fears that neuroscience could be used for mind control
the economist | 25.05.2002 10:09
The future of mind control
May 23rd 2002
From The Economist print edition
People already worry about genetics. They should worry about brain science too
IN AN attempt to treat depression, neuroscientists once carried out a simple experiment. Using electrodes, they stimulated the brains of women in ways that caused pleasurable feelings. The subjects came to no harm—indeed their symptoms appeared to evaporate, at least temporarily—but they quickly fell in love with their experimenters.
Such a procedure (and there have been worse in the history of neuroscience) poses far more of a threat to human dignity and autonomy than does cloning. Cloning is the subject of fierce debate, with proposals for wholesale bans. Yet when it comes to neuroscience, no government or treaty stops anything. For decades, admittedly, no neuroscientist has been known to repeat the love experiment. A scientist who used a similar technique to create remote-controlled rats seemed not even to have entertained the possibility. “Humans? Who said anything about humans?” he said, in genuine shock, when questioned. “We work on rats.”
Ignoring a possibility does not, however, make it go away. If asked to guess which group of scientists is most likely to be responsible, one day, for overturning the essential nature of humanity, most people might suggest geneticists. In fact neurotechnology poses a greater threat—and also a more immediate one. Moreover, it is a challenge that is largely ignored by regulators and the public, who seem unduly obsessed by gruesome fantasies of genetic dystopias.
A person's genetic make-up certainly has something important to do with his subsequent behaviour. But genes exert their effects through the brain. If you want to predict and control a person's behaviour, the brain is the place to start. Over the course of the next decade, scientists may be able to predict, by examining a scan of a person's brain, not only whether he will tend to mental sickness or health, but also whether he will tend to depression or violence. Neural implants may within a few years be able to increase intelligence or to speed up reflexes. Drug companies are hunting for molecules to assuage brain-related ills, from paralysis to shyness (see article).
A public debate over the ethical limits to such neuroscience is long overdue. It may be hard to shift public attention away from genetics, which has so clearly shown its sinister side in the past. The spectre of eugenics, which reached its culmination in Nazi Germany, haunts both politicians and public. The fear that the ability to monitor and select for desirable characteristics will lead to the subjugation of the undesirable—or the merely unfashionable—is well-founded.
Not so long ago neuroscientists, too, were guilty of victimising the mentally ill and the imprisoned in the name of science. Their sins are now largely forgotten, thanks in part to the intractable controversy over the moral status of embryos. Anti-abortion lobbyists, who find stem-cell research and cloning repugnant, keep the ethics of genetic technology high on the political agenda. But for all its importance, the quarrel over abortion and embryos distorts public discussion of bioethics; it is a wonder that people in the field can discuss anything else.
In fact, they hardly do. America's National Institutes of Health has a hefty budget for studying the ethical, legal and social implications of genetics, but it earmarks nothing for the specific study of the ethics of neuroscience. The National Institute of Mental Health, one of its component bodies, has seen fit to finance a workshop on the ethical implications of “cyber-medicine”, yet it has not done the same to examine the social impact of drugs for “hyperactivity”, which 7% of American six- to eleven-year-olds now take. The Wellcome Trust, Britain's main source of finance for the study of biomedical ethics, has a programme devoted to the ethics of brain research, but the number of projects is dwarfed by its parallel programme devoted to genetics.
Uncontrollable fears
The worriers have not spent these resources idly. Rather, they have produced the first widespread legislative and diplomatic efforts directed at containing scientific advance. The Council of Europe and the United Nations have declared human reproductive cloning a violation of human rights. The Senate is soon to vote on a bill that would send American scientists to prison for making cloned embryonic stem cells.
Yet neuroscientists have been left largely to their own devices, restrained only by standard codes of medical ethics and experimentation. This relative lack of regulation and oversight has produced a curious result. When it comes to the brain, society now regards the distinction between treatment and enhancement as essentially meaningless. Taking a drug such as Prozac when you are not clinically depressed used to be called cosmetic, or non-essential, and was therefore considered an improper use of medical technology. Now it is regarded as just about as cosmetic, and as non-essential, as birth control or orthodontics. American legislators are weighing the so-called parity issue—the argument that mental treatments deserve the same coverage in health-insurance plans as any other sort of drug. Where drugs to change personality traits were once seen as medicinal fripperies, or enhancements, they are now seen as entitlements.
