Forgot Password?

Peggy O'Mara

A Quiet Place

Are we Abandoning Families with Autism?

January 25th, 2012

On June 19, 2002 I attended the congressional hearing, “The Status of Research into Vaccine Safety and Autism” in Washington DC. This hearing was part of the oversight investigation of the Committee on Government Reform, headed at the time by Congressman Dan Burton (IN-REP).

According to the background material presented to the Committee by Congressman Burton, “When the Committee began its oversight investigation in 1999, autism was thought to affect 1 in 500 children.” In 2002, when the hearing was held, autism was thought to affect 1 in 250 children. CDC data from 2010 indicates that 1 in 110 children have an autism spectrum disorder (ASD).

As I was leaving the hearing, I saw a woman standing outside holding a sign detailing the $30,000 a year it cost to care for her autistic child.  According to a 2007 study by Michael L. Gantz, MS, PhD, “The Lifetime Distribution of the Incremental Societal Costs of Autism,” autism costs our society “upwards of $35 billion in direct (both medical and nonmedical) and indirect costs to care for all individuals diagnosed each year over their lifetimes.”

For families this translates into direct medical costs estimated at $29,000 a year; direct non-medical costs of between $38,000 and $43,000 a year; and indirect costs, such as lost wages for parents, of $39,000 to $130,000 a year. Read one family’s story, “The High Cost of Autism” by Theresa Wrangham.

With these sobering numbers in mind, shock waves are reverberating through the autism community because of recent news of proposed changes in the definition of autism. The American Psychiatric Association is in the process of editing the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) and their expert panel is currently reassessing the definition of autism. It is expected that the panel will tighten this definition and thus reduce the rate of diagnosis.

Proponents for the change contend that the vagueness of the current DSM definition of autism may have contributed to the increase in the diagnosis of autism. Opponents fear that families will be left out in the cold. Changing the definition of autism could effectively end the autism epidemic, according to Fred. R. Volkmar, PhD, director of the Child Study Center at Yale School of Medicine and author of a new analysis of the negative effects of the proposed changes. Quoted in the New York Times of January 20, 2012, Volkmar said, “We would nip it in the bud–think of it that way.”

Writing in The Health Care Blog, Anne Dachel says, “…these children aren’t going away regardless of what we call them…there will be lots of very angry parents who rightly feel that their children mean nothing to the medical establishment whose only aim is to make them disappear.”

Lisa Sykes, founder of CoMeD and mother of a son with autism says, “Deciding to count only some but not all of the children on the autism spectrum is no different than deciding to count some but not all of the children who get hit by a car.  It doesn’t mean they aren’t injured; it just means that we as a society are turning away from the victims and their very real needs.  This manipulation of the autism rates should unite advocates for children and for the disabled to challenge this change in the DSM-V.”

The New York Metro Chapter of the National Autism Association urges families, caregivers, and professionals affected by autism to contact the American Psychiatric Association and other organizations:

American Psychiatric Association

1000 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 1825

Arlington, Va. 22209-3901

1-888-357-7924

apa@psych.org and dsm5@psych.org

Comment on their Facebook page.

 

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

[ 14 comments ]

Vaccines for Pregnant Women?

December 7th, 2011

 

I’ve been receiving unsolicited emails from a neighbor telling me where I can get the flu vaccine. Last week when I went to Walgreen’s there were signs up all over the store urging me to get vaccinated. The excessive marketing of the flu vaccine can make it hard to know your own mind.

This is especially true for pregnant women. Up until recently pregnancy was a contraindication to the flu vaccine; now it is recommended for pregnant women. Generally when we are pregnant we want to refrain from ingesting drugs or receiving invasive procedures. The current flu recommendation can seem contradictory.

One of the contradictory things about the flu vaccine is that it must be created newly every year in anticipation of the upcoming flu season so it is, by nature, not that effective. The CDC says that the influenza vaccine is 60% effective for all age groups combined. The swine flu vaccine only has an overall efficacy of 40 to 45%.  In addition, 80% of illnesses that appear to be flu are not, in fact, flu and of the 20% that are, most resolve on their own.

