic debt salad trading merely served to open the eyes to multiple layers of control by an oligarchy disinterested in the particulars of any individual life, as long as the system is perpetuated. The evidence? No one was prosecuted; only homeowners suffered, and the safeguards that were put in place have once again been ignored.

On the grandscale economic level, the shift from a war and a post-war booming production-based manufacturing economy has been dwindled down to a service and tech economy, with service and tech industries dominating. Clearly this is not sustainable. How can this persist? Clearly it cannot without government policies and laws that favor the interests and agendas of corporations over the rights and safety of individuals. That means war for oil, cancer-causing pesticides in food, aborted fetal cells in vaccines, and suppression of opposing views in favor of safer products and a cleaner planet. Opposing cultural emergences are, of course, undesired, and America in particular is fast losing the hard-won appreciation of the wisdom of the minority viewpoint, never more susceptible to groupthink that characterized pre-war Germany and Japan.

Any undesired cultural emergence is now fully subject to dampening by control of the flow of information, now overtly with willful censorship of posts against “community standards” on Facebook. We certainly now do have a culture of control, in which that which we are allowed to speak and share is subject to oligarchic corporatist regulatory policies: they literally write the bills that representatives “of the people” bring forward.

Society of Control Defines What We Are – Not Where We Are

The shift that no one can put their finger on is a change from a society of discipline to a society of control. This essential realization was captured by minority view sociologists in the 1990’s as a transformation that was clearly new to them. It is now the norm and hardly anyone sees the connection of its coming into full bloom to these earlier works. Comparing the idealized view of the 1950’s in which a working father came home, hung up his hat, and adopted a new in-home role and identity, sociologists realized that corporate control was creeping back into our post-work lives.

For example, the sociologist “Kunda’s study of a high-tech corporation in the United States revealed that the expectation for long working hours was built into the organizational culture and was very difficult to resist once it had been internalized. The organization he called ‘Tech’ attempted to appropriate as much time as possible from organizational members, and this could be done only if workers came to actively desire it themselves. The ‘Tech culture’ was designed to constitute this desire through various mechanisms of role embracement, so that workers would think of themselves as ‘Tech employees’ all the time. As a result of this management approach many employees found their family and home lives suffered, because they gave more and more of themselves to the firm and experienced burnout, role contradiction and other kinds of pathologies (alcoholism, heart attacks, divorce, etc.). Indeed, even though workers endeavoured to maintain some kind of spatial distance, many found that ‘work and nonwork aspects of social ties are experienced as hard to separate, requiring constant definition and redefinition and are never fully resolved’ (Kunda, 1992: 169). “– Contesting the Corporation (Peter Fleming and Andre Spicer, Cambridge, 2007).

In the disciplinary society that we have left behind in which institutions were spatially defined – work, school, barracks, prison, highway. Individuals clocked in, and clocked out and understood their roles in contents. In the society of corporatist control, both time and identities of individuals are “colonized” by companies. According Casey, many of the employees in companies in a society of control are classified as “neurotic and obsessive/compulsives because they have allowed the company to erode the identity boundaries that once separated them from the organization and subsequent burnout as psychic anxiety contradiction become too intense“. Contesting the Corporation (Peter Fleming and Andre Spicer, Cambridge, 2007)

Importantly, control no longer requires any aspect of spatial enforcement and corporate/government reach redefines “individuals”, who were once members of an indivisible group, into “dividuals“. Consider, for example, what the pain of divorce and splitting households experienced by families means for corporations: twice the applicances, twice the energy bills, twice the furniture. In a capitalist society of corporatist control, dividuals are the target of consumer pressure. But that is just the beginning.

From Gilles Deleuze (1992):
“For the school system: continuous forms of control, and the effect on the school of perpetual training, the corresponding abandonment of all university research, the introduction of the ‘corporation’ at all levels of schooling. For the hospital system: the new medicine ‘without doctor or patient’ that singles out potential sick people and subjects at risk, which in no way attests to individuation–as they say–but substitutes for the individual or numerical body the code of a ‘dividual’ material to be controlled. In the corporate system: new ways of handling money, profits, and humans that no longer pass through the old factory form.”

The current society of control was developed under corporations largely controlled by baby boomers, the “me, first” generation who has also seen fit to establish cultural norms and mores that have led to wars for oil, deranged and detached attitudes towards environmental, mass pollution of the air, water, and soil of our planet, and the adoption of medical machinery that injects potent neurotoxins into pregant women, newborns and toddlers in a manner inconsistent with the stated goals of disease prevention and public health. The amoral infrastructure straddles political boundaries and as it loses its grip via the normal decay of power and influence divisions to younger generations, the maintenance of the culture of control increasingly involves the normalization of coercion and the use of fraud by those who think they know better in the place of respect for individual choice. The beast does not like to go unfed when it is hungry – and it is always hungry.

History provides a lesson. When European powers, notably England and Germany, decided that mass slaughter of African people during the Boer Wars was an acceptable moral cost of imperialism, the concentration camp was invented. The atrocities of WWI and WWII represent a second and third generations’ views informed by their callous predecessors, and such practices were internalized and brought into Europe. The culture of control in the US and in Western Countries represents internalized hegemony. There is, however, no manner by which that an imperial power can, in the end, grow via cannabilization, and thus we have an opening.

The most pressing question facing the US and Western societies today is what comes next, now that the culture of corporatist control has shown its oligarchic, imperial and fascist face? Will the relatively impotent Generation X, whom have toiled under the shadow of those imbued with the mental illness of post-war entitlement march the younger generations like robotic sheep into a world increasingly optimized for corporate benefit, feeding the 1%, or will we work with the younger generations to deconstruct and cast off the culture of control, preserve our individual rights, return the earth to natural green power, and develop a future culture of healthy, cooperative self-determinism? I think the latter, largely due to the power of social media. With the emergence of social media, people have begun to master the art of “finding their tribe”, a type of inversion of the culture of control – identifying far more with otherwise strangers online than with their physical neighbors. Some will celebrate real health from within first, and then discover the joys of a thriving environment. Others have strived first to put the planet’s health first, and then recall we all can be better at that task if we are physcially and mentally well. So, the inversion of control is bringing people from different walks of life together, who, if they can look past the superficial difference long enough, will recognize their other selves in people who they might barely say hello to in their own physical neigborhoods.

