The coronavirus has caused strong emotional reactions in almost everyone, literally worldwide – from worry, in its mildest form, to fear, to outright panic among many. No corner of the earth appears to have been spared, this is indeed a global event that is affecting people indiscriminately.
When it comes to being scared, I am no exception.
The immediate and main concerns are health-related, amplified by the fact that we still know much too little to determine exactly how contagious and how deadly this virus may turn out to be; the go-to reference appears to be the Spanish flu from a hundred years ago that killed 500 million people. Following close behind are all worries tied in to the direct impact on economics and finances. The reference for this angle appears to be the Great Depression from the 1930’s, another stomach-churning comparison that makes most of us want to hide under a rock.
But the truth is - neither one scares me quite as much as the long-term consequences this outbreak is likely to lead to.
First, as many have pointed out already, we need to stop calling it “social distancing”. Social is what we want to be; physically close is what we are trying to avoid.
That said, we’ve been at this for a while, what with technology and all of today’s virtual realities. Kids would rather play with each other in cyber-world, each in their own rooms, than play outside where they can develop the art of reading body language, interpreting facial expressions and tone of voice, of being able to communicate while looking people in the eye - you know… social skills. Teenagers are increasingly staying home, watching Netflix and messaging with friends rather than going to catch a movie and hanging out afterwards, socializing. Adults, rather than physically going into stores, are shopping more and more online, thus missing out on that spontaneous conversation with the cashier, a stranger, or an acquaintance. Texting has replaced phoning, because… why really? Nobody ever has a good answer. It takes longer to type than talk, plus talking gets you an immediate response and an actual exchange. Another spontaneous, intuitive experience going the way of the dodo bird.
With this virus, we are not only being encouraged to communicate virtually and to avoid disease by keeping a safe, healthy distance - we are being made to fear any physical proximity, or worse yet, actual contact. It’s only been a couple of weeks, and we already see hand-shaking and double-cheek kissing differently than we did a month ago. What impact will this have when the message persists over the next few weeks and months? Will we ever go back to instinctive physical contact?
The result I worry about is the ultimate disconnect between people. Our strength, as a humanity, lies in that very connection, the one that springs from closeness and unprompted exchanges of ideas and human reactions that are as unique as the people involved. Our unity is our greatest asset in the face of any harm that may befall us, and the powers that be have nothing on us if we are bonded to each other. But if we are scattered and disconnected, we are more easily divisible, and conquerable. And it seems that we are being encouraged to go that route step by step, and it’s being sold to us under the guise of convenience, and, more and more, personal safety.
But then one has to wonder - will shopping in person even be much of a thing anymore?
What will be significant during this particular economic crisis will be the eradication of small businesses. I fear most of them will not recover at all, and among those who do, the question is whether or not they will want to bother rebuilding. Restaurants, bars, mom and pop stores, the local hardware place, the flower shop, the market - many will disappear, and the customers won’t have a choice but to go to the already existing, and more solidly established corporations. Or shop online. It’ll be a world owned by Amazon and those few who can make the rules, with no competition to worry about. Giants against which nobody has a chance.
Surveillance and tracking
Telecommunication companies in certain European countries have already agreed to share data with health authorities, thus providing them with the ability to track individuals who are supposed to be self-isolating. Canada has not ruled out the possibility, and it’s hard to imagine the US not following suit.
What a wonderful, and perfectly legitimate way to violate people’s right to privacy.
The question becomes – once this line has been crossed, how do you uncross it? Do the authorities, one morning, just relinquish this privilege and hand people back their privacy because the threat is now over? Of course not, because the next threat is right around the corner.
One need only recall the Patriot Act that was rammed through following 9/11 and was supposed to last as long as the “terrorist threat”; instead, it has been renewed, time and again, and remains in effect to this day, 18 years after the events took place.
In China, thermal scanners were used in public during the pandemic – taking the temperature of individuals at trains stations, for example, with authority figures taking aside any passenger with above-normal body temperature and testing them for the virus. China is now considering upgrading to facial recognition technology for the same purpose, further expanding on its already massive surveillance system.
The US are not far behind. An Austin based technology company is launching "artificially intelligent thermal cameras" and planning on installing them in grocery stores, hospitals and airports for detection and reporting purposes. If you didn’t already feel like you’re under the microscope, this should right about do it. And if you think the line will stop at this coronavirus in terms of tracking… well, nobody actually thinks that.
