CDC forced to release documents showing they knew vaccine preservative causes autism | The Refusers

CDC forced to release documents showing they knew vaccine preservative causes autism | The Refusers

The CDC has been shunning the correlations between thimerosal and neurological disorders for a very long time. Although the FDA gave a two year deadline to remove the mercury based preservative from vaccines after the neurotoxin was banned in 1999, it still remains to this day in60 percent of flu vaccines. A vaccine industry watchdog has now obtained CDC documents that show statistically significant risks of autism associated with the vaccine preservative, something the CDC denies even when confronted with their own data.

For nearly ten years, Brian Hooker has been requesting documents that are kept under tight wraps by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). His more than 100 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests have resulted in copious evidence that the vaccine preservative Thimerosal, which is still used in the flu shot that is administered to pregnant women and infants, can cause autism and other neurodevelopmental disorders.

Dr. Hooker, a PhD scientist, worked with two members of Congress to craft the letter to the CDC that recently resulted in his obtaining long-awaited data from the CDC, the significance of which is historic. According to Hooker, the data on over 400,000 infants born between 1991 and 1997, which was analyzed by CDC epidemiologist Thomas Verstraeten, MD, “proves unequivocally that in 2000, CDC officials were informed internally of the very high risk of autism, non-organic sleep disorder and speech disorder associated with Thimerosal exposure.”

Factually, thimerosal is a mercury-containing compound that is a known human carcinogen, mutagen, teratogen and immune-system disruptor at levels below 1 part-per-million, and a compound to which some humans can have an anaphylactic shock reaction. It is also a recognized reproductive and fetal toxin with no established toxicologically safe level of exposure for humans.

In November, 1997, the U.S. Congress passed the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act, requiring the study of mercury content in FDA-approved products. The review disclosed the hitherto-unrecognized levels of ethylmercury in vaccines.

In July 1999, public-health officials announced that thimerosal would be phased out of vaccines. The CDC, American Academy of Pediatrics, and FDA insisted that the measure was purely precautionary. They requested of all vaccine manufacturers to eliminate mercury from vaccines.

The requests were denied by vaccine manufacturers and continued every year thereafter.

The FDA does not require ingredients that comprise less than 1 percent of a product to be divulged on the label, so a lot more products may have thimerosal and consumers will never know.

Elevated Risk of Autism

When the results of the Verstraeten study were first reported outside the CDC in 2005, there was no evidence that anyone but Dr. Verstraeten within the CDC had known of the very high 7.6-fold elevated relative risk of autism from exposure to Thimerosal during infancy. But now, clear evidence exists. A newly-acquired abstract from 1999 titled, “Increased risk of developmental neurologic impairment after high exposure to Thimerosal containing vaccine in first month of life” required the approval of top CDC officials prior to its presentation at the Epidemic Intelligence Service (EIS) conference. Thimerosal, which is 50% mercury by weight, was used in most childhood vaccines and in the RhoGAM shot for pregnant women prior to the early 2000s.

The CDC maintains there is “no relationship between Thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism rates in children,” even though the data from the CDC’s own Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) database shows a very high risk. There are a number of public records to back this up, including this Congressional Record from May 1, 2003. The CDC’s refusal to acknowledge thimerosal’s risks is exemplified by a leaked statement from Dr. Marie McCormick, chair of the CDC/NIH-sponsored Immunization Safety Review at IOM. Regarding vaccination, she said in 2001, “…we are not ever going to come down that it [autism] is a true side effect…” Also of note, the former director of the CDC, which purchases $4 billion worth of vaccines annually, is now president of Merck’s vaccine division.

Toxic Effects of Thimerosal No Longer Disputed by Scientific Study

Thimerosal-Derived Ethylmercury in vaccines is now well established as a mitochondrial toxin in human brain cells.

There are dozens of scientific inquiries and studies on the adverse effects of thimerosal, including gastrointestinal abnormalities and immune system irregularities.

Thimerosal, is metabolized (converted) into the toxic and “harmful” methylmercury. And then in turn, the harmful methylmercury is metabolized (converted) into the most harmful, long-term-toxic, “inorganic” mercury that is retained in bodily tissue.