A hopeful view is that corporatist control cannot reach into the hearts and minds of individuals (Hunsinger, 2018). However, since corporatist control includes as its currency the flow of information, it is clear that populations cannot be assumed to be immune to slight nudges and even to more overt messages, particularly emotional but irrational appeals.

This is a non-conspiracy based reflection and acknowledgement of the power relations among classes; the uber-wealthy need not agree to move society toward one pattern of behavior or another to have the same effect. Rampant reinforcement of materialistic attitudes leads to increased consumption, and the identity of self-value attached to the having of the latest gadget replaces intrinsic self-value with externalized value, increasing the power that corporatist institutions have over the individual. Rampant consumerism comes a great cost, unseen to many, and forgotten by many more.

The erosion of basic human rights is occuring through a rainstorm of dollars. For-profit prison systems, a medical behemoth with unsustainable growth in a vicious cycle of making individual sick with mysterious disease of unknown original, followed by endless diagnostic testing and perpetual treatments to manage disease; addiction of state-run agencies such as child protective services to performance-based (quota-based) revenues are all symptoms of corporatism.

These are not American values – and those of us who recognize this and see beyond the smokescreen of the Red/Blue distraction are finding each other. The valuable heterarchy inherent to cross-cultural note comparison is heresy in a culture of corporatist control. Distrust of your allies is inherent to an emerging counter-corporatist agenda developing in our society of control; it is stressful, but it is worth riding out. The powers that be, so to speak, only know one tune: it goes “top-down”, includes control from a distance, and depend on large, consistent revenue streams, ill-gotten or not. They will not sustain themselves. They are abjectly humorless bunk for the history books to one day wonder why they so easily confused their careers with their identities to the tune of the cost of the mental health, peace and general prosperity of their fellow citizens and within families within our nations, and at great cost to the biodiversity on a perfectly viable planet.

I recommended this very clear exploration of similar material in this YouTube video.

Nineteen minutes that will open your eyes and make you want to read the references.

References and Further Reading.

Crain, C. Living in a Society of Control.

Deleuze, G 1992. Postscript on the societies of control

Direct .pdf

Fleming, P and Andre Spicer. 2004. ‘You Can Checkout Anytime, but You Can Never Leave’: Spatial Boundaries in a High Commitment Organization. Human Relations.

Hunsinger, 2018. Knowledge and Cultural Production in the Context of Contemporary Capitalism: a Response to Wittkower.

Today on Unbreaking Science – Is There Anything Parents and Doctors Can Do To Buffer a Child from The Ill Effect of Vaccines?

If you follow my blog, you may be interested to learn about my new audio and video podcast, “Unbreaking Science”.  The first three bootcamp episodes, all audio, are available free at and you can follow the video podcast on Facebook and YouTube at the WWDNYK Studios channel

In today’s (10/11/2019) live episode (around 1PM EST), I will be asking two medical professionals – pediatric RN, Maureen McDonnell, and pediatrician, Dr. Paul Thomas

Is anything parents or doctors can do to buffer a child from any ill effects of vaccination?

You can read Maureen’s article at and of course you can get Dr. Paul Thomas’ “Vaccine Friendly Plan” book at any bookseller.

If you can’t watch live, be sure to set a reminder to tune in at a later time! 

We have a ton of great guests lined up to discuss the tough questions

You can follow me on twitter @lifebiomedguru and Facebook on my Author Page

And of course: You can support Unbreaking Science via Patreon
See you soon!

james lyons-weiler, phd

Author, CEO, President, Scientist

Editor-in-Chief, Science, Public Health Policy, and the Law

Guest Contributor, Children’s Health Defense 
The Environmental and Genetic Causes of Autism (Skyhorse Publishing)

Cures vs. Profits: Successes in Translational Research (World Scientific, 2016)

Ebola: An Evolving Story (World Scientific, 2015)

Michael Gaeta Cancer Support and Prevention Course 2019

I am delighted to be a Guest Faculty in the Gaeta Institute for Dr Michael Gaeta’s seven-week Cancer Support and Prevention online course. My presentation for this course is on cervical cancer and HPV vaccines, and looks honestly and critically at the science around important subjects that matter to your health. Dr. Gaeta is one of the most positive people I know, a compassionate and caring physician whose courses provide a 360-degree view of the topic area suitable for clinicians and the public. You will truly enjoy him as an instructor.

Michael and I have taught togther many times, and I always enjoy doing presentations for his courses and workshops. I highly recommend you take this course, with this leading educator in natural functional medicine, to enrich your knowledge, and improve your health and well-being.

Includes latest updates on how conventional medicine is managing cancer and ways to increase cancer resistance. Seven weekly live calls for questions and discussion. Classes start 10/24/2019! Click here or on the image below for more details!

You can check out the Michael Gaeta’s institute’s full listing of courses as well!

Terms and Conditions

Transactions via this site are non-tax deduction contributions and represent “gifts” to Dr. Lyons-Weiler. They are unrelated to IPAK, The Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge and go directly to help Dr. Lyons-Weiler in initiatives that are independent of objective scientific research. Funds are not to be provided if they are intended to enable lobbying to any legislator for or against any specific legislation and are not to be given if they are intended to support any political campaign or specific political candidate.

Study Shows Massive IQ Decrease in Males with Fluoride: JAMA Pediatrics Journal Editors Stunned

In reference to a study, entitled “Association Between Maternal Fluoride Exposure During Pregnancy and IQ Scores in Offsprings in Canada”[1], published in JAMA Pediatrics, the journal editors were stunned by a finding that fluoridated water exposure in mothers during pregnancy reduces the IQ of their sons.