So where does the surveillance end? Why stop at cameras and having your phone data accessed when you can just be microchipped and offer yourself up on a silver platter? It’s not utopian. Many people are already on board and getting it done. Thousands of Swedes have voluntarily signed up for this. Something about the convenience of being able to unlock your car door without a key, no longer needing any physical ID and an ability to carry out financial transactions without a wallet.
Meanwhile, back in North America, the current pandemic has opened the door to the elimination of money. In an effort to limit the exchange of hard cash and the germs that are thusly transmitted, certain stores have begun refusing actual coins and paper bills, and there have been rumblings about encouraging a cashless society via the creation of digital currency. This is yet another way for every transaction to be tracked. I can already hear it – who cares, as long as you’re not laundering money, selling drugs or buying on the black market. But again, it’s about privacy. If I don’t want on record that I paid for a certain medicine at the pharmacy, or that I’m seeing a shrink, or preparing to leave my abusive husband, or sending money back home to my cash-strapped family – then that is my business, and I have a right to keep these things private. They are nobody’s business.
A few days ago, the US President signed into law the “Secure 5G and Beyond Act of 2020” to develop and roll out the 5G network as soon as possible despite the dangers of 5G still being very much an issue. 5G is known to substantially increase exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic fields; the health implications for humans and potential damage to the environment are being completely ignored. But in the official name of keeping everyone connected (and the unofficial one of being able to better track everyone), this bill is sailing through without even a peep from the peanut gallery.
Loss of rights
And if you think your choices and options have taken enough hits, how about this one? Denmark has already passed a law allowing health authorities to force individuals not only to be tested for the virus, but to be vaccinated as soon as the vaccine comes out. Never mind that in a perfect world, a vaccine would be tested above and beyond security measures and guaranteed to be fully effective and without potentially hazardous effects – this one is being fast-tracked, skipping steps and taking shortcuts along the way, in an effort to have it available more quickly than any other vaccine would ever be authorized to see the light of day. And you won’t have a choice but to take it. Let that sink in for a second.
Of course, most people will be clamoring for this injection, so while anxiety levels are still running on high it probably won’t encounter much resistance. But a) it still overrides the personal choices of those who would rather not, b) it sets a precedent and c) it will likely encourage other countries to do the same, and for a much wider range of diseases. I can see a day when you won’t be able to leave your country or have access to services unless you can prove you’ve had a series of vaccines.
A new world
The reach, and impact, of these measures is enormous, and just like after 9/11, as we absorbed it all in a state of trance, they are being put in place without being questioned. There will be more and more laws allowing for quarantines. Regardless of how this virus originated, and whether the developments were natural or the result of an experiment gone horribly wrong (or, worse yet, exactly as predicted), those in power are watching intently, and seeing what exactly they can get away with in terms of restrictions given the right dose of fear, constantly driven home by the media hype. And they are discovering just how easy it is, and how quickly people are willing to trade in their liberties for a sense of security. The way I see it, this was a test. A rehearsal of sorts. For what? Who knows. I don’t dare imagine.
Tears of rage - that’s what I remember the most about my reaction to an article in my local paper written by Dr. Joe Schwarcz, a chemist with a weekly column related to his field.
This one, back in May of 2016, was about nanothermite. I don’t usually read his column because my interest in all things chemical is roughly the equivalent to that of watching a documentary on the finer techniques of needlepoint, but the title caught my eye immediately. Having been a 9/11 Truth advocate for years, I knew that nanothermite was an element that had been found in the WTC dust following the collapses of the 3 WTC buildings, and that the only explanation for this was that the buildings had to have been detonated – something that would call into question the entire official theory.
I didn’t think that the author would actually go there, seeing that this article was all about the science – but then, at the very end, he did, and wrote the following:
“Conspiracy theorists purport that it was thermite explosives planted inside the World Trade Center that brought down the twin towers in a CIA coordinated plot. They also maintain that the moon landing was faked and that the U.S. government is hiding the bodies of aliens. Some also claim that the rise of Donald Trump was engineered by a Democratic conspiracy and that on the verge of being elected he will announce “fooled you.” Wouldn’t that be something? It would trump the thermite reaction for heat generated.”
I actually gasped. I expected – maybe – a calling into question of the very fact that nanothermite had even been found. Or of how nanothermite behaves, in practice. Or that it is near impossible to get one’s hands on this substance. But I couldn’t believe the so very un-scientific attack by a supposed professional on a theory so very rooted in physics, and in that moment felt both the anger, and the tears, rising.