“Inorganic” mercury is the end product of mercury metabolism. Methylmercury subject groups confirm that the metabolic pathway for mercury in the human and animal body consists in the reduction/conversion of the harmful methylmercury into a more harmful “inorganic” mercury which is tissue-bound, and long-term-toxic. Hence, both the originating substance (methylmercury) and its conversion/reduction, inorganic mercury are found.

Based on published findings by Dr. Paul King, the metabolic pathway for organic mercury involves the conversion of Ethylmercury (Thimerosal) into “methylmercury” and then the further reduction of “methylmercury” into inorganic mercury.

Congress Must Act

Dr. Hooker’s fervent hope for the future: “We must ensure that this and other evidence of CDC malfeasance are presented to Congress and the public as quickly as possible. Time is of the essence. Children’s futures are at stake.” A divide within the autism community has led to some activists demanding that compensation to those with vaccine-injury claims be the top priority before Congress. Dr. Hooker maintains that prevention, “protecting our most precious resource — children’s minds,” must come first. “Our elected officials must be informed about government corruption that keeps doctors and patients in the dark about vaccine risks.”

Referring to an organization that has seen its share of controversy this past year, Dr. Hooker remarked, “It is unfortunate that SafeMinds issued a press release on my information, is accepting credit for my work and has not supported a worldwide ban on Thimerosal.”

Brian Hooker, PhD, PE, has 15 years experience in the field of bioengineering and is an associate professor at Simpson University where he specializes in biology and chemistry. His over 50 science and engineering papers have been published in internationally recognized, peer-reviewed journals. Dr. Hooker has a son, aged 16, who developed normally but then regressed into autism after receiving Thimerosal-containing vaccines.

Sources:prweb.com
preventdisease.com
ashotoftruth.org

Dave Mihalovic is a Naturopathic Doctor who specializes in vaccine research, cancer prevention and a natural approach to treatment.

Read the article

Healthy Schools

Healthy Schools

Missouri

Last Updated: 3/30/2012

Bullying/Harassment:Revised statute 160.775 (2009) requires every district to adopt an antibullying policy. Policies must treat students equally, not contain specific lists of protected classes who are to receive special treatment, and must contain a statement of the consequences of bullying. Each district's policy must require district employees to report any instances of bullying which the employee has first hand knowledge and must address training of employees.

Revised Statute 160.261 (2008) includes harassment as an "act of violence" that requires mandatory reporting by school administrators to the appropriate law enforcement agency. Harassment includes the following: (1) Knowingly communicating a threat to commit a felony to another person, thereby frightening, intimidating or causing emotional distress to such other person, (2) When communicating with another person, knowingly using coarse language offensively, thereby putting such person in reasonable apprehension of offensive physical contact or harm, (3) To knowingly frighten, intimidate or cause emotional distress to another person by anonymously making a telephone call or any electronic communication ("cyberbullying"), (4) Knowingly communicating with another person who is, or purports to be, seventeen years of age or younger, and in doing so recklessly frightening, intimidating or causes emotional distress, (5) Knowingly making repeated unwanted communication to another person, and (6) Engaging in any other act with the purpose to frighten, intimidate or emotionally distress another person.

Cyberbullying: Revised Statute 160.775 (2009) includes states that bullying may consist of physical actions, or oral, including cyberbullying, electronic, or written communication, and any threat of retaliation for reporting of such acts. The statute requires every district to adopt an anti-bullying policy. Revised Statute 160.261 (2008) includes harassment as an "act of violence" that requires mandatory reporting by school administrators to the appropriate law enforcement agency. This includes knowingly frightening, intimidating or causing emotional distress to another person by anonymously making a telephone call or any electronic communication ("cyberbullying").

Hazing: No state policy addressing elementary or secondary schools.

Lee's Summit R-7 School District: How Do They Sleep At Night?

Lee's Summit R-7 School District: How Do They Sleep At Night?



Tuesday, August 9, 2011

Sometimes I sit and relive the past four years. I think of all of the tears, anger, frustration, fear, anxiety, and hurt that my family has gone through. Then I think of all of the other families that are going through the same thing. Their lives being destroyed while they sit back and helplessly watch it happen.

One thing always comes to mind. How do the people that are paid with my tax dollars sleep at night? How can they destroy the life and future of another human being and then take their paycheck? How can they hug their children while they are destroying the lives of other children?