The study found that in boys, a 1 mg/L increase in the maternal urine fluoride concentration led to a 5-point decrease in boys’ IQs.

Dimitri Christakis and Frederick Rivara of JAMA Pediatrics, in a podcast, compare the findings as overturning decades-old presumptions of safety of fluoridated water.

Christakis: “Before they were anti vaxxers, there were sort of anti fluoriders. Right. And like the traditional teaching, when I was going through residency and early in my early professional career was that there was fluoride is completely safe. All these people that are trying to take it out of the water are nuts. It’s the best thing that’s ever happened for children’s dental health. And we just need to push back and get it into every water system.”

Christakis: “In fact, before there were anti-vaxxers, there were, sort-of, anti-fluoriders, and the traditional teaching when I was going through residency was that fluoride was completely safe, all these people that are trying to take it out of the water are nuts, it’s the best thing that ever happened…”

Christakis: “So when I first saw this title, my initial reaction was ‘What the hell?'”

Rivara had referenced the title of the study as “shocking” and later said

When discussing biological plausibility, citing animal models,

Christakis: “Even in the animal models, weirdly enough… the effect is seen in male than female rats, I don’t know to think about that… There have been other observational studies that have shown this, and there have been animal models as well, showed that fluoride was a neurotoxin, which, again, was totally news to me, I thought it was ‘junk science’…

Rivara: “That’d be like antivaxxers saying ‘Fluoride is bad for your brains, so let’s not do it.’ You know, that same kind of thing.”

The editors discussed how surprised they were to learn that only 3% of cities in Europe fluoridate their water.

The philosopher Karl Popper called this shock-reaction “Surprise”, and held that the more unlikely a robust result from a critical test appears to be, the higher the degree of corroboration that should be afforded the unlikely.

The comparison in this discussion to anti-vaxxers is ironic, given that fluoride and aluminum have known synergistic neurotoxicity[2], just like mercury and aluminum have known synergistic neurotoxicity[3].

The obvious question is: when will a major pediatrics journal have this level of healthy cognitive disequilibrium about vaccines and neurodevelopmental disorders, and vaccines and autoimmunity?

These editors’ reactions to this news about fluoride was the precise reaction I had upon reading all of the studies for my book on autism – the studies I had no idea about, the ones that were “totally news to me”.  The animal model studies showing plausbility of vaccination and autism (e.g., chronic microglial activation), the observational studies that DID find association (e.g., Gallagher and Goodman), and, of course the studies I could not read because they were never conducted, diswarranting the generalization that “Vaccines Do Not Cause Autism”.  I agree 100% with Christakis when he said that “Science is an iterative process”.

It is very good to see an opening of the eyes and minds explicitly represented by this podcast.  It is also good to see that that “those crazy Xr’s” model of science is dying. Christakis is going to recommend bottled or filtered water.  His colleague correctly points out that bottled water is not affordable for all families.

Perhaps we really should rethink the wisdom of fluoridation given the apparent effects on autism rates [4] and lifelong effects on dementia as well[5].  Science is, after all, for asking questions.

Here’s the podcast file:

JAMA Editors Shocked.mp3

I thank Bruce Lanphear for sending the studies and the podcast file along.  He’s working on a new book, which I think is on the effect of low-dose toxicity and synergism among toxins that we think, or thought, were safe.

References and Full “Shocking” Pubmed Searches









Educating a Canadian Legislative Body on Vaccines

This is the transcript of my testimony to the Standing Committee on Law Amendments – I was “Neither For Nor Against” legislation in New Brunswick, CA, Aug 27, 2019, but I shared the realities of the sad state of knowledge of vaccine safety available in the US.  Health Canada, I’m told, follows the US CDC/ACIP recommendations fairly closely, although Ted Kuntz said they claim to conduct their own vaccine safety studies.  If that is true, I’ve not seen them.  There is an interesting dialog with Mr. Savoie.  I later met w/Mr. Savoie and shared with him that I did not check the nationality of the authors on all of the thousands of studies I’ve read since 2014.

To listen to the actual comments, enjoy this YouTube video.

Dr. James Lyons-Weiler

Madam Chairperson: We also have present with us today Dr. James Lyons-Weiler. If you have documents to be circulated, we can make sure of that. Again, I would ask you to provide an introduction for the record, and I remind you that we have 30 minutes. How you choose to use the 30 minutes is entirely up to you. What has been recommended is a 20-minute presentation to allow for 10 minutes of questions, but if you would prefer to avoid questions, then that is up to you.
Dr. Lyons-Weiler: Thank you very much. I would actually prefer to have more of a dialogue. I would like to state up front that I am very grateful to have the opportunity to step forward and share some things with you. I cannot say whether I am for or against the bill. I run a not-for-profit out of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and I am here at my own expense. I am not going to seek, nor have I accepted or been offered, any compensation for my presence here.

I grew up across the river, in Ogdensburg, New York, looking at Canada every day of my childhood, and I come from a northern enough country where your sensibilities were part of my upbringing. I watched your television, and I wear socks when I wear sandals. People do not get that.

I have traveled all around the country educating legislators about why a 100% mandated vaccine does not make any biological or scientific sense. I am a lifelong biomedical researcher. I think you will get to know me a little bit through my comment, which I really want to go through quickly. Please do let me know when it is 15 minutes so that we can talk a little. Thank you.

There are people across the globe who, for no fault of their own, have a genetic predisposition to diseases such as Alzheimer’s, schizophrenia, heart disease, diabetes, and cancer. There is clear science and evidence that some people, due to genetics, cannot tolerate some medicines. Nowhere in the practice of medicine nor in public health policies are these individuals singled out and castigated for making decisions to opt out of particular treatments based on their personal experience of past adverse events, adverse reactions to these medicines, witnessed by themselves and witnessed by their doctors, except when it comes to vaccines. There, the science and evidence in support of risk is not listened to.

