"we all know Wakefield was committing fraud..."
Right. The more corporate profit affects public discourse, the more certain we've become about CERTAIN FACTS.
The link between autism and stomach bacteria was also picked up by a lady by the name of Donna Gates who has been pushing the "Body Ecology Diet." I've been listening to her for a little over two decades and this link between stomach bacteria and a whole host of behavioral and health issues comes as no surprise.
I think that most food cravings, for instance, are not genetic, but orchestrated by bacteria in the gut and intestines. 80% of the Serotonin in your body is stored in the stomach and it only stands to reason that a few million generations of bacteria might latch on to affecting our neurotransmitters in order to improve survival. To bolster this theory, I was reading about studies with Fruit Flies which showed that it was stomach bacteria that were putting out pheromones they used to decide mates, by controlling what the flies ate, they controlled the bacteria and the bacteria inspired flies to pair up with other flies of similar gut bacteria.
Is it too controversial then, to take what we are finding out about Stomach bacteria affecting our minds and passions to maybe go a step further and think they might also have negative impacts on brain development? They've got the tools and the weapons, after all.
The CONNECTION here with Immunizations for me, is that when babies are out of the womb, their bodies are still trying to figure out "friend and foe." They eat peas for the first time -- and nothing bad happens; Friend. But when we immunize people -- the "bad chicken pox" is mixed in with what is called an adjutant. It's some stuff that makes you a "little sick" so that your body recognizes the dead virus signatures it delivers as "foe." But how does the body know the difference between genetic markers for chicken pox and the fist time a baby has had peas? I'm asking the question because I don't know how a body knows the difference and I wonder how many "Immunizations are always good" people have bothered to ask the question, or wonder if the TIMING of immunizations might not be why we have so many kids with food allergies.
So if we PERHAPS can entertain the idea that adjutants can immunize children against Chicken Pox and Peas or Peanuts at the same time -- what happens if it immunizes them against certain important proteins necessary for development? Being allergic to a specific protein that might cause Autism? The immune system can attack ANYTHING, and for the most part, it is not pre-programmed. When babies are developing, it figures out what to attack and not attack.
The reason our current statistic models can't narrow down this direct connection is that it is Russian Roulette with a million factors. A peanut allergy, hyperactivity, autism, diabetes, depression,... whatever. A million ailments, a million variables and million opportunities. Most of the time, nothing happens.
There has been a lot of cock sure speculation and certainty on both sides of the argument here. And some vaccines have great benefits -- while others are NOT PROVEN and people accept on faith that "since we dealt with Polio and Measles ALL VACCINES = PROGRESS". We need more real studies for each case, and on when they should be given. I'd push for most not given to babies (except for HPV vaccine) until after 9 months unless there is another risk factor.
My solution is not ALL VACCINES = BAD, but my point is that timing is everything and good vaccines are good.