And so I did what I do best when I need to deal with something before it consumes me, and I wrote - to the editorial board of the Montreal Gazette, while cc’ing Dr. Schwarcz.
The Gazette never responded.
But he did.
The following is our word for word exchange - and a true reflection of how the scientific community is the one that doesn’t have a leg to stand when faced with the otherwise unchallenged laws of physics that it suddenly cannot seem to acknowledge. It’s the story of a truther’s life, and a perfect example of what we deal with on a regular basis.
From: Sandra J
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016
Cc: Joe Schwarcz, Dr.
Subject: Dr Schwarcz’ column, May 21, 2016, “The Power of Heat”
Rather than availing himself of the scientific method to answer a scientific question - or at least provide an answer that is based on facts and research - Dr Schwarcz resorts to the idiot's guide to reasoning - logical fallacies. Put forth a theory, use ad hominem attacks by denigrating an entire group of people (which may or may not already be seen unfavourably by the general public), make sweeping yet completely unfounded generalizations about said group, and throw in a random association that is neither here nor there and that has even less to do with the initial theory at hand.
And yet, the scientific evidence contradicting the official narrative in the collapse of the three WTC towers (1, 2 and 7) is overwhelming. As a true chemist, Dr. Schwarcz would know that infrared images of the fires would have shown temperatures as high as 2800 F degrees, as confirmed by MTI, EarthData and NASA, while jet fuel only burns to 1400. He would know about the molten steel flowing like lava – another occurrence impossible to explain by regular office fires (even if originally triggered by fuel). He would know that microspheres formed from molten iron were found in the dust by USGS, the EPA, RJ Lee Group and independent scientists.
And I’m quite certain that despite a doctorate in chemistry, Dr Schwarcz has retained sufficient knowledge of high school physics to remember that objects cannot fall to the ground at freefall or near freefall speed while going through the path of greatest resistance – 11 seconds for Towers 1 and 2, and all of 7 seconds for WTC 7, a 47-story high rise a couple of football fields away. Even NIST (the National Institute of Standards and Technology) has admitted to free fall acceleration. This is only possible if the falling towers encountered NO resistance on the way down, and last I checked, I believe there were hundreds and thousands of tons of cold, hard and solid steel and concrete supporting the 100 or so floors below. Other steel-framed high rises have burned much longer in the past and yet, the core structure remained. And never before in the history of high rise fires has a building completely collapsed, and yet, on 9/11, three of them did just that – while one of them was never hit by a plane, which in itself does away with any jet-fuel theory to explain the collapses. Controlled demolition is the only explanation, aided and abetted by the use of thermite and nanothermite – substances, as Dr Schwarcz correctly points out, that are highly difficult to come by, and certainly not fabricated in a cave in Afghanistan.
There is a reason why over 2,500 architects, engineers and scientists around the world have signed a petition demanding a new investigation into the collapses of the 3 WTC towers on Sept 11th via the group Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. They have put their careers on the line because they have done their research and are looking not for the comfortable answer, but the true one.
Over the years, Dr Schwarz has been a relentless advocate for the scientific method, making fun of anyone not abiding by those rules. The tables are turned. All this goes to show that in the face of an uncomfortable truth, even Dr Schwarcz is capable of denial, lack of reasoning and emotionally lashing out. I guess the scientific method is only valid when it’s convenient.
So when it comes down to it, Mr Schwarcz, you are nothing but a fraud, a coward, and a disgrace to the scientific community.
“Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance.” (Albert Einstein)
On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 8:30 PM, Joe Schwarcz, Dr. wrote:
Wow! People like you actually exist! scary.
Joe Schwarcz PhD
Director, McGill University Office for Science and Society
801 Sherbrooke St. West
Montreal, QC, Canada, H3A 0B8
SJ Not only do we exist, we work and have worked (as in my case) for the very newspaper that your column appears in, some of us (not myself) as reporters and even editors.
I was very angry when I wrote. I still am, really, even if solely for the double standard that you applied in your rebuttal, doing the very thing you would never tolerate from someone else. You usually reply with facts. You cannot say with a straight face that that's what you did in that column.
I apologize for the sarcasm, but not for speaking up where I thought - and still think - you were clearly out of line.