When a mother witnesses her child develop a fever and then, for the first time, develop seizures or a harrowing encephalitic cry, for the first time start banging their head against the ground repeatedly all night long, and the only change in that child’s life that day was a trip to the pediatrician’s office for a well-child visit to receive a vaccine, a caring and compassionate medicine would have some way to calm down the microglia activation that is occurring due to toxins in the environment. When a child experiences a blow to the head, the severity of the brain injury due to concussion can be reduced by a treatment that depletes glutamate in the blood so that the excess glutamate in the brain can spill into the blood. If the microgliosis instead occurs after vaccination, parents are not met with the compassion of medicine. They are met with the denialist agenda, and they are told that it was not the vaccine. They are told that it is normal and to let the infant or the baby cry it out. They are abandoned by medicine.

In an era in which information was controlled by the media, heavily influenced by governments, the population of nations around the world would accept the denialist party line. Then came social media, and parents around the world who did not accept the denialist party line found each other. People from all walks of life, from stay-at-home moms to teachers, from bakers to scientists, all found that their stories matched event for event, and over 90% of the stories involved either the DTaP vaccine or the MMR vaccine. Correlation does not equal causation, they were told. No credible study has ever found an association between vaccines and autism, they were told.

I am a lifelong biomedical research scientist, and I pride myself on objectivity. I was the founding editor in chief of the journal Cancer Informatics, full faculty at the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, a research scientist, and scientific director of the University of Pittsburgh Bioinformatics Analysis Core. I recently founded and launched a new, open access, peer-reviewed journal called Science, Public Health Policy and the Law.

I am an expert in translational research from basic research to bench to bedside and back, expert in multivariate data analysis and prediction modeling in biological pathways, underlying the
causes of disease. I made a name for myself in the area of cancer biomarker research in the early detection of cancer and developing ways to predict when patients will experience adverse events from chemotherapy. I have written three books based on science and evidence. The second book brought me here today.

I became interested in the social dynamics of science, asking questions about how. After all the pressures of science to produce revenue and profit, could actual knowledge come forward and be translated into best practices of medicine after medicine became a for-profit industry? When I decided to write a chapter on vaccines in this book, I expected to find all the science that we are told exists. I used to lecture my sister with her 10 kids who were all unvaccinated that she was going to destroy the world. That was me. I was that guy, okay? But when I went to the scientific literature, what I found there really stunned me. What I expected were these randomized prospective clinical trials, and I expected every vaccine to be tested. I expected that when a vaccine was added to the schedule, it would be tested against a placebo, that the schedule would be tested against a placebo, because the clinical question is: Should I vaccinate my child? Should I use some vaccines? All these clinical questions.
What I found instead stunned me, because what I found were very weak science correlation studies, studies that were conducted that initially found associations between vaccines and autism, vaccines and seizures, vaccines and autoimmunity. Then what the researchers did would have cost me my job at the University of Pittsburgh. I designed research studies—over 100 research studies—under the direction of Dr. Ronald Herberman at the cancer centre and Dr. XXX XXXXXX [NAME REDACTED AT THE REQUEST OF THE NAMED IN EDIT] in the school of medicine. If I found an association, say, between a chemotherapy agent and an adverse reaction and then I decided to reanalyze the data until I could make that association go away, if there was a corrupt scientist or a medical person who wanted to profit from that chemotherapy agent, they might like me, but I would have and should have lost my job.

This is what I found not just in one study but also in study after study after study. They would find an association, and they would analyze it. In one case, they found an association between the total number of vaccines that a child had received and the incidence of any neurodevelopmental disorder including autism. They then spent four years reanalyzing those data until they found a way, finally, to make an association go away. There is a letter from the data analyst saying it will just not go away, talking about the association. He pleaded in his letter, in the name of objectivity and in the name of science: We really need to be able to publish this, please. It was to the U.S. CDC.

Imagine my dismay.

What did I do with this? I decided to remain objective. I decided to remain a scientist. I put that story in my book, Cures Vs. Profits. I am not trying to sell the book here. The sales are miserable, but that is not the point. The scientists involved in this were Dr. Coleen Boyle, Dr. Frank DeStefano, and others at the USCDC. Dr. Boyle and Dr. DeStefano, I found out later, are the same scientists responsible for finding that Agent Orange posed no risk to U.S. soldiers serving in Vietnam—the same people, the same exact two people. Prior to reporting the results of one of the studies to the Institute of Medicine and the National Academy of Science—he was scheduled to make that report—Dr. William Thompson attempted to bring these issues to the
attention of Dr. Julie Gerberding who was the director of the vaccine science division at the CDC at the time. Dr. Gerberding now holds a key position at Merck, Dr. Thompson was told he had mental issues and was put on administrative leave, while Dr. DeStefano took the altered results of the study and excluded the results showing the association between on-time MMR vaccination and autism.

My response on these matters, which were brought forward by Dr. Brian Hooker in the form of audio recordings of the confessions by Dr. Thompson, was not to accept that vaccines cause autism. Just because the CDC found a mild association or a possible association does not mean that vaccines cause autism. I want to know this, given my expertise in biomedical research and the pathophysiology of disease: Could there possibly be some way that vaccines cause autism? I read over 2 000 studies, not on vaccines but on autism, to determine whether or not the basic science could support a pathophysiological mechanism by which vaccines could possibly cause autism, the plausibility question, right?

I have since formally evaluated all of the, I think, 48 studies that were sent to the President of the United States by the American Academy of Pediatrics with an objective evaluation scoring system to determine how far away they are from the gold standard that you were told about earlier, the randomized clinical trial, the prospect of a randomized clinical trial. The highest score that these studies can get is a positive 12. The average study used by the CDC and by the AAP now to tell the public that vaccines do not cause autism was a negative 6.

How much time, please?


Dr. Lyons-Weiler: Okay. So, you will hear information about studies such as fMRI scans that show that vaccines cannot cause autism because kids early on show changes in their brain structures, but that is in a population of moms who are getting two vaccines during pregnancy and all the children are receiving the Hepatitis B vaccine on day one. How can we say that the early changes in the fMRI studies are not due to vaccines when, in fact, those individuals who were born with differences in their brains are vaccinated? To me, that could be a useful biomarker to predict who might not be able to tolerate vaccines as well as others.

