Earlier this week, The Panic Virus, my book on the controversy over vaccines and autism, was released in paperback. While there haven't been many scientific advances in this particular issue since the hardcover edition was published -- the evidence supporting vaccines' paramount place in public health efforts and the total lack of corroboration supporting a causal connection between vaccines and autism remain as strong today as they were a year ago -- there have been new developments in the story. Their coverage highlights an enduring passion of mine: The need for reliable, responsible science journalism.
These revelations, were, for the most part, reported in a way that accurately emphasized the moral and scientific bankruptcy of anti-vaccine claims. Not surprisingly, none of this diminished Wakefield's or the Geiers' standing among true believers. (Several months after the BMJ report was published, an anti-vaccine leader was quoted The New York Times Magazine as saying, "To our community, Andrew Wakefield is Nelson Mandela and Jesus Christ rolled up into one.")
What might be more surprising is the legacy of years of dispatches that created a false equivalency between verifiable facts and Wakefield's and the Geiers' outlandish allegations. These began almost the moment Wakefield held a press conference for his since retracted 1998 paper: Despite the fact that he was virtually alone in recommending the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine be dropped, the London dailies ran stories like "Ban Three-In-One Jab, Urge Doctors" and "Doctors Link Autism to MMR Vaccination." For more than a decade, credulous (or lazy) reporters who were either unwilling or unable to grasp the basic scientific principles at hand regularly regurgitated the most specious anti-vaccine talking points. One of the more cringe-inducing examples occurred in an infamous 2007 story by CBS News's Sharyl Attkisson, who wrote, "There is no definitive research proving a link between vaccines and autism or ADD, but there is also no definitive research ruling it out." That statement betrays a profoundly mistaken understanding of the theory of falsifiability, which states that in order for a hypothesis to be a legitimate subject of inquiry, it has to have a single, corresponding null hypothesis--that is, it needs to be disprovable. Saying that there is not definitive research ruling out a link between vaccines and autism is like saying there is not definitive research ruling out a link between watching CBS News and rectal cancer: It's technically true only because it's functionally meaningless.
Unfortunately, there is no restart button when it comes to public consciousness, and it will take quite a while to eradicate the effects of all of the fear and misinformation that were injected into the population. Don't take my word for this -- look at the data: One poll taken early last year found that only 52 percent of Americans knew vaccines did not cause autism. (Eighteen percent said they believed, despite the overwhelming amount of evidence to the contrary, that vaccines could cause autism; 30 percent said they weren't sure.) In October, Pediatrics reported that more than 10 percent of parents refuse to give their children some vaccines or adhere to "alternative" vaccine schedules that are based on little more than guesswork.
The result has been a flourishing of vaccine-preventable diseases. A year after 10 infants died in California of pertussis (or whooping cough) infections, nationwide outbreaks continued to spread. While many of those were due to under-vaccinated adults who didn't realize they were due for a pertussis booster, there were countless more instances where the disease was spread among deliberately unvaccinated kids. (The best (or worst) example of this occurred at the Blue Mountain School, a small private school about 40 miles southwest of Roanoke, Virginia. It was shut down for a week after roughly half of its students were infected with pertussis; according to local health officials, most of the parents of the infected students had chosen not to have them vaccinated.)
Even more alarming were the measles outbreaks that cropped up in virtually every region of the country, from the Northeast to the Pacific Northwest and from the Gulf Coast to Southern California. Unlike whooping cough, measles infections were spread almost exclusively by unvaccinated children and adolescents. The largest outbreak was in Minnesota, where anti-vaccine activists had targeted a community of Somali immigrants that appeared to be experiencing higher-than-expected rates of autism. That outbreak began when a deliberately unvaccinated child returned from Africa infected with the disease; by the time it had run its course, more than a dozen children had been hospitalized. As of December 8, the U.S. had recorded 221 laboratory-confirmed cases of measles in 2011 -- about four times more than usual and the most in any year since 1996.