This flexible attitude towards neurotechnology—use it if it might work, demand it if it does—is likely to extend to all sorts of other technologies that affect health and behaviour, both genetic and otherwise. Rather than resisting their advent, people are likely to begin clamouring for those that make themselves and their children healthier and happier.
This might be bad or it might be good. It is a question that public discussion ought to try to settle, perhaps with the help of a regulatory body such as the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, which oversees embryo research in Britain. History teaches that worrying overmuch about technological change rarely stops it. Those who seek to halt genetics in its tracks may soon learn that lesson anew, as rogue scientists perform experiments in defiance of well-intended bans. But, if society is concerned about the pace and ethics of scientific advance, it should at least form a clearer picture of what is worth worrying about, and why.
May 23rd 2002
From The Economist print edition
People already worry about genetics. They should worry about brain science too
IN AN attempt to treat depression, neuroscientists once carried out a simple experiment. Using electrodes, they stimulated the brains of women in ways that caused pleasurable feelings. The subjects came to no harm—indeed their symptoms appeared to evaporate, at least temporarily—but they quickly fell in love with their experimenters.
Such a procedure (and there have been worse in the history of neuroscience) poses far more of a threat to human dignity and autonomy than does cloning. Cloning is the subject of fierce debate, with proposals for wholesale bans. Yet when it comes to neuroscience, no government or treaty stops anything. For decades, admittedly, no neuroscientist has been known to repeat the love experiment. A scientist who used a similar technique to create remote-controlled rats seemed not even to have entertained the possibility. “Humans? Who said anything about humans?” he said, in genuine shock, when questioned. “We work on rats.”
Ignoring a possibility does not, however, make it go away. If asked to guess which group of scientists is most likely to be responsible, one day, for overturning the essential nature of humanity, most people might suggest geneticists. In fact neurotechnology poses a greater threat—and also a more immediate one. Moreover, it is a challenge that is largely ignored by regulators and the public, who seem unduly obsessed by gruesome fantasies of genetic dystopias.
A person's genetic make-up certainly has something important to do with his subsequent behaviour. But genes exert their effects through the brain. If you want to predict and control a person's behaviour, the brain is the place to start. Over the course of the next decade, scientists may be able to predict, by examining a scan of a person's brain, not only whether he will tend to mental sickness or health, but also whether he will tend to depression or violence. Neural implants may within a few years be able to increase intelligence or to speed up reflexes. Drug companies are hunting for molecules to assuage brain-related ills, from paralysis to shyness (see article).
A public debate over the ethical limits to such neuroscience is long overdue. It may be hard to shift public attention away from genetics, which has so clearly shown its sinister side in the past. The spectre of eugenics, which reached its culmination in Nazi Germany, haunts both politicians and public. The fear that the ability to monitor and select for desirable characteristics will lead to the subjugation of the undesirable—or the merely unfashionable—is well-founded.
Not so long ago neuroscientists, too, were guilty of victimising the mentally ill and the imprisoned in the name of science. Their sins are now largely forgotten, thanks in part to the intractable controversy over the moral status of embryos. Anti-abortion lobbyists, who find stem-cell research and cloning repugnant, keep the ethics of genetic technology high on the political agenda. But for all its importance, the quarrel over abortion and embryos distorts public discussion of bioethics; it is a wonder that people in the field can discuss anything else.
In fact, they hardly do. America's National Institutes of Health has a hefty budget for studying the ethical, legal and social implications of genetics, but it earmarks nothing for the specific study of the ethics of neuroscience. The National Institute of Mental Health, one of its component bodies, has seen fit to finance a workshop on the ethical implications of “cyber-medicine”, yet it has not done the same to examine the social impact of drugs for “hyperactivity”, which 7% of American six- to eleven-year-olds now take. The Wellcome Trust, Britain's main source of finance for the study of biomedical ethics, has a programme devoted to the ethics of brain research, but the number of projects is dwarfed by its parallel programme devoted to genetics.