I said that a lot longer than it took to write it. You know, I dove into the vaccines too. You saw the list of ingredients. The ones that concern me the most, of course, are mercury, contrary to Dr. Richard Pan who recently stated in public that there is no mercury in vaccines. Yes, there is. The flu vaccine contains thimersol. Thimersol inhibits a protein called ERAP1. The ERAP1 protein actually folds proteins that our immune system needs to create the antigens to things that we are already immune to. The predicted effect of that is to forget what we are immune to and get an upper respirator virus infection other than the flu, and that is exactly what Dr. Ben Cowling out of Hong Kong found. There is problem with the use of thimersol.

Aluminum is a neurotoxin. There are studies that . . . I have a published peer-reviewed publication on aluminum and its pediatric dosing. It turns out that the science that the FDA used to say that aluminum is safe in children is actually not injected forms of aluminum into infant mice, as would be expected from the standards of basic research, but orally ingested forms of aluminum, which is a completely different type of aluminum. The mice and humans only absorb 0.03% of that dose and those adults were mice. They did not have to go through any development. How can we say? We have no science whatsoever. No credible science shows that vaccination, using aluminum-containing vaccines, is safe for a developing human, mouse, monkey, or any kind of mammalian brain.

I am sure that it has been pointed out to you that the CDC is incapable of tracking vaccine injury. The doctors do not tell the patients that the vaccines caused the problem. They are supposed to report every single adverse health event that happens shortly after the vaccine through a system called VAERS. There was a system called auto VAERS that was developed by Harvard Pilgrim Health. They found 100-fold possible vaccine-related adverse events. They reported to the CDC. They reported two or three times, and the CDC hung up and said stop calling after spending $1 million to have them develop software to automate this system.

It is my professional opinion, that regulatory capture in the United States is complete. It is 100%. The numbers, so far, of risks from vaccines, I can tell you . . . This is CDC data prior to the introduction of the MMR. The death rate from measles in the United States was 450 to 500 per year in a population of 180 million people. That is a tiny, tiny mortality risk. You saw the data earlier. I think that it is very important that, in 1985, with around a 45% or 50% vaccine uptake, we did not have people dying in the streets of measles. Measles is not Ebola. One of my books is Ebola: An Evolving Story.

The problem is systematic denial of counter indications due to what I call the hot potato of liability. There is a great Boston University Law Review . . . I do not have the reference here, but I will send it to somebody who can get it to you. It is by Efthimios Parasidis. He is a faculty member in the school of law at Ohio State University. The history was: bring on widespread vaccination in 1976. We have seen an increase in chronic illness in the United States since then. There has been a linear increase in that and it is out of hand. However, most importantly in terms of liability, why is it important to get 100% right now? To me, I think it is that states do not want to have to pay. They know that the parents will pull the kids from school if you hold school. So, the states do not have to pay for the problem. They now hold the hot potato.

I very, very much feel for your position. It is a very difficult decision that you have ahead of you. I would be happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Ms. Rogers: Thank you for your presentation here. I will try to be quick, but I do have a few questions. I want to understand, first, what your professional qualifications are. I know that you are a doctor. Is it a PhD or a medical doctor?

Dr. Lyons-Weiler: I am a PhD in evolution, conservation biology, and ecology, but I helped to create the field of bioinformatics. When new technology came about where we could measure 40 000 genes in a tumour at one time, I was on an Alfred P. Sloan Foundation fellowship, and I shifted my focus over to helping clinicians sort out those data and relate them to clinical features. I have over 17 years of biomedical research experience under my belt.

Ms. Rogers: Okay. You mentioned a couple of journals, one for which you were the founding editor. Were those peer-reviewed journals?

Dr. Lyons-Weiler: Absolutely. In fact, I led the editorial board on a near-revolt after somebody tried to corrupt the peer review process by having the authors submit the paper and the review at the same time. I threatened to the publisher that we were going to resign, and it folded, so it adopted the gold standard of peer review. That is very important to me.

Ms. Rogers: I am going to ask a question that I did not plan to, but because of a few presentations, you are going to be the lucky one who gets the question. A few people are saying—and I have read this as well—that there is insufficient research or inconclusive research on either the link to harm or the link to safety. We will talk about causation or link—whatever. There is insufficient research. I am curious. Why is somebody not doing that research?

Dr. Lyons-Weiler: It is a great question for me because I just received the data from (Dr.) Paul Thomas’s study in Oregon. We are doing the vaccinated-unvaccinated study at the Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge.

Ms. Rogers: Is it long-term research?

Dr. Lyons-Weiler: It is. He has it over 1 500 patients. He has tens of thousands of patients, but we have 1 500 patients that were born into his practice over the last 10 years. It is a retrospective study. It is not a randomized prospective study. Do you know what I am doing? Instead of just measuring mere associations, I am doing what you were told about earlier. I am trying to find out if we can find the variables that will allow us to predict who would have developed autoimmunity and who would have developed autism or neurodevelopmental disorders.
I heard somebody ask this question earlier. I think it was you, actually, and I am sorry that I do not know your name. Is there something more that we can do about it? The prediction modeling that I am expert in can answer this question, which is: If the mom has a family history or if the child had eczema, doctors never used to vaccinate. There used to be a standard medical practice. If you vaccinate a child and he develops eczema, do not do it again because something terrible is going to happen. They do not do that anymore. They say: Oh, there is no association. But guess what? There has never been a single study that asks the question of whether there is an association of autism in kids who developed eczema. They cannot do every possible study.

Ms. Rogers: This seems like a big missing link, though. Anyway. I will ask one more question, because I know there are a lot of others who have questions too. I am curious about the different
treatment with respect to vaccines versus drugs when it comes to proving the safety before use. What is your perspective on why that might be? Why is a vaccine not treated similarly to a drug?

