Hiding Behind Genetics to Avoid Culpability for Environmental Causes of Autism
Genetics is the darling of the biomedical research industry. For diseases ranging from cancer to skin disorders, investigators have been busily at work for decades trying to identify the conditions’ underlying genetic causes. However, these same investigators—and the reporters who communicate their findings to the public—are often strangely incurious about the role of environmental toxins as triggers of disease.
A story  about autism spectrum disorder (ASD) published in October 2017 by the news website Vox furnishes an example of this genetics-as-the-explanation-for-everything perspective.
Vox senior health correspondent Julia Belluz  (a self-described “evidence enthusiast”) interviewed a small sample of five reportedly “cutting-edge” autism researchers, all of whom focus on autism genetics. Given the lack of disciplinary diversity in her selective sample, Belluz’s conclusion that genetic factors are the most “well-established” and “promising” explanation for autism comes as no surprise.
Two of Belluz’s five interlocutors (geneticist Stephan Sanders  and psychiatrist Lauren Weiss ) are researchers at the University of California-San Francisco (UCSF), but neither one mentions a rigorous population-based study  of 192 twin pairs published in the Archives of General Psychiatry by UCSF researcher Neil Risch  and colleagues in 2011.
Risch is the director of UCSF’s Institute for Human Genetics. The study’s results indicated  that “environmental factors have been underestimated, and genetics overestimated, for their roles in autism-spectrum disorders.”
Another study  that involved families with two ASD-affected siblings (published in Nature Medicine in 2015) likewise highlighted “substantial genetic heterogeneity” in ASD, again suggesting  that environmental or other shared risk factors trump heritability.
To be fair, Belluz’s discussion gives a nod to a “genes plus environment” perspective on autism causation by acknowledging that an “underlying genetic predisposition or mutation” generally needs to “collide” with environmental triggers in order to give rise to ASD.
However, Belluz characterizes the research on environmental risk factors for ASD as “blurry,” “murky,” “mixed” and not “robust.” Belluz also cites a study  that, according to her, views shared genetic variants in families as “probably more important” as an autism trigger than shared environments.
However, the article actually emphasizes gene-environment interactions and concludes that “the amount of evidence supporting a significant contribution of environmental factors to autism risk” makes it clear that “the search for environmental factors should be reinforced.”
A pivotal paper  published in early 2017 goes a step further, asserting that “The term ‘heritability,’ as it is used today in human behavioral genetics, is one of the most misleading in the history of science.” The paper’s two authors argue against the “deeply flawed” assumption that “genetic influences…can be separated from their environmental context.”
According to these authors,
“contemporary biology has demonstrated beyond any doubt that traits are produced by interactions between genetic and nongenetic factors that occur in each moment of developmental time. That is to say, there are simply no such things as gene-only influences [emphasis in original].”
Stated another way, the paper suggests that “it makes little sense to attempt to quantify the relative importance of two different factors that interact with one another [dynamically] to produce an outcome.”
Belluz is willing to entertain the idea that environmental factors such as “air pollution, pesticides, antidepressants and viruses” may contribute to autism, but she categorically dismisses the possibility of any association between ASD and the dozen or so vaccines (containing 16 distinct antigens) currently included in the childhood vaccine schedule in the U.S.
Belluz states, “Vaccines are the wrong explanation for autism, and we should let the idea go.”
This attitude is frankly disingenuous (or worse), given what we know about the neurotoxicity of vaccine ingredients such as aluminum  and the mercury-containing vaccine preservative thimerosal (still used in flu shots).
To discount these ideas, Belluz cites a fraudulent study coauthored by the criminal Danish researcher Poul Thorsen —a fugitive from justice who has been indicted for stealing research grant money from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)—and his unethical then-CDC colleague and girlfriend, Diana Schendel .
In remaining fixated on genetics, Belluz also ignores multiple strands of evidence highlighting links between autism and immune system challenges.
For example, it is biologically plausible that the burdensome (in both number and frequency) vaccine schedule is triggering an immune overload  that contributes to autism as well as other inflammatory diseases.
Other important research, carried out by the late neuroscientist Paul Patterson, has showed that challenges to a mother’s immune system—such as the influenza and Tdap (tetanus-diptheria-pertussis) vaccines now routinely given to pregnant women—can lead to “lifelong changes to the child’s immune system ,” and this immune response can affect the child’s brain.
In addition, an article  on developmental immunotoxicity (defined as “environmentally induced disruption of normal immune development resulting in adverse outcomes”) by Cornell researcher Rodney Dietert observes that developmental immunotoxicity can occur at lower exposure levels than the exposure levels that usually produce immunotoxicity in adults and also can lead to dysfunction that remains latent “until it is triggered by a later-life event” such as vaccination.
Vox  proudly states that its job is to provide “context” and “insight” so that readers can make sense of science and “everything else that matters.”
Belluz herself laments  the “transparency problem in medicine and health-regulatory affairs” (although she does so in an article that harshly castigates anyone who dares to question the safety of the HPV vaccine).
While calling on journalists to “crack open stories about health the same way political reporters do on justice or defense,” Belluz’s discussion of autism genetics unfortunately trots out the same old tired refrain that has helped the pharmaceutical and chemical industries to evade culpability and simply blame the victim.
Read the full article at WorldMercuryProject.org. 
Say NO to Mandatory Vaccines T-Shirt
100% Pre-shrunk Cotton
Order here! 
Make a Statement for Health Freedom!
Big Pharma and government health authorities are trying to pass laws mandating vaccines for all children, and even adults.
Order here! 
Leaving a lucrative career as a nephrologist (kidney doctor), Dr. Suzanne Humphries is now free to actually help cure people.
In this autobiography she explains why good doctors are constrained within the current corrupt medical system from practicing real, ethical medicine.
One of the sane voices when it comes to examining the science behind modern-day vaccines, no pro-vaccine extremist doctors have ever dared to debate her in public.
Medical Doctors Opposed to Forced Vaccinations – Should Their Views be Silenced?
One of the biggest myths being propagated in the compliant mainstream media today is that doctors are either pro-vaccine or anti-vaccine, and that the anti-vaccine doctors are all “quacks.”
However, nothing could be further from the truth in the vaccine debate. Doctors are not unified at all on their positions regarding “the science” of vaccines, nor are they unified in the position of removing informed consent to a medical procedure like vaccines.
The two most extreme positions are those doctors who are 100% against vaccines and do not administer them at all, and those doctors that believe that ALL vaccines are safe and effective for ALL people, ALL the time, by force if necessary.
Very few doctors fall into either of these two extremist positions, and yet it is the extreme pro-vaccine position that is presented by the U.S. Government and mainstream media as being the dominant position of the medical field.
In between these two extreme views, however, is where the vast majority of doctors practicing today would probably categorize their position. Many doctors who consider themselves “pro-vaccine,” for example, do not believe that every single vaccine is appropriate for every single individual.
Many doctors recommend a “delayed” vaccine schedule for some patients, and not always the recommended one-size-fits-all CDC childhood schedule. Other doctors choose to recommend vaccines based on the actual science and merit of each vaccine, recommending some, while determining that others are not worth the risk for children, such as the suspect seasonal flu shot.
These doctors who do not hold extreme positions would be opposed to government-mandated vaccinations and the removal of all parental exemptions.
In this article, I am going to summarize the many doctors today who do not take the most extremist pro-vaccine position, which is probably not held by very many doctors at all, in spite of what the pharmaceutical industry, the federal government, and the mainstream media would like the public to believe.