I was raised in the 60s and the 70s. My parents were strict and taught us to be honest, caring, and loving human beings. We were taught that you never progress in life without hard work, integrity, honor, and respect. You never hurt others or lie.

I wonder what the parents our of teachers, principals, superintendents, legislators, and school board officials taught their children. Would they be disgusted by the things that their children do to innocent children? Would they be dismayed that their children care about nothing more than self promotion and the almighty dollar? Would they be proud that their children are successful because they are robbing children of their future? My parents would disown me. They would not tolerate the behavior that I see every day.

I have been to many school meetings and sat across the table as these people have lied, cheated, and stolen my child's future. I have seen my legislator sell out my child to further his political career and then lie about it and call me a politcal stalker. I am powerless to stop them. They have all of the power and my hard earned tax dollars have bought it for them.

How many lives are going to be destroyed before this is stopped? How many people are willing to stand up for their children no matter what the consequences are? I am. I have been for four years. Its a lonely journey and I invite you to join me.

Autistic child's mom wants cameras in special needs classes

Autistic child's mom wants cameras in special needs classes

CLEVELAND -- Tara Heidinger wants cameras in all special needs classrooms in Ohio. She started this campaign when her son, Corey, came home with bruises on his arm.

"He said the teacher was mean to me," Heidinger said.

She says her son is autistic and the school believed he made it up. There was no proof of abuse, so that's when this mom decided cameras should be in Ohio special needs classrooms.

"I want more eyes and ears in these classes," says Heidinger.

She hopes legislation will be introduced in Ohio soon. She has a Facebook page and supporters all over the country and world.

Not everyone agrees.

The Ohio Education Association said this:

"Incidents of abuse are abhorrent, but rare. Current school district policies guard against such incidents and provide the means to correct any neglectful or abusive practices. The ramifications of mandating cameras in the classroom pose greater issues for student privacy than merely seeking to eliminate abuse."

Restraints, Seclusions Target Students With Autism, New Report Shows | Connecticut Health Investigative Team

Restraints, Seclusions Target Students With Autism, New Report Shows | Connecticut Health Investigative Team

Children with autism were the most frequently subjected to restraint or seclusion in Connecticut schools in the 2012-13 school year, according to a new state report that tallied more than 33,000 incidents of physical restraint or seclusion in public schools and private special education programs.

The report from the state Department of Education shows that autism was the primary disability among special education students subject to “emergency” restraint or seclusion, with 40.4 percent of all such incidents involving a child with autism. Autism also accounted for nearly half of all cases in which children were put in seclusion as part of their individualized education plans, or IEPs.

Jordan Harrison Graphic

The report shows a slight decline from the previous year in the overall number of students restrained or secluded, and a drop in reports of injuries – from 840 in 2011-12, to 378 last year. But the number of serious injuries rose from eight to 10, and more than 900 reported episodes of seclusion or restraint lasted more than an hour.

“This is just so disheartening,” said Shannon Knall of Simsbury, policy chair of the Connecticut chapter of Autism Speaks, an advocacy group. She blamed the high incidence of children being restrained and secluded on “a tremendous lack of training” of teachers and school staff in alternative interventions.

“The numbers of children with autism are skyrocketing, and I think our school districts are just overwhelmed,” she said. “The people on the front lines need training and tools” in alternative behavior management. “If you only give someone a hammer and a nail, that’s all they’re going to use.”

This is the second year that the state Department of Education has compiled data on restraints and seclusions submitted by schools. While the education department has no specific strategy to reduce those practices, the report says that the “continued examination” of the data will inform “technical assistance and trainings” that promote the use of positive interventions and reduce reliance on restraint and seclusion.

The release of the report comes as a coalition of eight state agencies, including the Office of the Child Advocate and Office of Protection and Advocacy for Persons with Disabilities, begins a public education campaign to reduce the unnecessary use of restraints and seclusion in schools. The education department is a partner in that effort.

Sarah Eagan, the state’s child advocate, said the new report illustrates that the use of physical restraint and seclusion is still common in schools, especially among young children with developmental disabilities. About half of all the 2012-13 incidents involved special education students in grades five and below, with about 180 incidents involving children in kindergarten and pre-K.