Another concern for pregnant women considering the flu vaccine are its additives. Flu vaccines still contain mercury in the form of the preservative thimerosal, which has been taken out of vaccines for children due to health concerns. In addition, flu vaccines can contain adjuvants, an additive that primes the immune system. Adjuvants have not been tested on pregnant women and many contain squalene (shark liver oil), implicated in autoimmune disease in animals and/or polysorbate 80, implicated in infertility in animal studies. In addition, flu vaccines are recommended for pregnant women after 14 weeks because of fear of possible miscarriage.

I’m old fashioned and want to inform pregnant woman. I asked Jennifer Margulis, who wrote The Vaccine Debate, to investigate flu vaccines for pregnant women. We’re featuring her hard hitting, exclusive article, What You’re Doctor Isn’t Telling You About the Pregnancy and the Flu Vaccine in a Vaccination Special Report that includes other articles and resources.

Some of you may have already gotten the flu vaccine; others may still be debating. As long as you are informed about your options, whatever decision you make will be right. I hope that you find our new article helpful in making your decision.

 

 


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

[ 6 comments ]

HPV Vaccines for Boys?

October 31st, 2011

On October 25, 2011, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention recommended that all 11 to 12-year-old boys get vaccinated against the human papillomavirus (HPV). According to the CDC press release, “The HPV vaccine will afford protection against certain HPV-related conditions and cancers in males, and vaccination of males with HPV may also provide indirect protection of women by reducing transmission of HPV.”

First licensed in 2006, the HPV vaccination, branded as Gardasil or Cervarix, has previously been recommended only for girls. With this new recommendation, private insurers will be able to pay for the vaccine for boys. The vaccine is expensive, costing more than $300 for the three-shot series.

The HPV vaccine has been controversial for reasons other than its cost. Parents have been reluctant to give their pre-adolescent children a vaccine to protect them from sexually transmitted disease (STD).

The HPV vaccine for boys is also controversial because its benefits are not consistent. For example, Gardisil has been shown to prevent genital warts, but only in heterosexual men. There’s no evidence that Gardisil protects homosexual men from genital warts. Similarly, Gardasil has been shown to prevent anal cancer precursors in homosexual men, however these precursors rarely progress to anal cancer in heterosexual men.

A further rationale for the male vaccine is that preventing genital warts in heterosexual men will help reduce infection in women. However, this is only so if the vaccine is efficacious for a very long time. Every vaccine has a duration of efficacy. According to the Immunization Action Coalition(IAC), the HPV vaccine lasts five years.

Diane Harper, MD

However, Diane Harper, MD, the leading international expert on HPV, says that HPV antibody titers in the blood are detectable for only two years after HPV vaccination. Regardless of whether HPV is efficacious for two or five years, a child will need an HPV booster before he or she becomes sexually active.

Even with a booster, the efficacy of the HPV vaccine is questionable. According to Harper, “The cost modeling data indicate that with 50% female vaccination, vaccinating up to 50% of boys will provide some protection for females if and only if Gardasil lasts for a lifetime of duration. This modeled prevention of disease in females by vaccinating males does not exist if Gardasil loses efficacy earlier than 20 years.” Currently less than 50% of girls have had one shot and each shot lasts just two to five years.

It will take decades for the US population to be protected by the HPV vaccine alone and we will not see a substantial decrease in cervical cancer from vaccines until 70% are fully vaccinated. Until we reach that level of HPV vaccine saturation, STD screening alone is at least as effective as STD screening with vaccines in preventing HPV infection.

Controversy over the HPV vaccine erupted in the press earlier this year when Michelle Bachmann claimed that someone had become mentally retarded in one week from the HPV vaccine. While her statement has been widely discredited, more than 18,000 reports of adverse events associated with the HPV vaccine have been made to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) since 2006, including 72 deaths.  In fact, the risk of adverse events associated with the HPV vaccine is 7 events per 100,000 vaccinated, while the risk of cervical cancer in the developed world is 3 cases per 100,000.The story of Gabby Swank, who reportedly died from complications of the HPV vaccine, is documented in the new film The Greater Good, streaming live on mercola.com until November 5th.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

[ 6 comments ]

Bachmann, Perry and the HPV

September 18th, 2011

At first, it seems surprising that a vaccination is central to recent presidential “debates” until one realizes how potently this important public health issue illustrates the erosion of public trust in authority.