***
A few months ago, one of my students in MIT's Graduate Program in Science Writing came to my office to discuss what was becoming an overwhelming anxiety: She was worried, she said, that she was embarking on her career at the precise moment when the opportunities for science writers were at an all-time low. I certainly understand her concern: The seemingly never-ending contraction going on in the media industry has resulted in a shedding of specialists in every journalistic medium. That does not, however, mean that the public's hunger for information about science, medicine, and technology is shrinking; indeed, as our continuing struggle against vaccine-preventable diseases demonstrates, the need for reliable, accurate information is arguably greater than ever.
Those realities have created an enormous amount of opportunity for budding science writers, blogging networks, and non-traditional newsgathering operations -- but with those opportunities come responsibility. The fact that a specific story is controversial (or that it is promoted by a particularly outspoken celebrity) does not mean it deserves the oxygen it needs to survive.
Make no mistake: The cost of misinformation is great indeed. In a nation of more than 300 million, a couple of hundred of measles infections might not seem like a lot, but we need only look across the Atlantic to see how these figures can explode in an incredibly short amount of time. In 2006 and 2007, France had an average of 40 measles cases per year. In 2011, the country recorded more than 15,000 cases, including more than 650 cases of severe measles pneumonia, 16 cases of encephalitis and six deaths. A recent WHO report said 90% of measles cases in Western Europe were in "adolescents and adults who had not been vaccinated or for whom vaccination history was not reported."* The greatest risk of all, of course, is to infants, who are both too young to receive the MMR vaccine -- the first dose isn't given until kids are 12 months old -- and are the ones most likely to suffer serious complications. We owe it to them, and to ourselves, to make sure we do a better job in the future.
*Correction, January 30, 2012: A previous version of this sentence incorrectly said the WHO's statement about unvaccinated adults and adolescents was made in reference to France; in fact, it was in reference to all of Western Europe. For the period under discussion, France had approximately 65 percent of all measles infections in Western Europe.
Follow Seth Mnookin on Twitter: www.twitter.com/sethmnookin
I know families with autistic children what something, ANYTHING to blame, but putting other children and adults at risks over a false connection between autism and vaccinations is wrong. And the Anti-Science people, the kind that wrongly think diseases are good, or "Gods punishments" please come out of the dark ages.
One thing I do know for sure, Autism has a cause that needs to be identified.
http://www.rescuepost.com/files/gr-autism_and_vaccines_world_special_report1.pdf
One of the analogies used is that ASD may present in some ways as to cancer. That is there are differing environmental factors interplaying with a genetic susceptibility.
Thus simplistic equations offered and believed to be discounted by the sledge hammer of epidemiology / statistics are yet to be fully explored.
It is these problematic issues in definition and understanding of the various factors that are implicated in ASD that lead one to suspect that we do not have the current capability to agree on even the simple concepts ...
Nothing about vaccines and autism has been proven, other than 1. thimerosal doesn't seem to cause autism, and 2. the measles virus in the MMR vaccine doesn't seem to cause autism. From these two specific findings you and others are generalizing in a fallacious way to say that vaccines don't cause autism. I challenge you read well-reasoned books written by someone in the opposition, for example Bryan Jepson, MD, before claiming to practice responsible journalism.
Phyllis Wheeler
www.phylliswheeler.com/CuringAutismBlog
So, let me get this straight: The two prongs that underlay the entire notion have, you admit, been disproved, but "balance" demands that "responsible journalism" somehow keep it afloat regardless?
Each vaccine is tested by itself in subjects who are not infants or tiny children. So when the vaccines are administered in my children, with a number of vaccines given at one time, and as early as the first day of life, these are not conditions which have been tested and proven. My children become test subjects. And there's no follow-up to see what the result might have been.
The autism epidemic started in about 1990. Scientists are coming to accept the idea that there are environmental triggers for autism. The question becomes, what changed in our environment at about that time that could be a causing factor? The number of vaccines expected for tiny children went up substantially beginning about then.
There could be other major changes that happened in about 1990 in the environment. I think we also ought to look at plastics additives.
Re: your "enduring passion…the need for reliable, responsible science journalism"
Science has yet to determine the underlying mechanism of gravity. So “science” is not all so cut and dried as you infer in this article. We only know that we don’t know the underling cause.