Dr. Lyons-Weiler: The difference between biologics in vaccines and the way that drugs are treated in translational research is due to the history of adverse events from vaccines. There were so many adverse events that the population was, in fact, suing the vaccine developers. They went to the US government and said: We are going under. You have to help us. Then, the government said: Go to your insurance companies. The insurance companies said: We do not want this. This is too much. It will break us.

Then, they went back to the government and they created the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, in which I am a compensated expert witness on behalf of patients who are vaccine-injured, so I can bring in the mechanisms of pathophysiology. It is a system that definitely needs reform. They had an omnibus proceeding. The history is complex, but they said: Let’s look at 5 000 cases of autism to see whether there is any way that there could be autism. In the very first case that they found, they ruled in favor of autism and vaccines, and then they kicked that case out of the omnibus proceeding. There were five cases. And then they replaced it with another one. This is the denialist agenda. Their fear is that people will stop vaccinating their children. But, instead, without liability protection, the vaccine manufacturers have zero incentive to make their product better.

If there were a car seat that caused encephalopathy, it would take one or two cases. Two years ago, Sears, Roebuck and Co. made a table saw that was on a wheelbarrow. Three people cut their fingers on it, and the company pulled the product. We need to close the loop. It is the quality control feedback that is broken in this system. We absolutely desperately need that.

Ms. Rogers: Thank you.

Mr. Savoie: Thank you, Madam Chair. Please forgive me. This question may have been already asked. I may be asking it of you twice, but I just want to be clear. So, you have written three books based on science and evidence. Were these books available in a bookstore, or were these scientific papers?

Dr. Lyons-Weiler: Well, I have over 50 peer-reviewed publications myself, but the books that I wrote are compilations of peer-reviewed scientific publications.

Mr. Savoie: Okay.

Dr. Lyons-Weiler: One is on Ebola. One is called Cures vs. Profits. It goes into 18 different topics in biomedical research, with interviews of primary researchers. The other one is The Environmental and Genetic Causes of Autism, in which I cite over 1 000 peer-reviewed publications.

Mr. Savoie: Okay, so these publications have been peer-reviewed by organizations like The Lancet and so on and so forth, those kinds of . . .
Dr. Lyons-Weiler: Books are not typically peer-reviewed.

Mr. Savoie: Okay. All right, good. So, again, you are an American citizen. Everything that you have referenced so far has been about the CDC, American actions, the actions of doctors, and the actions of the American system. We are a sovereign nation. We have our own Health Canada.

Dr. Lyons-Weiler: Yes, you do.

Mr. Savoie: When a drug comes out, our own doctors make their assertions on the efficacy and safety of that drug, that vaccine, or whatever we want to talk about. Everything that you have talked about here does not help me in the province of New Brunswick. Are you aware of any Canadian studies that would deal similarly with what you have dealt with here? Are you aware of any Canadian studies that deal similarly with the things that you allege with the CDC, doctors, and everything in America?

Dr. Lyons-Weiler: Yes, I would refer you to Dr. Christopher Shaw and his peer-reviewed publication research on encephalopathy and other problems caused by vaccination ingredients in mice.

Mr. Savoie: Is he a Canadian doctor who practices in Canada?

Dr. Lyons-Weiler: He is a Canadian researcher, a PhD researcher.
Mr. Savoie: A researcher, okay. Why are you not referencing that material instead of something out of the CDC in America?

Dr. Lyons-Weiler: I mean no offense whatsoever. However, most of the science that is published on the question that I am concerned with, what I am experienced with and familiar with, comes out of the CDC, which contracted to . . . Most of that science went over to Denmark. So most of what I am . . . It is not coming from the United States. It is coming from work contracted from the CDC to scientists in Denmark. Thanks for the opportunity for clarification.

Mr. Savoie: Again, I am looking for more information that is going to help us make a decision on a law here in New Brunswick, so I would be looking for relevant Canadian content. That is what I would like to hear more of, rather than the American experience.

Dr. Lyons-Weiler: I know exactly where you are coming from, and I appreciate that. If you would like me to get back to you in a day or so, I would be happy to do so.

Madam Chairperson: Thank you.
Standing Committee on Law Amendments

Ms. Mitton: Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for being here today. I have two quick questions. Forgive me if you have already addressed this. I was wondering who invited you to come or how you heard about this committee.

Dr. Lyons-Weiler: The name of the person who invited me was Cheryl Yakem, along with a couple of others. I believe she is involved with Canadians for vaccine choice or an organization like that.

Ms. Mitton: Okay, thank you for clarifying. The other question I had is related to something on the last page of your presentation, which talks about how no randomized prospective clinical trials have been done with the vaccines versus placebos. I was wondering whether you could speak to why these are not done. Is it to do with the ethical considerations of not vaccinating? Do you know?

Dr. Lyons-Weiler: The explanation that is given as to why it is so-called unethical, why it is considered unethical to do a randomized trial, is that you are denying vaccines to the arms of children who would not get vaccines. However, the randomized prospective clinical trials that Merck did on the HPV vaccine did include unvaccinated people. They were given the aluminum adjuvant instead of a saline placebo, but they were denied the vaccine. They were vaccinated at the end of the study. So, the answer to the ethical question about why randomized clinical trials cannot be done is that you can vaccinate them at the end of the study. That is the answer, if it is that important.

Ms. Mitton: Okay. Thank you. That is all.

Mr. DeSaulniers: The only question that I had was asked by Mr. Savoie, so I yield.

Madam Chairperson: We do have a few more minutes. If there are more questions, we will circle around.

Ms. Rogers: I will ask just one question. You mentioned that in your experience, in your study, you would find a linear increase in chronic illness after the widespread adoption of immunization in 1976. How was it that you would link those two and not other causal factors?