Rick Perry took significant campaign donations from Merck & Co, the manufacturer of the HPV vaccines, and then signed an executive order to mandate the HPV vaccine in Texas. In an attempt to discredit Perry, Michelle Bachmann claimed that a girl was made retarded by the HPV vaccine. She has been ridiculed for making this statement, and while it may be the wrong argument, it is correct information.

In February 2007, Governor Rick Perry bowed to the lobbying pressure of Merck and attempted to mandate Gardasil for all middle-school-aged girls in Texas. Merck donated $16,000 to Perry’s campaign in the two and a half years prior to his signing the executive order to do so. Michael Toomey, Perry’s former chief of staff, was one of Merck’s top lobbyist at the time Perry signed the executive order. The HPV vaccine costs between $360 and $390 for the three shot series and would have cost the state of Texas $50 million in the first year alone.

At the time, Merck hoped to generate as much as $3 billion in annual sales from Gardasil. According to Forbes, the vaccine is a disappointment to Wall Street analysts, who expected it to generate from $2 billion to $4 billion in yearly sales. It generates $1 billion annually in sales.

Medical evidence points to the need for caution in regard to Gardasil. An article in the February 28 2007 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) found that while HPV infection is common among US females 20 to 24 (44.8 percent are infected), only 24.5 percent of girls 14 to 19 are infected.

In April 2010, the Indian Council of Medical Research suspended the cervical cancer control vaccination program for girls in India after four deaths and more than 120 complications were reported by young women who had received the Gardasil vaccine.

Cervical cancer is the fifth cause of death among women in developed countries with a rate of three cases per 100,000 women, and is still epidemic in developing countries. Seventy percent of HPV infections resolve within one year; 90 percent resolve within two years. Only 10 percent of infections will persist and 50 percent of these will be cancer precursors.

Mass screening programs for HPV infection have had dramatic effects. When 70 percent of women in a society participate in mass screening the rate of cervical cancer drops. Finland saw a 75 percent drop in cervical cancer when women participated in mass screening. Of those who get cervical cancer, 50 percent never got a pap smear.

According to Diane Harper, MD, MPH, MS., the leading international expert on HPV vaccines and developer of Gardasil and Cervarix, the vaccines are highly effective against most types of HPV viruses, but not all of them. Coverage requires three doses of the vaccine and is expensive. No efficacy trials in girls younger than fifteen years of age have been done and the duration of efficacy is unknown for all recipients.

Screening is still essential and screening alone is as effective as screening with vaccines in preventing HPV infection, according to Harper. On the package inserts, Gardisal publishes efficacy of five years and Cervarix publishes 7.5 years. “If HPV vaccines are not effective for at least 15 years, then no cervical cancer is prevented, only postponed,” says Harper.

In general, the vaccine has proven safe for most women, but results from the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) indicate that 29 percent of vaccine recipients feel dizzy and faint. More than 18,000 reports of adverse events associated with the HPV vaccine have been made since 2006 including 72 cases of death. The risk of adverse events associated with the HPV vaccine is 7 events per 100,000 vaccinated, while the risk of cervical cancer in the developed world is 3 cases per 100,000 women.

CBS covered the story of Gabby Swank, who became very ill after receiving the HPV vaccine. This is probably the girl Bachmann was referring to as she became increasingly mentally confused before she died. Other families of children damaged from Gardasil also tell their stories. Art Caplan’s claim that there are no side effects to the HPV vaccine is arrogant in its ignorance and cruel in its dismissal of the real suffering of many families. I hope he will give the $10,000 to Gabby’s mom, Shannon.

A 2009 study in Pediatrics found that a majority of parents are concerned about adverse events of vaccine. 99 percent of respondents to an online survey agreed with the statement, “Getting vaccines is a good way to protect my children from disease.” However, 54 percent agreed with “I am concerned about serious adverse events of vaccines.” 11.5 percent had refused at least one vaccine recommended by their doctor.

Congress has acknowledged that vaccines can have adverse events. Occasionally, a vaccine is even recalled. In 1986, Congress passed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) to protect the vaccine supply by reducing the liability of the vaccine manufacturers and to respond to public health concerns. The NCVIA requires all health care providers to report certain adverse events following vaccination to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS). According to the CDC, in 2008, more than 25,000 reports of adverse events in the US were received by VAERS. The NCVIA also created the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP) to compensate those injured by vaccines on a “no fault” basis.