But…look at “Thalidomide and the Power of the Drug Companies by Sjostrom and Nilsson (1972) where it states that "Every biologist knows that within a group of living organisms there is always an individual variation in the sensitivity towards, for example, a poison or a drug. Because of natural biological variation some individuals are affected more than others and some are perhaps not affected at all." p.162
So responsible scientific journalism, if it is responsible and scientific, requires inclusion of reports on sensitive subsets of children. Take Hanna Poling, for instance. See http://adventuresinautism.blogspot.com/2008/03/julie-gerberding-admits-on-cnn-that.html
Einstein published General Relativity in 1916. It explains exactly what gravity is. The same theory provides the foundation for the Big Bang as well.
Sometimes, if you are going to critique "science" you should start by learning a little.
It does not. It only explains the behavior.
We know that masses attract. Galileo measured its behavior. Newton described its behavior in terms of laws of physics. And Einstein explained its behavior in terms of curved space.
But no one knows the underlying mechanism that causes the attraction.
Unconscionable usurious ‘odious debt’ is the fundamental problem with the vaccine injury board. Nine out of ten children with vaccine injuries are unable to collect. This means that nine out of ten times the manufacturers of the vaccinations that injured walk away with impunity and leave the families in lifelong debt without ever receiving any cash. They are left caring for a child that requires 24/7 care and a debt that can never be paid. This is not a fair system we have. If vaccine injury cases were allowed to wend their way through the courts then it would be a different outcome for these families. If lawsuits were allowed many pharmaceutical companies would settle before the cases went to trial but more importantly they would pay extra attention to safety. That’s right vaccine safety – what a novel idea. For now, most parents carry the burden alone without the help of our government or the vaccine injury board and this is unconscionable usurious ‘odious debt’ on the parents, the child and our society caused by a jab. The only problem is the parents or society received no money but we have the debt. The pharmaceutical companies made a profit on the sale of millions of vaccinations and the parents and society are left with the debt. In Greece they can and should walk away from the debt but here in the US we have no easy out. And the contingent liability needs to get booked.
And unsuccessful claimants are reimbursed their legal expenses so long as "the petition was brought in good faith and there was a reasonable basis for the claim" (which has created a cottage industry). And Table injuries succeed by default.
Ah, Sharon, we have a fiat currency. Greece no longer does. This is even weirder than your other assertions.
In accounting, a contingent liability and the related contingent loss are recorded with a journal entry only if the contingency is both probable and the amount can be estimated.
As I have posted in prior posts on this thread the costs of ASD are enormous and whether we can agree on the exact amount; it will be in the trillions.
Children abandoned by Greek parents as cuts also sees country running out of medicine
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2085163/Children-dumped-streets-Greek-parents-afford-them.html#ixzz1jmJxSHfe
The parents of ASD children are in a tight spot with costly therapy, childcare and remedial education classes for their ASD children. What will happen after parents are bankrupted by an insensitive and unfair society that poisons their children and refuses to accept liability and financial responsibly for the care of their autistic child. The burden will be too great for many parents. How will they cope? They are strong and fiercely protective of their children but even when things were going well, economically these parents were not living the dream they envisioned before they became parents. Now with the banks illegally stealing the homes of millions of Americans and no end in sight to the fraudulent banking practices that thrust us into the worst economic recession since the Great Depression I wonder how a family will cope let alone a family with a child that has special needs. Continued.
Thing is, this brain *injury* is very specific. It is caused due to an encephalopathy. My son had a 75 word vocabulary with sign language and was charted in his med records as being above mark for neuro-development. After being vaccinated with 9 vaccines he couldn't speak for 3 years - not wouldn't and he subsequently received an autism diagnosis. I don't think that vaccines are the trigger for all cases of autism but I certainly think that they are the trigger for my son's diagnosis.
Vaccines certainly cause encephalopathy. I could list a long list of studies that prove this but I'll just list one link a US government site for evidence.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Vaccine Injury Table
http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/vaccinetable.html
Encephalopathy certainly can place a child on the autistic spectrum. Again I can list a bunch of peer-review here but I'll stick to what the government says on this as well.
Continued
Medical freedom, personal liberty, and autonomy over what goes into our bodies, are God-given rights, despite what pharma would wish.
http://www.canaryparty.org/
Ours is a well-reasoned, moderate position. We seek the right to refuse inoculations, abortifacients, cytotoxic chemotherapy/radiotherapy, genetically-modified food, fluoridated water, mercury-amalgam fillings, and the like. The State does not own our bodies!