Uncontrollable fears
The worriers have not spent these resources idly. Rather, they have produced the first widespread legislative and diplomatic efforts directed at containing scientific advance. The Council of Europe and the United Nations have declared human reproductive cloning a violation of human rights. The Senate is soon to vote on a bill that would send American scientists to prison for making cloned embryonic stem cells.
Yet neuroscientists have been left largely to their own devices, restrained only by standard codes of medical ethics and experimentation. This relative lack of regulation and oversight has produced a curious result. When it comes to the brain, society now regards the distinction between treatment and enhancement as essentially meaningless. Taking a drug such as Prozac when you are not clinically depressed used to be called cosmetic, or non-essential, and was therefore considered an improper use of medical technology. Now it is regarded as just about as cosmetic, and as non-essential, as birth control or orthodontics. American legislators are weighing the so-called parity issue—the argument that mental treatments deserve the same coverage in health-insurance plans as any other sort of drug. Where drugs to change personality traits were once seen as medicinal fripperies, or enhancements, they are now seen as entitlements.
This flexible attitude towards neurotechnology—use it if it might work, demand it if it does—is likely to extend to all sorts of other technologies that affect health and behaviour, both genetic and otherwise. Rather than resisting their advent, people are likely to begin clamouring for those that make themselves and their children healthier and happier.
This might be bad or it might be good. It is a question that public discussion ought to try to settle, perhaps with the help of a regulatory body such as the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, which oversees embryo research in Britain. History teaches that worrying overmuch about technological change rarely stops it. Those who seek to halt genetics in its tracks may soon learn that lesson anew, as rogue scientists perform experiments in defiance of well-intended bans. But, if society is concerned about the pace and ethics of scientific advance, it should at least form a clearer picture of what is worth worrying about, and why.
the economist
Homepage:
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1143583
Comments
Hide the following 5 comments
Jabs Kill!
25.05.2002 14:09
If it wasn’t for the cruel deaths of 500 creatures a day at HLS, we would have no vaccines, which give you brain-damage and autism. We would not have treatments for AIDS, which was engineered at Fort Dettrick, Maryland in the 70’s to kill black people and we could not create featherless chickens.
Without GM crops, Monsanto could not sue farmers for infringing their patents, when local organic produce is contaminated. We would have no pesticides to spray crops, which give your kids allergies.
And we need clones for the Imperial Global Army, without which, we will have no ‘peace’ at the point of a machine gun.
We need unhindered reasearch and guinea-pigs for the injectable transponders, we are all to receive, by order or stealth.
Doctor Kildare
and lack of jabs kill more
25.05.2002 14:51
vaccine
not true
25.05.2002 20:13
both doing fine .... the risks of mercury and aids via dodgy monkey bayer organs, so glad real madrid beat them in the final ---
Dr Dare Kill
Inadequate Proof of Benefit of Vaccines
06.06.2002 15:33
Harold E. Buttram, MD
Science must begin with myths, and with the criticism of myths.
Philosophy of Science: A Personal Report," in C. A. Mace (ed.),
British Philosophy in the Mid-Century. Sir Karl Popper
In early August of last year congressional hearings were held in
Washington D.C. on the question of vaccine safety. Congressman
Dan Burton, Chairman of the U. S. House Government Reform
Committee, called the hearings.
On the weekend of October 2-3, 1999, an autism conference was
held at Cherry Hill, New Jersey, sponsored by the Autism
Research Institute of San Diego, California. Over 1,000 people
were in attendance, the great majority of whom were parents of
autistic children.
At one point in the meeting, when those parents who thought
their child's autism was caused by vaccines were asked to stand,
a large majority of the audience stood. With these and other
indications of growing public concerns about current childhood
immunization programs, it is hoped that this review will be of
timely interest.