JS Sorry…but any claims that the towers were brought down by anything else than the impact of the airplanes just cannot be taken seriously. Surely you have read the official investigations and their conclusions. You can start here:
SJ I've been reading for 6 years...
If the towers' collapse was justified by the impact of the planes, then what comes of WTC 7, which was never touched? A steel-framed high-rise of 47 floors - same height as Place Ville-Marie - down in 7 seconds flat, at 5:20 that afternoon. NIST blames it on "normal office fires" Now that's scary to me.
You can observe the entire collapse, beginning to end, in a 9-second video:
WTC 7 Collapse
What do you see, with your own eyes?
JS Please list for me the courses you have taken in chemistry, materials science, physics or engineering.
SJ My degrees don't trump the laws of physics.
JS Exactly. Now you know how that building came down.
In this sudden recreation of Bizarro World, it appeared that the one presenting the hard facts, the evidence and the logical conclusions was not the scientist, but the layperson, while the one being evasive, condescending and incapable of offering a convincing rebuttal was not the conspiracy theorist, but the one with the PhD.
I never replied, and I didn’t need to. I had won the argument, whether he admitted it or not. My tears of rage had dissipated and made room for the knowledge that I could hold my ground against any scientist choosing to live in denial - and therefore betrayal - of the very basic laws of physics that had stood the test of time.
And that gave me the ammunition, and the courage, to keep fighting for the truth, no matter who my adversary may be – a fight I will never give up, for as long as I live. I owe it to the 3,000 people who died that day and have yet to see justice done.
To say that many issues have become polarized in today’s culture is an understatement, and we owe this, at least in part, to the deepening wedge between the left and the right, our tribal sense of belonging, and a social media culture that constantly feeds the beast. It seems to require very little to stoke the flames and turn a seemingly harmless discussion into a full-fledged slug fest, and anybody with a horse in the race – or, frankly, just an opinion – is suddenly an expert, no credentials required, or benefit of the doubt allowed. Often, the conversation, drifting ever further from the original subject, spirals out of control in no time at all and takes on a life of its own.
But nowhere is this truer than when the subject matter is vaccines.
Follow any thread on either side of the debate, and it begins derailing about three lines in. The vaccine supporters accuse the anti-vaxxers of being uninformed, dangerous quacks who get their medical information from questionable sources and spread lies without an iota of conscience, while those who question vaccines label all those who support them as sheeple who have blindly accepted the word of Pharma the Almighty and are being duped about the safety of the ingredients injected into their babies and children.
Both sides are so busy shouting each other down and calling each other names – and we all know how conducive this is to a rational discussion - that nobody has really taken the time to establish any common ground as to what specific issues, exactly, are at play. Besides, do those who support vaccines really agree that all vaccines are safe, that all vaccines are necessary? That Big Pharma is beyond reproach, always looking out for the people’s best interest rather than its own pocket book? That there’s no reason to be cautious? I wouldn’t know, because that conversation has never taken place, but I doubt it. Conversely, do anti-vaxxers say that every vaccine should be rejected? That there’s no wiggle room and that maybe, in some cases, it makes sense to have your child inoculated? Again, we don’t know because we have never made it this far into the conversation.
So let’s begin with the presumption of innocence, and that the industry really does care about having a healthy population and protecting its weakest from any unnecessary and avoidable hazards. There will likely never be a shortage of diseases to treat, and it’s safe to assume that pharma will not go bankrupt due to lack of patients. And while the oft-recurring meme “The pharmaceutical industry does not create cures, it creates clients” is a popular soundbite, it reeks of cynicism and misplaced scorn as we have all been, at one point or another, the grateful recipients of medication that has helped us heal and get back on our feet. It’s just as difficult to imagine that a pediatrician - who has put years of blood, sweat and tears into his or her studies, passing the most gruelling exams, from the first admission test to finally being licensed to practice medicine 10 years later, driven above all by a deep concern for the health of infants - would wilfully ignore any signs pointing to dangers in vaccines or, worse yet, purposely agree to harm children.
Let us also safely assume that parents on both sides of the debate want only the best for their offspring, and that their intent is to protect them by any means possible. Regardless of the actual details of the issues at stake, nobody can accuse the other of acting in bad faith or against their child’s best interests. We have to, at the very least, be able to agree on this, and accept that all parents involved are acting out of concern and love.
Which leaves us with the actual issues.