“What this highlights is that ultimately, the practices are widespread,” Eagan said. “What we have to remember is that the use of restraints and seclusion [for behavior management] has no research to support it. We’re really going to have to support schools and teachers with resources and tools so they can find a better way” to de-escalate problem behaviors.

A seclusion room for children with emotional/behavioral problems.

Connecticut state law allows for the use of restraints and seclusion in emergencies that pose imminent danger to a student or others. It also allows for special education students to be put in seclusion if their IEPs provide for such measures – a provision that some child advocates say is overly broad.

Schools reported that the majority of restraints and seclusions – 71 percent -- were in response to emergency risk of harm, with the remaining 7,741 seclusions done in accordance with an IEP. In many cases, individual children were restrained and secluded multiple times throughout the year. Forty students were physically restrained or secluded more than 100 times -- and 11 of them were subject to those practices 300 to 900 times during the year, the report shows.

Eagan noted that the U.S. Department of Education issued a “resource document” to schools in 2012 that discourages the use of physical restraints or seclusion except in extreme situations where a child’s behavior poses imminent danger of serious harm to self or others. But there is no federal law restricting the practices.

Data in the new state report shows the majority of restraints and seclusions lasted 20 minutes or less. However, 30 emergency restraints and 119 seclusions lasted more than two hours.

Farm Hill Elementary School

Reporting by individual school districts and programs varied widely, with some smaller programs reporting hundreds of incidents, and some large districts reporting a handful. Hartford schools reported no incidents, Bridgeport reported 28, and New Haven reported 54.

Education department officials said they were following up with districts that reported very low numbers.

Eagan said that, on the flip side, some programs may be diligently reporting “every time they put hands on a student,” boosting their numbers.

Among districts reporting the highest number of restraints and seclusions were: East Hartford, with 1,644 cases involving 165 special education students; Darien, with 895 incidents involving 10 students; Vernon, with 357 incidents involving 24 students; and Windsor, with 298 incidents involving 19 students.

High numbers were reported by many state-approved private special education programs and regional education centers, including: CREC, with 3,860 cases involving 89 students; Benhaven School in Wallingford, which serves children with autism, with 2,162 incidents involving 30 students; and the Connecticut Center for Child Development in Milford, which also specializes in autism, with 3,183 cases involving 35 students.

The co-chairs of the legislature’s Committee on Children, Sen. Dante Bartolomeo and Rep. Diana Urban, both expressed concerns about the unnecessary use of restraints and seclusion at a recent forum on the issue convened by the Office of the Child Advocate and the Office of Protection and Advocacy. Last year, leaders of those two agencies called for an end to the use of restraints and seclusion as behavioral interventions in schools, as they investigated the controversial use of “scream rooms” at the Farm Hill Elementary School in Middletown.

The report indicates that black and Hispanic children are more likely to be restrained and secluded than white students. Fifty-seven percent of students who were restrained or secluded were members of minority groups, while the majority of special education students statewide are white.

Read the full report below.

Restraints, seclusions target Connecticut students with autism

Restraints, seclusions target Connecticut students with autism

Children with autism were the most frequently subjected to restraint or seclusion in Connecticut schools in the 2012-13 school year, according to a new state report that tallied more than 33,000 incidents of physical restraint or seclusion in public schools and private special education programs.

The report from the state Department of Education shows that autism was the primary disability among special education students subject to “emergency” restraint or seclusion, with 40.4 percent of all such incidents involving a child with autism. Autism also accounted for nearly half of all cases in which children were put in seclusion as part of their individualized education plans, or IEPs.

The report shows a slight decline from the previous year in the overall number of students restrained or secluded, and a drop in reports of injuries — from 840 in 2011-12 to 378 last year. But the number of serious injuries rose from eight to 10, and more than 900 reported episodes of seclusion or restraint lasted more than an hour.

“This is just so disheartening,” said Shannon Knall of Simsbury, policy chair of the Connecticut chapter of Autism Speaks, an advocacy group. She blamed the high incidence of children being restrained and secluded on “a tremendous lack of training” of teachers and school staff in alternative interventions.

“The numbers of children with autism are skyrocketing, and I think our school districts are just overwhelmed,” she said. “The people on the front lines need training and tools” in alternative behavior management. “If you only give someone a hammer and a nail, that’s all they’re going to use.”