In a world in which informed consent, the Precautionary Principle, the Declaration of Helinski, and the Nuremberg Code have been trashed by the pharma cartel, the public is rightfully beginning to push-back.
http://www.omsj.org/
I take it you're not going to elaborate on your posting of bibliographic entries that seemingly had no bearing on much of anything.
The very recent literature citations from the 2012 issue of Lupus that I posted have all made it to PubMed. They are very relevant to the vaccine-autism controversy. I suggest that we all start to learn all that we can about "ASIA". I guarantee that there will be many more publications on this topic in the future. Here's the link to one of the articles:
“The spectrum of ASIA: 'Autoimmune (Auto-inflammatory) Syndrome induced by Adjuvants'.”
Agmon-Levin N, Hughes G, Shoenfeld Y.
Lupus. 2012;21(2):118-20.
http://lup.sagepub.com/content/21/2/118.long
“During the past year a new syndrome was introduced and termed ASIA, ‘Autoimmune (Auto-inflammatory) Syndrome induced by Adjuvants’.1 This syndrome assembles a spectrum of immune-mediated diseases triggered by an adjuvant stimulus.2 – 4”
“Giant cell arteritis and polymyalgia rheumatica after influenza vaccination: report of 10 cases and review of the literature.”
Soriano A, Verrecchia E, Marinaro A, Giovinale M, Fonnesu C, Landolfi R, Manna R.
Lupus. 2012;21(2):153-7.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22235046?dopt=Citation
“Giant cell arteritis (GCA) and polymyalgia rheumatica (PMR) are inflammatory rheumatic diseases common in people over the age of 50 years. Herein, we report 10 cases of previously healthy subjects who developed GCA/PMR within 3 months of influenza vaccination (Inf-V). A Medline search uncovered additional 11 isolated cases of GCA/PMR occurring after Inf-V. We discuss the role of individual susceptibility, the potential function of immune adjuvants as triggers of autoimmunity post-vaccination, and the correlation of our observation with the 'ASIA' syndrome, i.e. autoimmune/inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants and including post-vaccination phenomena.”
Ratajczak also looks at a factor that hasn't been widely discussed: human DNA contained in vaccines. That's right, human DNA. Ratajczak reports that about the same time vaccine makers took most thimerosal out of most vaccines (with the exception of flu shots which still widely contain thimerosal), they began making some vaccines using human tissue. Ratajczak says human tissue is currently used in 23 vaccines. She discusses the increase in autism incidences corresponding with the introduction of human DNA to MMR vaccine, and suggests the two could be linked. Ratajczak also says an additional increased spike in autism occurred in 1995 when chicken pox vaccine was grown in human fetal tissue.
Why could human DNA potentially cause brain damage? The way Ratajczak explained it to me: "Because it's human DNA and recipients are humans, there's homologous recombinaltion tiniker. That DNA is incorporated into the host DNA. Now it's changed, altered self and body kills it. Where is this most expressed? The neurons of the brain. Now you have body killing the brain cells and it's an ongoing inflammation. It doesn't stop, it continues through the life of that individual."
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20049118-10391695.html
Sweet. Perhaps you'd like to explain what "homologous recombinaltion tiniker" is for everyone.
What does this mean for healthcare and the insurers in our country? They can’t kick you off their roles, they can’t deny you for pre-existing conditions and they can’t limit your lifetime benefits. Even if you are a staunch believer in the aggressive vaccination schedule and the genetic link to autism you still are going to pay through higher health insurance premiums and higher education costs. This has become our problem. Simply put, the health insurers will have to up the premiums to levels unsustainable and never heard of before and if they are bankrupted by these costs and it becomes a government sponsored program we are still on the hook for these costs. By not assigning blame to anyone we have assured that ordinary citizens will pay for these costs and that the middleclass and the poor will bear the brunt of these costs while the environmental causes go by and large unnamed.
Given that the costs are real what are your thoughts as to how we are going to pay for them?
2. You also have an error from an unstated assumption. You are assuming that the retrospective data will reflect the currently diagnosed population.