Diseases eradicated by vaccines
The most common argument in favour of vaccines seems to be that their introduction has led to the eradication of certain diseases such as polio and the measles.
The polio vaccine came about in 1955, by which time the disease had pretty much run its course. The argument is made that sanitation, clean water systems and plumbing had had a lot to do with this, and that the vaccine was introduced at a time when polio had become almost irrelevant in terms of a real threat. The same can be said about Pertussis (whooping cough) and Diphtheria.
By comparison, diseases such as Scarlet and Typhoid fever saw a parallel decline at the very same time (around 1950) despite the complete absence of any vaccine to counter them, so it doesn’t seem that far-fetched to question to what degree, if any, vaccines were responsible for reining in some of those diseases.
The liability of vaccine companies
In 1986 Congress passed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA), allowing for a party alleging a vaccine-related injury to file a petition for compensation in the Court of Federal Claims. Thus the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program was created, taking the burden of responsibility - and compensation - off the pharmaceutical companies, with taxpayers left holding the bag. 42 U.S. Code § 300aa–22 states, “(1) No vaccine manufacturer shall be liable in a civil action for damages arising from a vaccine-related injury or death associated with the administration of a vaccine after October 1, 1988, if the injury or death resulted from side effects that were unavoidable even though the vaccine was properly prepared and was accompanied by proper directions and warnings.”
Vaccine companies, understandably, did not want to have to deal with legal matters and one might argue that it was critical to allow them the ability to continue their operations while letting a separate entity deal with the fallouts. That said, there is no denying that this court was set up, in the words of the US code itself, specifically to deal with vaccine injuries and/or deaths, so there is no argument about whether or not vaccine injuries occur, and $4 billion – billion, with a “B” - in payouts since then confirms that these occurrences are neither random nor exceptional.
The World Health Organization (WHO) itself lists the potential hazards for each vaccine, such as the MMR, so - just to be clear - the dangers may be downplayed or flat-out denied by doctors and the population in general, but they are very much on the radar of the companies producing vaccines.
The numbers game
Given that we have to admit that people do suffer injuries and even death as a result of vaccines, the question becomes, crudely: what’s the cost-benefit ratio? Depending on the vaccine, there are only single-digit occurrences of deaths for a million doses given (officially anyway). Do vaccine defenders feel that this is just a case of applied math and that the low numbers of deaths are negligible and thus justifiable? That one death is preferable to potentially many children infected? Do anti-vaxxers state the opposite? And how do we even know what the number of infections would be? We have no way of assessing the probabilities, or the level of impact.
Also worth mentioning is that the vaccine schedule has changed dramatically over the years. The dose has more than doubled between 1983 and 2017 for children by age 6, and almost tripled for children by the time they are 18.
Compare that to 5 doses in 1962, and we are not in Kansas anymore.
Are all of today’s vaccines critical and necessary? If supporters agree that they are not necessarily so, does it make sense to take them all anyway “just in case”? Besides, does anyone really believe that we have reached the end of this chapter? New vaccines are constantly being worked on, including one for the common cold. Is there a line that even vaccine supporters would not cross, a dosage amount that would be considered one too many? Should people be allowed to decide for themselves which vaccines are relevant? Which are not worth the risk? Is it really necessary to inject your newborn on his first day on earth with a shot against Hepatitis B, a disease you only contract through needles and sex and that becomes ineffective by the time your child is old enough to be exposed to needles and sex? What about chicken pox and measles? Were they not, just a short while ago, simply uncomfortable periods children suffered through as a rite of passage? Not to mention that contracting the disease usually affords you lifelong immunity from ever catching it again, compared to the shelf life of a vaccine.
Which brings us to the concept of herd immunity. Considering that most adults today have not had a vaccine or booster shot since turning 18, or 14, or 12, and that the effectiveness of vaccines wears off after a certain amount of years, exactly how much herd immunity do we really have?
A lot has been said about the dangers posed by the vaccine ingredients. The vaccine companies are quite forthcoming about what they include: aluminum, formaldehyde, thimerosal (mercury, still in flu vaccines), polysorbate 80 and aborted fetal cells, among some of the headscratchers. The argument by those in the industry is that their amounts are so minimal that it is ridiculous to worry, and that the form under which they are injected differs vastly from the actual raw chemical element we would find in a lab. But for those of us who are not pharmacists, chemists or scientists in general, it is difficult to understand how, exactly, this is different. And if it is normally dangerous to ingest any of these orally, how can it carry no risk whatsoever to inject them directly into the bloodstream of a tiny human being? If we are advised to control our intake of fish due to mercury, even though our body eventually rids itself of the food, how is it perfectly alright to inject aluminum, which the body doesn’t shed and which usually travels to the brain and settles there? No amount of research is going to help us see clear on this one. We are being asked to blindly trust that all is in order and not to ask any questions.