This is the second year that the state Department of Education has compiled data on restraints and seclusions submitted by schools. While the education department has no specific strategy to reduce those practices, the report says that the “continued examination” of the data will inform “technical assistance and trainings” that promote the use of positive interventions and reduce reliance on restraint and seclusion.

The release of the report comes as a coalition of eight state agencies, including the Office of the Child Advocate and Office of Protection and Advocacy for Persons with Disabilities, begins a public education campaign to reduce the unnecessary use of restraints and seclusion in schools. The Department of Education is a partner in that effort.

Sarah Eagan, the state’s child advocate, said the new report illustrates that the use of physical restraint and seclusion is still common in schools, especially among young children with developmental disabilities. About half of all the 2012-13 incidents involved special education students in grades five and below, with about 180 incidents involving children in kindergarten and pre-K.

“What this highlights is that ultimately, the practices are widespread,” Eagan said. “What we have to remember is that the use of restraints and seclusion (for behavior management) has no research to support it. We’re really going to have to support schools and teachers with resources and tools so they can find a better way” to de-escalate problem behaviors.

Connecticut state law allows for the use of restraints and seclusion in emergencies that pose imminent danger to a student or others. It also allows for special education students to be put in seclusion if their IEPs provide for such measures — a provision that some child advocates say is overly broad.

Schools reported that the majority of restraints and seclusions — 71 percent — were in response to emergency risk of harm, with the remaining 7,741 seclusions done in accordance with an IEP. In many cases, individual children were restrained and secluded multiple times throughout the year. Forty students were physically restrained or secluded more than 100 times — and 11 of them were subject to those practices 300 to 900 times during the year, the report shows.

Eagan noted that the U.S. Department of Education issued a “resource document” to schools in 2012 that discourages the use of physical restraints or seclusion except in extreme situations where a child’s behavior poses imminent danger of serious harm to self or others. But there is no federal law restricting the practices.

Data in the new state report shows the majority of restraints and seclusions lasted 20 minutes or less. However, 30 emergency restraints and 119 seclusions lasted more than two hours.

Reporting by individual school districts and programs varied widely, with some smaller programs reporting hundreds of incidents, and some large districts reporting a handful. Hartford schools reported no incidents, Bridgeport reported 28, and New Haven reported 54.

Education department officials said they were following up with districts that reported very low numbers.

Eagan said that, on the flip side, some programs may be diligently reporting “every time they put hands on a student,” boosting their numbers.

Among districts reporting the highest number of restraints and seclusions were: East Hartford, with 1,644 cases involving 165 special education students; Darien, with 895 incidents involving 10 students; Vernon, with 357 incidents involving 24 students; and Windsor, with 298 incidents involving 19 students.

High numbers were reported by many state-approved private special education programs and regional education centers, including: CREC, with 3,860 cases involving 89 students; Benhaven School in Wallingford, which serves children with autism, with 2,162 incidents involving 30 students; and the Connecticut Center for Child Development in Milford, which also specializes in autism, with 3,183 cases involving 35 students.

The co-chairs of the legislature’s Committee on Children, Sen. Dante Bartolomeo and Rep. Diana Urban, both expressed concerns about the unnecessary use of restraints and seclusion at a recent forum on the issue convened by the Office of the Child Advocate and the Office of Protection and Advocacy. Last year, leaders of those two agencies called for an end to the use of restraints and seclusion as behavioral interventions in schools, as they investigated the controversial use of “scream rooms” at the Farm Hill Elementary School in Middletown. The report indicates that black and Hispanic children are more likely to be restrained and secluded than white students. Fifty-seven percent of students who were restrained or secluded were members of minority groups, while the majority of special education students statewide are white.

This story was reported under a partnership with the Connecticut Health I-Team (www.c-hit.org).

Eccentricities and Introspection

Eccentricities and Introspection

"I don't want to break his spirit"

Throughout the years others have tried though... I watched his smile fade as he encountered ignorance and lack of acceptance (specifically in school). I remember looking at this brown headed blue-eyed cutie and thinking "Why can't they just see what I do?"

 I have watched that smile return the past 2 years and his spark reignite as we found a place for him in the world where others  DID see him the way I did. A place where he is accepted and respected.

It wasn't about changing him to fit the world, it was more about changing the world around him to fit what he needed.