Inadequate Proof of Benefit of Vaccines
It is true that there may be situations where extreme measures
may be justified, as the lesser of two evils, to preserve life
and health. The basic question, therefore, is whether the
benefits of current childhood vaccines outweigh the harm, or
whether the reverse is true.
As to the benefits of vaccines, polio has been eliminated from
the Western Hemisphere, and smallpox may have been eliminated
worldwide, although there are disturbing reports it is still to
be found in parts of the Far East. However, vaccine proponents
would have us believe that vaccines have been largely
responsible for controlling virtually all of the former
epidemics of killer diseases in the U.S.
With the exceptions cited above, the facts do not bear this out.
According to the records of the Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company, from 1911 to 1935 the four leading causes of childhood
deaths from infectious diseases in the U.S. were diphtheria,
pertussis (whooping cough), scarlet fever, and measles.
However, by 1945 the combined death rates from these causes had
declined by 95 percent, before the implementation of mass
immunization programs.(1) By far the greatest factors in this
decline were sanitation through public health measures, improved
nutrition, better housing with less crowded conditions and the
introduction of antibiotics. Also, the virulence of
microorganisms tends to become weakened or attenuated with the
passage of time and serial passages through human hosts.(2)
Safety Not Proven
It should be pointed out that today's children receive 22 or
more vaccines before school age, whereas today's senior citizens
received only one vaccine in their youth, the smallpox vaccine.
Some of these vaccines contain mercury. Although the impact of
this potentially toxic metal remains unknown as concerns the
vaccines.
With growing public concerns about potential adverse reactions
of these heavy burdens of foreign immunologic materials on the
immature immune systems of children, it is reasonable to ask
ourselves what is known about these reactions.
A small but growing minority of physicians and scientists are
becoming aware that safety testing for the various vaccines has
been woefully inadequate. As one of many examples, a 1994
special committee of the National Academy of Sciences published
a comprehensive review of the safety of the hepatitis B vaccine.
When the committee, which carried the responsibility for
determining the safety of vaccines by congressional mandate,
investigated five possible and plausible adverse effects, they
were unable to come to a conclusion for four of them because
they found that relevant research had not been done.(3)
The clear implication of this and other revelations(4)
concerning a general deficiency of safety testing in the vaccine
field, especially as concerns possible long-term side effects,
is that adverse reactions may be taking place on a large scale
without being recognized as to their true nature.
There is a school of thought that the so-called minor childhood
illnesses of former times, including measles, mumps, rubella
[German measles] and chickenpox, which entered the body through
the mucous membranes, served a necessary and positive purpose in
challenging and strengthening the immune system of these
membranes.(5)
In contrast, so the theory goes, the respective vaccines of
these diseases are injected by needle directly into the system
of the child, thereby bypassing the mucosal immune system. As a
result, mucosal immunity remains relatively weak and stunted in
many children, complications of which may be the rapid increase
in asthma and eczema now being seen, both in terms of frequency
and severity.(6)
This concept tends to be confirmed by four controlled studies,
widely separated geographically, in which vaccinated children
were found to have significantly more atopic disorders than
controls.(7-10) In commenting on the increased incidence of
asthma and other atopic disorders in the United Kingdom in the
article, "Measles and atopy in Guinea-Bissau," cited above, the
authors made the following comment:
The rise of allergic disease among children in the UK over the
past 30 years remains unexplained. One hypothesis is that
infections in early childhood prevent allergic sensitization,
and that successive generations of children have lost his
protection as their exposure to infectious disease in early life
has declined. Consequently the prevalence of atopy and
concomitant allergic disease has risen.
Threat of Brain Damage From the Vaccines
Perhaps the greatest concern with vaccines today rests with
their possible causal relation to the growing epidemic of
childhood autism, developmental delay, and attention deficit
hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).
Regarding the latter, recent news item stated that ADHD has
increased from 900,000 in 1991 to nearly 5 million today.(11)
Parenthetically, statistics may be open to question, but one
cannot question the observations of veteran elementary school
teachers who, in our experience, unanimously and emphatically
report a marked increase in this disorder in recent years.
