BY J.B. HANDLEY December 8, 2017
Five clear, replicable, and related discoveries explaining how autism is triggered have formed an undeniably clear picture of autism’s causation, and possibly ways to alleviate the symptoms, too. Most of the research that has created this understanding has been published in the last 36 months, and largely from international scientists in the United Kingdom, Canada, France, Israel, and China. The U.S. media? Silent.
Dr. Wakefield’s recommendation for how to deal with the regression into autism some parents saw after the MMR was pretty modest: he recommended the MMR vaccine be broken up into three separate shots. Wait until you hear what a different British scientist, this one the world’s leading expert on the neurotoxicity of aluminum, just said last week about children’s vaccines.
“The aluminium content of brain tissue in autism was consistently high…These are some of the highest values for aluminium in human brain tissue yet recorded and one has to question why, for example, the aluminium content of the occipital lobe of a 15 year old boy would be 8.74 (11.59)g/g dry wt.?”
— “Aluminium in brain tissue in autism” November 2017, Journal of Trace Elements of Medicine and Biology
In early December 2017, Dr. Chris Exley of Keele University in England and his colleagues published a paper that for the first time looked at the brain tissue of subjects with autism to determine the level of aluminum (note: they spell “aluminum” as “aluminium” in the United Kingdom) found within their brain tissue. For anyone trying to convince the world that “the science is settled and vaccines don’t cause autism,” the study’s findings are deeply contradictory to that statement. In a blog post written by Professor Exley on the day his study was published, he explained the groundbreaking results:
“…while the aluminium content of each of the 5 brains [of people with autism] was shockingly high it was the location of the aluminium in the brain tissue which served as the standout observation…The new evidence strongly suggests that aluminium is entering the brain in ASD [autism spectrum disorders] via pro-inflammatory cells which have become loaded up with aluminium in the blood and/or lymph, much as has been demonstrated for monocytes at injection sites for vaccines including aluminium adjuvants.”
Dr. Exley’s quote includes a reference to “monocytes at injection sites” and the fact that the interaction between these monocytes and aluminum has been demonstrated in previous published science. I know, that sounds pretty technical, but bear with me. A “monocyte” is a type of white blood cell, of which one form of monocyte is a “macrophage.” A macrophage can be thought of as the garbage man of the immune system, eating up foreign substances, cell debris, etc. As you will see in a moment, macrophages appear to be playing a critical and devastating role in triggering autism, serving to escort aluminum injected from a vaccine directly into the brain, where it can disrupt brain development and trigger autism.
Dr. Exley’s study — “Aluminium in brain tissue and autism” — is the final piece of a puzzle that first started to come together in 2004, and picked up steam since 2010, that has dramatically furthered the scientific understanding of exactly how a vaccine can trigger autism. This timeline is critical to recognize, because the Vaccine Court in the United States dismissed the vaccine-autism hypothesis in 2009, long before most of what I’m about to explain even existed. Science is a continuum, an emergence of truth through many different studies that often have to be pieced together before the picture becomes clear. And, scientific progress can sometimes move slowly until that moment when an emerging truth presents itself in such a way that it can no longer be denied. In my opinion, Dr. Exley’s study provided the only data missing from an airtight explanation of what happened to my son and so many other children.
(Ironically — given the parallels between today’s vaccine fight and last century’s tobacco fight — many of the most compelling studies have been done using laboratory mice.)
Why is aluminum in vaccines at all?
Aluminum is a critical component of most vaccines given to children. It serves as an “adjuvant” meaning the aluminum serves to “wake up” the immune system, provoking the immune system to recognize the “antigen” within the vaccine for whatever disease the vaccine serves to protect against. The amount of aluminum in vaccines given to children skyrocketed beginning in the early 1990s for two reasons: 1), more vaccines were added to the children’s vaccine schedule and, 2), the vaccination rate for all vaccines given to children rose (from 50–60% of children vaccinated in the mid-1980s to over 90% today). A child in the mid-1980s would have received 1,250 micrograms of aluminum from their vaccines by their 18-month birthday if they were fully vaccinated. Today, that number is 4,925 micrograms, a near-quadrupling of total aluminum. You can read more about this in an excellent study published by Neil Miller, here’s an image he provided:
Mystifyingly, aluminum has never experienced biological testing to consider its safety for being injected into babies, having been “grandfathered” into our modern safety standards. Canadian scientists Dr. Chris Shaw and Dr. Lucija Tomljenovic addressed this omission in a critical study they published in 2011 in Current Medicinal Chemistry titled, “Aluminum Vaccine Adjuvants: Are they Safe?” They wrote:
“Aluminum is an experimentally demonstrated neurotoxin and the most commonly used vaccine adjuvant. Despite almost 90 years of widespread use of aluminum adjuvants, medical science’s understanding about their mechanisms of action is still remarkably poor. There is also a concerning scarcity of data on toxicology and pharmacokinetics of these compounds. In spite of this, the notion that aluminum in vaccines is safe appears to be widely accepted. Experimental research, however, clearly shows that aluminum adjuvants have a potential to induce serious immunological disorders in humans. In particular, aluminum in adjuvant form carries a risk for autoimmunity, long-term brain inflammation and associated neurological complications and may thus have profound and widespread adverse health consequences.”
Ground zero at Caltech
When Caltech scientist Dr. Paul Patterson passed away in 2014, I had little appreciation that he had triggered a chain of events over the course of his career that may now provide a clear and unambiguous explanation of how and why my son developed autism back in 2004. Knowing exactly how my son’s autism was caused is incredibly important to my wife and I, because the more information we have about causation, the more chance we have to do something about it, and perhaps recover my son from an affliction now impacting 1 in 36 American kids.
What you’re about to read is the product of more than two dozen very recent peer-reviewed published scientific studies, with really no original thought by me. I’m a businessman and a father, but what follows is a “grand theory of autism” so complete and well-supported that I think it deserves the attention of every member of the autism community. When the totality of this explanation became clear to me, not only did my jaw hit the floor, but I was immediately consumed with thoughts about how this clear explanation might impact the way we treat our son’s autism, and I hope it does the same for you and perhaps your doctor as well. What I’m certain of is that this “grand theory” needs to be heavily debated, and I hope by putting it in the public realm I help move it along that path.
(I’m indebted to an anonymous scientist who runs a website called Vaccine Papers, where many of these insights came from. I will quote VP throughout this piece, referring to VP as “VP.” I highly recommend you read the totality of his website, where the explanations are far more scientific than what you will read here.)
It shouldn’t be a surprise that all of this science has been published outside the United States. I’ve listened closely to the stories of American scientists wanting to study autism and complaining that any studies that are even remotely controversial are nearly impossible to fund or get approved.