Dr. Lyons-Weiler: Oh, it is kind of impossible to do that. There are so many moving factors, and that is the problem with observational studies. However, one of the tenets of causal analysis is temporal association, and the specific analysis that I did involved looking at the number of studies that mentioned diseases of unknown origin, mysterious diseases that nobody knows the cause of and then correcting for the total number of publications per year. What happens is that from 1900 until 1976 when they brought on the swine flu vaccination, it is exactly flat. From that point in time on, it increases. The United States—and I am sorry to appear parochial in my comments, but I am speaking from where I know—has the highest first-day death rate of mothers, and we do not know why. It is has increasing, massive . . . Some 54% of kids have achronic illness, and we do not know why. Yet, we say that we have the best biomedical system, but we do not know what is causing all this chronic illness. Where is all the autoimmune diabetes coming from?

Some of the analysis that I have done myself—and I can speak to myself—is that we cause autoimmunity and chronic illness in animals to study drugs to treat those illnesses using aluminium hydroxide. It is the same compound that we are injecting in our children. Detractors will say that it takes 10 000 to 20 000 times the dose to get lupus or other autoimmunity conditions, but if you actually look at the math as I did and correct for body weight and look at the doses, if the mice have a genetic predisposition to autoimmunity, you need only 5 times the amount that kids would get in a single vaccine while they are aged 2. And that is a makeup day. Kids get five, six, seven, eight, nine vaccines on a makeup day. In Neil Miller’s book that was referenced, he also has a study that the use of combined vaccines in a single day is not safe. That is because most of the morbidity and mortality that is reported in VAERS is associated with a vaccination event that involved more than one vaccine.

We are dealing with a lot of observations, I understand that, but the lack of the science is not the fault of the people who firsthand experienced vaccine injury and death. I just came from Columbus where we are fighting censorship in the United States on this very issue. I ran a conference on censorship. It is the second conference on censorship in Columbus, Ohio. We are soon not going to be allowed to talk about vaccine risk if Dr. Richard Pan from California, for instance, has his way. It would be illegal to hold proceedings like this, which I congratulate you on holding. It is possible to induce autoimmunity and chronic illness with vaccine adjuvants if there is a genetic risk. We know that all human beings are not cookie cutters of each other, and the way that they find out vaccine risk is by perverse hand. It is just through social media that, now, they found each other and say: Hey, that happened to you too? There is corroboration that way, but the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, right?

Madam Chairperson: Are there any other questions from the other parties?

Ms. Rogers: I have one final question that brings it back to the bill. Based on your last comment, actually, would you be anti-vaccine or anti-mandatory or anti-scheduling?

Dr. Lyons-Weiler: Okay. That is a great question, and thanks for bringing it up. I do not want to say what I am for or against, because . . . I do not want to say what I am against. I am going to say what I am for. It is a philosophy of mine, if that is okay?

Vaccine exemptions are a safety valve on the vaccine program. They are absolutely necessary, because the population will rise up when the 2% or 3% that you vaccinate experience a 90% or 100% vaccine injury rate. It will become absolutely undeniable. Is the benefit of the incremental 1%, 2%, 3%, by taking away the religious and philosophical exemptions, worth the human pain and suffering that is going to happen, in scientific terms, in the population that is enriched for risk? They vaccinate, and then they get hurt. They say: I do not want to vaccinate. Then they are penalized.

It is a safety valve, so it is good to have these exemptions around so that people can make up their own minds, based on experience.

Ms. Rogers: Thank you.

Dr. Lyons-Weiler: Thank you.

Madam Chairperson: Thank you very much for joining us this afternoon. Your presentation is certainly appreciated.

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?


The Perils of Medical Hubris

Laws that demand parents knowingly risk injury or death or their own beloved children are intolerably inhumane. The question is not whether such injustices will be resolved; the question is whether parents will wait to convince the majority, flee as medical refugees to more rational States, or disregard such cruel overreach? Once forced, they have no moral choice but to walk away from orthodox medicine one by one, thereby, en masse, revealing the relative futulity of paradigms poisoned by profit incentives due to the hubris of a paternalist medical conspiracy of good intentions. Woeful and willful ignorance of risk portend disastrous outcomes: the rejection of Science and The Press by the inevitably awakened majority, and a vigorous condemnation and punishment of purveyors of misinformation leading parents to bring their most precious prosperity to slaughter for some uncertain proclaimed greater good. Governments must behold and heed the wisdom of painfully earned experiences of the injured masses who come in earnest to protect those with unrecognized shared peril. For all the uncertainty and suppositions, one outcome is assured: this well-identified minority of American citizens will not conform; given their natural imperative as parents they will resist and protect the welfare of their loved ones, they will defend their liberties against any assault, and they will not rest until the abrogation of the sacred contract of public trust is revoked and is replaced with a trust of self-determinism and remedied via public health policies and medical practices founded on reality.

James Lyons-Weiler

Allison Park, PA

June 22, 2019

Signs that a “Genetic Disorder” is Neither “Genetic” Nor a “Disorder”

There are a few serious disconnects between the science of genetics and the application of that science to medicine, and it’s putting millions of people at risk of exposure to unnecessary medical interventions, including life-long exposure to psychotropic medicines. These exposures are starting at an increasingly young age.

First, I will outline the signs that a “genetic disorder” is not genetic:

(1) The variation in the human genome involves “common variants”. Common genetic variation, whether it be in the form of SNPs, or mitochondrial variation, non-synonymous substitutions or, or insertion/deletions, are ancient, pre-dating not only the development of psychiatry, but pre-dating the development of Western Medicine – and Western Civilization itself. These genetic variants nearly all pre-date the invention of the airplane, cars, houses, and roads.

Examples include common variations in the MTHFR gene, and the 12 SNP loci identified in a study of ADHD that reports the “first” evidence of genetic variation linked to that condition.

While the traits associated with the “disorder” are “heritable”, that is only because those traits are heritable in the human population. It is important to note that it is the specific genetic variation that is associated with the “condition” that is ancient – not just the highly conserved functionally important parts of the genome, and some coverage of that study has confused these two entities.

(2) No grandparents have the condition – and many parents of people with the condition do not have it.