Regarding autism, a recent survey mandated by the California
state legislature found an increase of 273 percent in California
in the past eleven years.(12) Reports from education departments
of several states and reports to the U.S. Congress on the
rapidly increasing needs of classrooms for developmentally
delayed children reflect comparable changes throughout the
nation.(13)
At present primary suspicion for this epidemic of
neurobehavioral disorders rests with the MMR
(measles-mumps-rubella) vaccine. Although scientific evidence
has not yet reached the standards of scientific proof, one
pioneer researcher in this area, Dr. Vijendra Singh, during his
tenure with the Department of Pharmacology, University of
Michigan, published the report of a study in which he found that
a large majority (84%) of autistic children tested had
antibodies to brain tissue in the form of antibodies to myelin
basic protein.
He also found a strong correlation between myelin basic protein
antibodies and antibodies to the MMR vaccine. Using an
immunoblotting technique, MMR antibody was found in 16 out of 27
(59%) autistic sera in contrast to 2 out of 20 (10%) normal
sera, which represents a 6-fold higher incidence of MMR antibody
in autistic children.(14)*
Working from another approach, Dr. Andrew Wakefield and
coworkers of the Royal Free Hospital in London found a possible
link between MMR vaccine, Crohn's disease of the bowel, and
autism.(16)
If the MMR vaccine is causing an autoimmune reaction involving
the brains of autistic children, what would be the mechanism? It
has already been pointed out that one of the differences between
the vaccine and the respective wild virus infections is that of
entry into the body (injections versus mucosal entry).
There is another difference: whereas with the wild viruses there
is serial passage through human hosts, in the case of the
vaccine, the measles virus is incubated in animal culture tissue
(chick embryo). Are these fundamental differences responsible
for the rapidly increasing incidence of childhood autism and
possibly other autoimmune disorders now being seen?
Although research in this area is in its infancy, we do know
some things. As purely genetic material, viruses are highly
susceptible to the process of "jumping genes," in which they may
incorporate genetic material from tissue in which they are
cultured.(17) The process may be further affected by the fact
that protein sequences in the measles virus have been found to
be similar to those found in brain tissues.(18) With the
exception of the pioneering work of Dr. Singh, these are
questions which remain unexplored and unanswered.
Stealth Virus
A similar process may have taken place with the oral (Sabin)
polio vaccine, which is cultured in monkey kidney tissue. Years
ago, Dr. John Martin, then serving as director of the viral
oncology branch within the U.S. Food and Drug Administration,
found foreign DNA in contemporary polio vaccines. He later
learned that a simian (monkey) cytomegalic virus had been found
in all of the eleven African green monkeys imported for
production of the polio vaccine.(19)
After leaving the FDA, Dr. Martin took a position as professor
of pathology with the University of Southern California. There
he tested blood samples from patients with chronic fatigue
syndrome, autism and other nervous system disorders.
This work led to his discovery of unique cell-destroying viruses
that were not recognized by the immune system. Termed "stealth
viruses," some of which he thought had clearly originated from
the simian cytomegalic virus, these viruses were missing
specific genes, which, if expressed, would induce immune
responses from the host.(20,21)
It should be admitted that this work is preliminary, and no
definitive conclusions can be drawn from it, but the need for
further intensive investigation should be apparent.
Overdue in the opinion of many, on June 17, 1999, U.S.
government officials voted to withdraw their recommendation for
the use of the live oral polio vaccine and to recommend
exclusive use of the inactive (Salk) polio vaccine, because the
former has been the only remaining source of polio cases, though
rare, in the U.S. since 1979.
In summary, it is possible that either the MMR or the oral polio
vaccines, by mechanisms described above, may induce a process of
encephalitis or brain inflammation, which may be highly
prevalent but as yet rarely recognized for its true nature.
Genetic Implications of "Live Virus" Vaccines
In an October 1967 letter to the editor of Science magazine,
Joshua Lederberg, Department of Genetics, Stanford University
School of Medicine, warned about live-virus vaccines: In point
of fact, we (are practicing) biological engineering on a rather
large scale by use of live viruses in mass immunization
campaigns...Crude virus preparations, such as some in common use
at the present time, are also vulnerable to frightful mishaps of
contamination and misidentification.(22)
With this sobering warning, made over 3 decades ago, it may
sadly prove to be prophetic for what we are seeing today.