Since (a) historically there has been a very strong bias towards diagnosising the more severe cases, (b) the more recent data clearly shows that the main driver of the increase in diagnosis is milder cases--often cases that are so mild there are no ASD medical interventions, your unstated assumption introduces a another massive error to your calculation.
You also failed to consider what the medical costs for 674,377 kids without autism would be.
Bottom line: your analysis is very shoddy.
W&N
2. The study attributed the medical costs of autism and stated that is was a conservative number because most children were only getting basic medical care; that number could increase, the study says as new therapies become available and mainstream. The only thing that is shoddy is your attacks.
If you are so adamant that the numbers are incorrect why don't you put forth your own number? Is it because no matter what way you look at the data it is going to cost our society in the trillions. I think anyone that has to take care of an autistic child or a child on the autism spectrum knows the cost and the numbers in the study confirms their hunches.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/health/jan-june11/autismcosts_04-13.html
http://2010.census.gov/2010census/ See Age and Sex Composition
http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/161/4/343
Wrong again. As repeatedly pointed out to you, the cost figure that you're using from a study that you haven't read doesn't admit a 1/110 incidence extrapolation, *and* pooling everyone aged 0-18 makes no sense at all for comparison purposes, even when you're not screwing up the application of life expectancy figures on top of it.
I used the study's number of $3.2M lifetime cost. The table on PBS's website does a nice job of breaking down those numbers by ranges of ages so the $3.2M number is a compilation of different costs for different age groups spanning their lifetime to come up with the $3.2M. Your attacks have no merit and even if they did anyone can go to these links I have provided and do their own calculation. Links provided again for your convenience and other readers interested in doing their own calculation.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/health/jan-june11/autismcosts_04-13.html
http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/features/counting-autism.html
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/2006-releases/press04252006.html
http://2010.census.gov/2010census/#/panel-2
http://vactruth.com/2012/01/05/argentina-gsk-vaccine-trial/
http://vactruth.com/2012/01/14/dies-in-mothers-arms/
http://vactruth.com/2011/08/23/vaccine-ingredients-non-ionic-surfactants-tween-80-triton-x-100-nonoxynol-9/
HPV vaccine, pneumococcal vaccines, DPT vaccines, and Hep B vaccines, all contain aluminum! The aluminum containing vaccines have ALL been associated with sudden deaths. Just look at the VAERS database for confirmation. Most of the marketed flu innoculations contain nonionic surfactants as allegedly "inactive" excipients, according to the CDC. But they are far from inactive. We are being defrauded and endangered.
“Vaccine Excipient & Media Summary”
“This section begins with a summary of the excipients included in licensed vaccines in the United States, as of the revision date at the bottom of the page. Excipients are inactive ingredients of a drug product necessary for production of a finished pharmaceutical formulation.”
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/b/excipient-table-1.pdf
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/b/excipient-table-2.pdf
This is FRAUD pure and simple. Neurotoxic metals, endocrine disruptors, phase transfer catalysts, ionophores, and non-human DNA are NOT inactive. It’s time that they were called-out on their lies!
Now you're just flailing wildly.
A number of the vaccines cause autism crowd are in court for healthcare fraud.
I suppose this is inevitable when you have a business that separates parents from their money--often to the tune of $10,000+ per month based on utter BS.
Sadly, there are a remarkable number of parents simply don't care enough about the facts to even read the facts of the trial in Argentina--much less try and follow the science.
Most parents are smart enough to ask for details...like exposure dose etc...
Good news: the courts clearly do care about the facts. The only question left is how many of the anti-vaccs will end up as convicted felons?
W&N
Is the aluminum, mercury, surfactants, and non-human DNA in vaccines acting as sensitizers for the Shwartzman reaction? I recommend that we all read Chapter 3 of the book titled "Thrombohemorrhagic Phenomena" by Hans Selye, before the last copies disappear. This book should be required reading for all medical school curricula.
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/smartvax-versus-maxvax/
Here are my references! Where are yours? Do you two have some disclosures to make? Anyone who posts here, with ties to pharma, either direct or indirect, really should disclose those ties. Don't you agree?
Strupp W, Weidinger G, Scheller C, Ehret R, Ohnimus H, Girschick H, et al. Treatment of cells with detergent activates caspases and induces apoptotic cell death. The Journal of membrane biology. 2000;175:181-9.