Autism is found in a startling 1 in 56 Americans – with rates as high as 1 in 25 boys. These children’s grandparents certainly do not have the tell-tale signs of not talking, hand-flapping, toe-walking, lack of eye contact, and difficulty in navigating socially. In the 1980s and 1990s, parents of the newly diagnosed children not only never heard of “autism” – many did not even ever hear of any child with the same set of symptoms that their children were exhibiting. Most autism-related genetic variation also involves common variation, although much of the variation is de novo  (i.e., unique to the child)  representing mutations, perhaps from environmental toxins that the parents – or, in the cases of mothers’ DNA, the grandmother – was exposed to.

(3) The genetic variation explains too little of the traits in question.

The common understanding of “genetic” traits – such as eye color – is that they show very specific reproducibility in appearance from generation to generation, even when they are are influenced by multiple loci. This high-fidelity transmission can occur in discrete traits that occur in categories, or in traits that are continuous traits with variations on a theme, within narrow bounds. At the population level, eye color is determined by numerous loci, leading to variations within categories, but the inheritance is very clearly discrete.

Heritability studies in autism only explain around 50% of the inheritance of the phenotypes (traits) that lead to autism. This estimate is done at the population level, not at the individual level – a parent of a child with autism is not 50% autistic. The 12 new loci discovered in ADHD only explain 74% of the trait – meaning that environmental factors have a large influence in determining whether the occurrence of the traits occurs in an individual or not. In autism, the largest studies point to a lot of room for environmental factors. The right types of studies that look at both genetics and environmental exposures in the same individuals have not been conducted in ASD nor in ADHD. If they did, we would know the significance of the interaction term between environmental exposures and genetics.

So there are times when a “genetic” condition cannot be labeled “genetic”. Here are some reasons why a “genetic condition” might not even be the right “condition” to be concerned with.

Source %G %E %missing

Hallmayer 38(h2) 58 4

Sandin 46 54 0

Colvert 56 30 8

Table from “The Environmental and Genetic Causes of Autism” reviewing %Genetic, %Environment(%E) and %Unexplained (missing) from genetic studies of autism.

(1) The “condition” itself is a sequela of one or more true underlying conditions.

If a person has no problem with specific environmental exposure, but then develops a condition as a result of another condition, they may be confused with having a condition they would not otherwise have. This is a type of co-morbidity, and if the symptoms of the actual underlying, sometimes hidden condition are lessened, the indirect resulting condition may become alleviated. An example is encephalopathy leading to autism involving the exposure of the brain to toxins from food and gut bacteria due to conditions with lesions in the intestine. The intestinal epithelium layer is the largest surface area by which we interact with our environment. Dignoses of ASD can result with neither the parents – nor the doctors – aware that the issue is chronic exposures to toxins leading to brain inflammation.

(2) The risk of the outcome of an environmental exposure is heritable, not the condition, and the severity of the condition is driven by environment.

If a condition comes and goes with changes to exposures to specific environmental triggers, the sensitivity is the primary condition, not the symptoms. An example would be food allergies that lead to altered mental states, or to simple rashes resulting from food or chemical exposures. These sensitivities are often not genetic – the parents may or may not have certain similar sensitivities – and they often involve immunological responses with a component of autoimmunity. Another example would be seasonable allergies and asthma. Remove the trigger, the sensitivity remains, but the root cause is an autoimmunological response made possible by prior exposure to allontigens in the presence of a substance that over-activated the immune system, such as aluminum hydroxide in vaccines.

(3) The”genetic condition” can be modified by changes in diet, restrictions to food triggers, removal of toxins, or other seemingly unrelated improvements.

Studies have now shown long-term benefits from correcting the gut microbiota in autism, leading to a 50% reduction in the severity of ASD symptoms via fecal microbiota transpant (FMT). Not only are the improvements apparently permanent, they also appear to help every child. As the moms have been saying for years: Heal the Gut, Heal the Mind.

The risk of psychosis from ADHD psychotropic medicines is estimated to be 1 in 660. In my book, “Cures vs. Profits”, I have a chapter on ADHD entitled “Overdiagnosis of ADHD: It’s their mind, not yours” and also a chapter on FMT. Clearly the improvements made by FMT are historic, and every parent of a child with ASD would do well to read as much you can about FMT. I’ll end this article with a list of links to articles on the ASD studies as a start toward what will hopefully be a better future for kids with ASD and their families.

I wonder if FMT might have permanent benefit for ADHD as well?

Related links:



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?


The Toxins We Avoid and That Concern Us the Most

In a very (VERY) unscientific, informal survey conducted among those who follow my Facebook page, I asked two questions, in separate posts

Question #1.

“Other than toxins in vaccines and glyphosate and lead and fluoride, which corporate toxins do you avoid the most? #CorporateToxins”

After five hours, the replies numbered 217, and the results were very interesting.


In spite of specifically excluding toxins in vaccines, and glyphosate (an herbicide), a signals reflecting those concerns seem to push through the collective psyche.

Artificial dyes, “fragrances”, aluminum, and artificial sweeteners ranked highest followed by GMO’s, flame retardants (pthalates), detergents, and the list goes on (See Figure 1, above).

The second question followed:

“Five hours ago, I asked an open-ended question: “Other than toxins in vaccines, glyphosate, and lead and fluoride, which corporate toxins do you avoid the most?” In 217 mentions, the toxins you are most concerned about are listed below. NEW QUESTION: Of the toxins listed below, WHICH >>THREE<< CONCERN YOU THE VERY MOST?”

The question was met with a large number of “why only three?”.  Fair question: to quantify the toxins that people avoid the most is different from the toxins that concern us the most.  I wanted to characterize the respondent’s priorities in the following terms: of the toxins people typically avoid, which concern you the most?

In the 356 mentions of toxins that rank highest, the following result is telling:

Of the top four, mercury and aluminum came through as highest concerns – alongside herbicides and GMOs.

So, in spite of instructions to leave vaccines and glyphosate out of their concerns, the respondents are clearly very focused on the toxins found in vaccines even if they come from other sources.

I’ll have thoughts to share on this later.

James Lyons-Weiler

Allison Park, PA