Damage May Yet Escalate
As another concept, it is highly pertinent that many of today's
children are second-generation vaccines; that is, they are born
to mothers previously vaccinated with the measles, mumps, and/or
rubella vaccines.
It is possible the reaction rates in the second-generation
vaccines may be happening on a much larger scale due to previous
sensitization of mothers from their vaccines, this sensitization
being transmitted in turn to the fetus during pregnancy.(23) If
this process is taking place, something we cannot know until
appropriate research is done, there predictably will be
additional increases in autism beyond that already taking place,
should the process be continued into yet another third
generation.
Time may prove that vaccine programs went awry when they
deviated from the most basic of all medical ethics, the right of
parents to accept or reject vaccines for their children. Freedom
of choice provides a system of checks and balances now lacking.
At the very least, this would provide the parents the power to
compel better safety screening of vaccines. The remedy? The
government should stop violating the right of informed consent,
or the parents' right to accept or reject vaccines for their
children based on full and uncensored disclosure of pros and
cons.
Today, we have a system in which vaccine production by the
pharmaceutical companies is largely self-regulated. Naturally
these companies are interested in profits from their products
which, in itself, is not wrong. However, when arbitrary
decisions in the mandating of vaccines are made by government
bureaucracies, which frequently work hand-in-glove with the
pharmaceutical industry, with no recourse open to parents, we
have all the potential ingredients for a tragedy of historic
proportions.
Conclusion
In closing, it may be appropriate to cite an item which, though
seemingly small in itself, may be indicative of the problems
with which we are faced. In January 1993, a scientific journal
published the results of a study of 89 children with adverse
clinical reactions, following administrations of various
combinations of vaccines.(24)
Detailed case histories were taken and blood tests were done to
examine various parameters of cellular and humoral immunity. It
was found that children with adverse reactions had marked
increases in abnormal blood parameters as compared with children
who had had no reactions.
The first study of its kind as far as we are aware, perhaps the
most striking and significant feature of the report is not the
results of the tests, which might have been anticipated, so much
as the fact that it came from a foreign country, Czechoslovakia.
American science has been foremost in the development and
promotion of vaccines. That it should be laggard in basic safety
testing, of which this study may represent one of the modest
beginnings, is a sad reflection on the American scientific
community. We expect and should demand more from American
science and medicine.
Footnote *
This does not detract from the fact that these diseases, such as
measles, may have complications resulting in brain injury.
Measles can precipitate subacute sclerosing panencephalitis and
encephalomyelitis. The latter illness may follow not only
measles, but rubella, varicella, mumps, influenza, and other
childhood diseases, just as smallpox and rabies vaccinations may
be complicated by postvaccinal encephalomyelitis. In these
cases, the vaccine itself could cause similar sequelae through
molecular mimicking.(15)
References/Notes
1. Dublin L. Health Progress, 1936-1945. New York, Metropolitan
Life Insurance Co., 1948, p. 12.
2. Biodati CJM. Immunization: History, Ethics Law and Health.
Integral Aspects Inc., Windson, Ontario, 1999, pp. 104-106.
3. Stratton KR, Howe CJ, Johnston RB, Jr. (Eds). Adverse Events
Associated with Childhood Vaccines: Evidence Bearing on
Causality. Institute of Medicine, National Academy Press,
Washington, DC, 1994, pp. 211-236.
4. Buttram HE. The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act: A
Critique. The Townsend Letter for Doctors and Patients, October
1998, pp. 66-68.
5. Incao P. Supporting children's health, Alternative Medicine
Digest, Issue 19, pp. 54-59.
6. One survey showed a 46 percent increase in death rate
nationwide from asthma between 1977 and 1991. Philadelphia
Inquirer, Dec. 8, 1994, p. A22. In some areas, the incidence of
asthma has increased 200 percent in the past 20 years. The Human
Ecologist, National HEAL, Fall 1992, Vol. 55, No. 6.