Preté PSC, Gomes K, Malheiros SVP, Meirelles NC, de Paula E. Solubilization of human erythrocyte membranes by non-ionic surfactants of the polyoxyethylene alkyl ethers series. Biophysical Chemistry. 2002;97:45-54.
Prete PSC, Malheiros SVP, Meirelles, NC, dePaula, E. Quantitative assessment of human erythrocyte membrane solubilization by Triton X-100. Biophysical Chemistry. 2002;97:1-5.
Joshi M, Pathak S, Sharma S, Patravale V. Design and in vivo pharmacodynamic evaluation of nanostructured lipid carriers for parenteral delivery of artemether: Nanoject. International journal of pharmaceutics. 2008;364:119-26.
Gilman S, Koller M, Black RS, Jenkins L, Griffith SG, Fox NC, et al. Clinical effects of Abeta immunization (AN1792) in patients with AD in an interrupted trial. Neurology. 2005;64:1553-62.
Tan SY, Yamanuha J. Charles Robert Richet (1850-1935): discoverer of anaphylaxis. Singapore medical journal. 2010;51:184-5.
Vaughan W. Strange Malady. New York, NY, U.S.A.: Doubleday, Doran & Company, Inc; 1941.
Huber B. [100 years of allergy: Clemens von Pirquet - his idea of allergy and its immanent concept of disease]. Wiener klinische Wochenschrift. 2006;118:573-9.
Wow, that's the promptest invocation of the pharma shill gambit I've seen yet. Would you care to respond to the takedown of the assertion "Historically, the words 'anaphylaxis' and 'allergy' were created to describe vaccine injury" that was provided to you? I mean, given that it's a simple repetition of material found elsewhere, I figured fair was fair.
Anyway, why don't you "disclose" *your* "ties," whatever they may be? It's a demand that makes as much sense as yours.
Strupp et al. (2000): I can only see the abstract. It appears to be apropos of pretty much nothing, but as you no doubt have a copy, by all means fill in the blanks. In vitro, I presume? Quantities? Motivation? Thanks.
Preté et al. (2002a, 2002b): Ah, it's becoming clear. Are you asserting that the trace amount of surfactant left in a vaccine dose from manufacturing is going to cause massive hemolysis or something? (Meningoencephalitis? You mean as in *herbicide poisoning*?) Don't you think this might, you know, have been noticed at some point?
Joshi et al. (2008): Apropos of nothing whatever, but I'm sure you have something planned for it. A little voice in my head says "death chips," but maybe that's the death chips talking.
Gilman et al. (2005): Alzheimer disease, meningoencephalitis, *and* immunization. This one's a keeper. Relevance appears to be adjacency of the words.
Tan & Yamanuha (2010): Yah, great. It still wasn't "coined to describe vaccine injury."
Vaughan (1941): Ditto.
Huber (2006): Can't you alphabetize these? Same as the previous two, this time in German!
Anything else?
Help me understand! Why would anyone wish to inject or be injected with aluminum? Hep B vaccine, DPT vaccine, and Gardasil contain aluminum. See Table 1 of the recent paper by Kawahara, “Link between Aluminum and the Pathogenesis of Alzheimer's Disease: The Integration of the Aluminum and Amyloid Cascade Hypotheses.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3056430/
See also Table 1 in the recent paper “Do aluminum vaccine adjuvants contribute to the rising prevalence of autism?” by Lucija Tomljenovic and Christopher A. Shaw, 2011.
http://omsj.org/reports/tomljenovic%202011.pdf
Non-ionic surfactants, e.g. Triton 100 and Tween 80, found in many of today’s marketed vaccines, have shown the ability to induce apoptotic cell death, hemolysis, and meningoencephalitis. Aluminum hydroxide gels have been used as vaccine adjuvants for many years. There is a well-known relationship between hemolytic activity and adsorption capacity of aluminum hydroxide adjuvants.
Who would put mercury, aluminum, PCBs, DDT, dioxins, etc in to their kids bodies? All these chemicals are found in human breast milk....
Seriously, how many 1000s of times do these errors have to be pointed out?
W&N