Except it is clearly not, because otherwise there would be no Vaccine Injury Compensation program. So if there are risks, why are parents not told about them? When we buy food, we not only have access to the information list of ingredients, it is required by law that food companies provide this to the consumer. When we pick up our prescribed medication at the pharmacy, we are handed a sheet of information listing all the possible side effects of said medication, all the precautions we need to take, all the warning signs we need to look out for.
How are parents not afforded the same consideration with vaccines? Allowed to weigh the pros and cons themselves and decide if they would like to proceed?
Without additional contributing factors, the parallel rise in vaccine doses and the rate of autism spectrum disorder is insufficient to establish a connection. Likewise, the US’ abysmal child mortality rate, which hovers around 6 deaths per thousand, placing it in 28th place worldwide, is likely mostly due to the absence of accessible universal health care.
But that doesn’t disprove, or rule out, vaccines as contributing factors to both autism and child mortality, especially considering that a connection has in fact been established, and not just in Dr Andrew Wakefield’s study – the famously retracted paper being held up as vindication by vaccine supporters who claim this was the only study creating a link between vaccines and autism. In reality, there have been numerous studies showing such a link, and to ignore them seems reckless. Examples, which can be found on the NCBI (National Center for Biotechnology Information) government web site, are given at the end of this article.
And finally, there are the parents. Those who know their children better than anyone. Those who watch their progress every day, who can tell you exactly what their child is capable of doing at every stage of its young life. And when a parent sees their child turn from an active, curious, agile little tot to a lethargic, non-reactive lump who can no longer utter words he could say the day before, or walk like he did all week, and that this all happened within 48 hours of a vaccine, then it becomes extremely difficult to chalk it up to sheer coincidence.
A badly needed dialog
We must get back to the basics of rational discussion and address the issues while steering clear of ad-hominem attacks – the modern-day equivalent of “Kill the Messenger”. If we are going to make any headway, vaccine supporters, and especially those involved in the production, promotion and dispensing of vaccines, need to address the vaccine skeptics’ legitimate points and concerns because, as we have shown, there is no shortage of those. This is not about being right, or feeling morally superior, or about making a point. It's about having all the info - on both sides - and evaluating the situation objectively so that we can make informed decisions regarding those that matter more than anyone else in the world and who do not have a voice, or a say, in the matter: our children.
Even with the best of intentions, it may not be enough.
But it would at least be a start.
Annals of Epidemiology, Hepatitis B vaccination of male neonates and autism diagnosis, NHIS 1997-2002. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21058170
Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology, Porphyrinuria in childhood autistic disorder: Implications for environmental toxicity https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16782144
Journal of Child Neurology, Developmental Regression and Mitochondrial Dysfunction in a Child With Autism https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2536523/
The Neuroscientist, Large Brains in Autism: The Challenge of Pervasive Abnormality https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16151044
Journal of Pediatric Neurosciences, Pediatric Autoimmune Encephalitis. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5588635/
Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, Anti-N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor encephalitis: an unusual cause of autistic regression in a toddler. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24092894
Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry: Do aluminum vaccine adjuvants contribute to the rising prevalence of autism? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22099159
Surgical Neurology International, Immunoexcitotoxicity as the central mechanism of etiopathology and treatment of autism spectrum disorders: A possible role of fluoride and aluminum. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5909100/
Metabolic Brain Disease, The putative role of environmental aluminium in the development of chronic neuropathology in adults and children. How strong is the evidence and what could be the mechanisms involved? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5596046/
Transnational Psychiatry, Atopic diseases and inflammation of the brain in the pathogenesis of autism spectrum disorders, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4931610/
Journal of Alzheimers Disease and Parkinsonism, Natural and Synthetic Neurotoxins in Our Environment: From Alzheimer’s Disease (AD) to Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5059837/
Journal of Immunotoxicology, Theoretical aspects of autism: causes--a review. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21299355
Sandra is a blogger, life coach and activist.
Site powered by Weebly. Managed by Web Hosting Canada