The Hoax at the Bottom of Autism and Alzheimer’s


Jon Rappoport
Infowars.com
March 23, 2013

For the medical cartel, Autism and Alzheimer’s are big, big business. Profits are soaring.

These two conditions are promoted as specific diseases. That’s where all the trouble starts.

Bar chart of the number (per 1,000 U.S. resident children aged 6–17) of children aged 6–17 who were served under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) with a diagnosis of autism, from 1996 through 2007. / Image by By Eubulides, via Wikimedia Commons

If you read the Alzheimer’s and Autism definitions, which are the criteria for diagnosis contained in the psychiatric Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM), you find there are no physical tests of any kind.

No blood tests, no saliva tests, no urine tests, no genetic tests, no brain scans.

Instead, what you see are lists and menus of behaviors.

What does this mean?

First of all, it means researchers haven’t found the cause of these conditions. If they had, they would state it.

So how do you say you’ve located a specific disease if you don’t know the cause? Answer: you can’t.

Take four people who are 70 years old and are experiencing severe memory loss. You’re a researcher. You don’t know why these people have this problem. You can guess, you can talk about maybe-this or maybe-that, but you don’t know.

Therefore, you can’t say the cause of the memory loss in each case is the same. It might well be different for each person.

Should you make up a label like Alzheimer’s and slap it on all four people? Of course not. A single label means a single cause. Otherwise, why use the label?

But you don’t know the cause. No matter how many behavioral characteristics of memory loss you name, you don’t know the cause.

Therefore, you have no business applying a single label to those four people. That’s not science. It might be marketing for drugs, it might be a lot of things, it might be about obtaining grant monies, but it isn’t science.

Take four young children who have suddenly withdrawn from the world. Same principle applies. If you slap them with the Autism label, you’re lying. You don’t know the cause of that withdrawal in any of the children.

Now, if you were the parent of one of these children, and you noticed that soon after the child was stuck with multiple vaccines, he developed a fever and then he withdrew from the world, you would, indeed, know something vital.

But if you’re an unbiased researcher a thousand miles away from these four children, all you know, at the outset, is that they all withdrew.

In two cases, the cause might have been vaccination. In another case, it might have been severe and chronic malnutrition or a reaction to heavy metals in food. In another case, the child might have developed a brain lesion. There are a number of possibilities.

Why then slap all four children with the label Autism?

Just because they exhibit the same general characteristic? That’s patently ridiculous.

Let’s take this a step farther. Suppose you had a group of 500 children, all of whom withdrew and folded up after receiving a load of vaccine. You know these vaccines contain toxins. You know the toxins were injected. You know the toxins can cause neurological damage.

Well, what are you waiting for? These are cases of VACCINE DAMAGE. It’s not Autism caused by vaccine damage. It’s not Autism or Cd3syt or Vcti45 or any other arbitrary label. It’s not a disease or a disorder. It’s poisoning. Do you say a person who develops a severe and chronic problem after eating fish loaded with poison has a disease? Is it the fish-eating disease?

Of course, we know that exonerating vaccines keeps a giant industry from destruction. And we know that putting a disease label on people opens the door to enormous profits. Drug-company profits. “Well, we’re researching several promising medicines for Autism…”

You don’t hear, “We’re investigating remedies for vaccine poisoning and exposure to industrial pollutants.”

Alzheimer’s researchers are very fond of talking about “biomarkers” and “imaging.” They keep testing blood and the spinal fluid. But they don’t know enough to include the results of those tests in the official definition of Alzheimer’s.

And think about this: suppose one biomarker finally emerges as a common denominator in a study examining 5000 people who have been diagnosed with Alzheimer’s? Who is to say the cause of that biomarker is the same in all 5000 people? This is not a trivial point. It’s crucial.

If, for example, chemicals can cause genetic changes, and then cancer researchers hail “new genetic findings in investigating the cause of cancer,” at what level are they plugging into the true situation? If they keep ignoring the chemicals, how far are they going to get?

Researchers and the press keep promoting a fairy tale: “If we diagnose people who show the same behavioral factors with a single disease label, and if we keep examining these people for common biomarkers, we’ll find the cause of the disease.”

Well, look at the DSM. It contains 297 official disorders, all labeled. Many of these so-called disorders have been investigated for decades. And yet, not one disorder lists a specific across-the-board diagnostic test that can define it.

Taking all this to a conclusion, we have this: there is no reason to suppose that Alzheimer’s or Autism exists.

Damage exists. And there are cogent reasons to infer that, in different individuals, the causes are different.