7. Sheneen SO, et al. Measles and atopy in Guinea-Bissau. Lancet
1996;347:1792-1796.
8. Odent MR. Pertussis vaccination and asthma: Is there a link?
JAMA 1994;271:229-231.
9. Alm JS, et al. Atopy in children of families with an
anthroposophic lifestyle. Lancet 1999;353:1485-1488.
10. Kemp T, et al. Is infant immunization a risk factor for
childhood asthma or allergy? Epidemiology 1997;8(6):678-680.
11. Jennings L. Increasing Ritalin doses in school children
questioned. The Intelligencer, Sept. 21, 1998, pp. D1-D2.
12. Changes in Population of Persons with Autism and Pervasive
Developmental Disorders in California's Developmental Services
System: 1987-1998, a Report of the Legislature, March 1, 1999.
13. Department of Development Services, 1600 North Street, Room
240, Sacramento, CA 95814; Assessment, Evaluation and Support
Unit, Special Education Division, California Department of
Education; Total Enrollment and Percent of Pupils with
Disabilities by Federal Office of Special Education Programs,
New Jersey State Department of Education; Illinois State Board
of Education Report (8-20-98). Rhode Island Department of
Elementary and Secondary Education, annual Statistical Reports;
Sixteenth through Twentieth Annual Reports to Congress on the
implementation of The Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act,
14.Singh V, Yang V. Serological association of measles virus and
human herpes virus-6 with brain autoantibodies in autism.
Clinical Immunology and Immunopathology 1998;88(l):105-108.
15. Jubelt B, Harter DH. Viral Infections in Merritt's Textbook
of Neurology. Seventh edition, Lea and Febiger, Philadelphia,
1984, pp. 99-104.
16.Wakefield AJ, et al. Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia,
non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in
children. Lancet 1998;351:637-641. 17. Kumar S, Miller LK.
Effects of serial passage of Autographa California nuclear poly
hedrosis virus in cell culture. Virus Research 1987;7:335-349.
18. Jahnke U, et al. Sequence homology between certain viral
proteins and proteins related to encephalomyelitis and neuritis.
Science 1985;29:282-284.
19. Horowitz L. Emerging Viruses, AIDS and Ebola. Tetrahedron
Publishing Group, Rockport, Massachusetts, 1997, pp. 488-493.
20. Martin WJ, et al. African green monkey origin of the
atypical cytopathic "stealth virus" isolated from a patient with
chronic fatigue syndrome. Clinical and Diagnostic Virology
1994;4:93-103.
21. Martin WJ, et al. Stealth virus epidemic in Mohave Valley,
I: Initial report of virus isolation. Pathobiology
1997;65(l):351-356.
22. Lederberg J. Letter to the editor. Science, Oct. 20, 1967,
p. 313.
23.Gupta S, et al. Dysregulate immune system in children with
autism, beneficial effects of intravenous globulin on autistic
characteristics. J of Autism and Developmental Disorders
1996;26(4):439-452. (In this article on page 450 it was stated,
"We theorize that the high titers of rubella
antibody...presented in mothers of children with autism would be
transplacentally transferred and may persist for a prolonged
period in the child. When such a child gets MMR immunization,
rubella antigen may complex with preexisting antibodies and such
complexes might play a role in pathogenesis of autistic
features.")
24. Immunologic findings in children with adnormal reactions
after vaccination. Czechoslovakia Pediatrics 1993;48(1);9-12.
Dr. Buttram is a diplomat of the American Board of Environmental
Medicine and a practicing physician in Quakertown, Pennsylvania.
E-mail:
Medical Sentinel March/April 2000 5:49-52
---------------------------------------------------------------
DR. MERCOLA'S COMMENT:
Dr. Buttram has done a great work in providing a current summary
of the state of the art of the vaccine dilemma. He is especially
gifted at compiling this information.
J Bloggs
Artificial way to Nivana
24.12.2007 06:16
brain. I suggest to experiment about it.
H.M.H.B.D.Bandara
e-mail:
hiran25tha@yahoo.com