Therefore, what we need are very capable and independent-minded health practitioners who can investigate one patient at a time and find out what really caused his/her problem.

That is why, when somebody tells me he’s found the cause of Alzheimer’s or Autism, and the cure, I know he’s on the wrong track. He failed to notice that these conditions don’t exist. Damage exists.

In the alternative field, I’ve read journal articles that begin: “New discovery may revolutionize the treatment of Alzheimer’s…”

The author of the article was bamboozled. He accepted the idea that Alzheimer’s was a single disease. His opening sentence should have read: “New discovery may revolutionize the treatment of that thing that doesn’t exist…”

Then he and everybody else would see the error.

Damage exists. Memory loss exists. Withdrawing from the world exists. Suffering exists. Pain exists. Finding what caused it in a single patient, one at a time, is a step toward healing.

And healing is what it’s supposed to be all about.

The correct metaphor here is the detective. Suppose he says, “Well, we have a murder, and we know that murder is caused by bullets. So we’ll find the bullets and that will constitute the solution to the case.”

The detective investigates each case on its own facts and merits. He brings a wealth of experience to his work. He knows patterns in murders. He knows what sometimes turns out to be the answer. He applies what he knows. He uses clues. He uses logic. He tries one avenue, and if it doesn’t pan out, he embarks on another avenue. He keeps looking. He provisionally uses generalities, but he also avoids them. This is called intelligence. It’s called discernment. It’s called caring about finding the truth.

If genuine healing were the objective, practitioners would approach so-called Alzheimer’s and Autism patients very differently.

The fact that most medical doctors don’t is, at the very least, criminal negligence.

Back in the 1990′s, I interviewed the mother of a boy who had been diagnosed with Autism. He wasn’t a case of vaccine damage, because he’d never been vaccinated.

His health practitioner, during an extensive conversation with the mother, did discover a forgotten head injury at the age of three. The boy was now 16.

The practitioner tried a course of hyperbaric oxygen treatments, based on the hypothesis that some brain cells were in an “idling state,” and had never awakened after the injury. The treatments helped somewhat. The boy became a bit more communicative.

The practitioner then shifted the boy’s diet several times, and in the process found out he was having a severe and chronic reaction to milk and other dairy products. So they were eliminated from the diet. After a month, the boy came a bit more out of his shell. His awkward physical movements lessened.

Supplementation with minerals produced further results. The boy’s speech cleared up gradually. He mumbled less. His spoke more forcefully.

At this point, for the first time, the boy was willing to undertake a light exercise program. After a month or so, it produced dividends. His muscle tone improved, and he enjoyed short runs. He’d return from these runs with fierce enthusiasm. He was happy that his coordination was increasing.

Several new supplement protocols were tried. One of them included a meal-replacement drink that he liked. He came further out of his shell. His mother began home schooling him. His writing was no longer a dense scribble. He could focus on his work.

The boy went through another series of hyperbaric oxygen treatments. This time the results were more visible. His face, which tended to be mask-like, relaxed. He became more animated.

The supplement regime was enhanced with a ginseng adaptogen and a different type of magnesium. The boy received several adjustments from a chiropractor, who had been trained in the original techniques of the art.

A month later, the boy’s communication with his parents and his neighbors reached a new level. He had recovered a significant part of his life.

I asked the practitioner whether he would apply that entire course of treatment across the board for all children diagnosed with Autism.

“Absolutely not,” he said. “I don’t do ‘across-the-board’ anything.”

When I told a doctor what happened to this boy, he said, “It wasn’t Autism to begin with. He was misdiagnosed. It was a head injury.”

“No,” I said. “Nothing is Autism.”

He stared at me and then he smiled. “I know where you’re going with this,” he said.

“So?”

“Yeah,” he said. “They don’t have a cause for Autism.”

“So they have no right to say it’s a disease with a single cause.”

He scratched his head and walked away.

There is yet another reason the medical cartel wants to maintain this fiction about Autism and Alzheimer’s. It’s about controlling the research, of course. Keeping a lid on the fact that chemicals and inserted genes in the food supply; water contaminated with chemicals, including fluorides; heavy-metal particles sprayed in the skies; radiation; vaccines; medical drugs; industrial pollution and dumping; and other factors have been producing the symptoms of what is being called Autism and Alzheimer’s.

Covering all that up is a major priority. One dirty hand washes another.

Sources: “Dementia of the Alzheimer’s Type Symptoms and Diagnosis,” psychtreatment.com; “DSM-IV Criteria Pervasive Developmental Disorders,” firstsigns.org.

Jon Rappoport
The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com


Infowars.com Videos:


Comments are closed.