When medical experts such as Mr. Caplan categorically deny the existence of something that parents know exists, experience themselves and are concerned about, it just further erodes parent confidence in the vaccine program. If you would like to research adverse events of HPV yourself, you can go directly to VAERS, or ask Stephen Rubin, PhD a question on our discussion forums. And, many other Gardasil and HPV resources are available on Mothering.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

[ Comments Off ]

Killer Fear

October 31st, 2009

by Peggy O’Mara, Editor and Publisher

While grocery shopping at our local food co-op last Saturday, I ran into an old friend. He told me that he’d been walking the aisles in a daze of fear, wondering how much hydrogen peroxide to stock up on for the coming pandemic. Our conversation seemed to calm him down, but later I wondered how many other 
parents were so terrified.

In response to the recent hysteria about the H1N1 virus, or swine flu, we have created a new online resource section, www.mothering.com/health/swine-flu. Swine flu, however, is just one of many terrifying possibilities. Our challenge as parents is not only worry over swine flu in particular, but rampant fear in general.

The deceptive thing about fear is that, because of the biochemical response that initiates it, at first it feels exciting. In our stressful society, we become accustomed to the high of this adrenaline rush and think it normal. But it’s not. In fact, when our experiences regularly trigger the release of adrenaline, fear can kill us.

When we are fearful or anxious, our muscles need more oxygen and glucose, which means that our heart pumps faster and our blood pressure rises. Cortisol is one of the hormones involved in this process; prolonged high levels of it in the bloodstream can damage the heart, contribute to obesity (especially of the gut), and weaken the immune system.

High cortisol production also leads to increased amounts of fatty deposits in the liver, which in turn can create a range of metabolic disorders.1 In 2008, a team from the University of California–Los Angeles showed that increased levels of cortisol prematurely age immune cells and thus make people more susceptible to illness.2 Cortisol suppresses the action of telomerase, the enzyme that keeps cells young.

Not only is fear bad for our health, it colors our perception of reality. While we like to think that reality is an objective fact, we actually see the world not as it is, but as we are. That’s why everything looks bad when we’re depressed, and wonderful when we’re happy. Beliefs come from information we have learned and experiences we have had. Conscious or unconscious, our beliefs determine our biology and our behavior. We might even have unconscious fears from something we learned as toddlers—childhood programming becomes adult habits of perception and belief.

So our experiences shape our perceptions, which in turn create our beliefs. Our beliefs then reinforce our perceptions, because we now see the world through the filter of these beliefs. Unfortunately, even erroneous beliefs can be self-reinforcing. If we believe the world is a fearful place, for example, we may see other people as distrustful. If, on the other hand, we see the world as benevolent, we may expect people to be friendly and helpful. Some would say that we even create our experiences by our perceptions and beliefs.

How can we change our relationship to fear? How do we respond to the rampant fear stimulated by our sensationalistic mass media? Do news sources exist that will not trigger a release of adrenaline? Do we simply shut out some or all media? Are we as careful about the types of media we allow to affect us as we are about what media we expose our children to? And, perhaps more important, do we recognize when we have experienced a stressful situation or have been in a prolonged state of fear, and then give ourselves time to calm down, rest, and recover? Or are we, along with so many others, simply addicted to fear?

We can become addicted to fear because there is a certain romantic appeal to the tragic side of life. One need only look at the proliferation of vampire fiction to see the appeal of the victim mentality. And yet, with all we now know about the long-term effects of prolonged fear and anxiety, as well as about how we can lay down new, more healthy neural pathways in the brain, playing the victim is not only unhealthy, it has become passé.

We can become victims even when we think ourselves immune to such a thing. When we fall prey to the fear and anxiety stimulated by the media, we, too, have allowed ourselves to be victimized. In my own attempt to stay clear of fear, I have taken more notice recently of the effects that stressful experiences have on me. I often recriminate myself because of my sensitivity, but I just can’t get disturbing images from the media out of my head, sometimes for days or weeks. I have come to appreciate this sensitivity, and am less and less willing to be traumatized in the name of entertainment, or even in the name of being “informed.”

I’m also more willing to give myself extra time to recover from stressful experiences, rather than just press on in the face of feeling overwhelmed. It’s probably my age that has given me permission to indulge my idiosyncrasies—by this time in life, I have finally come to accept myself. Self-acceptance is an antidote to fear. In times of strife, it helps if we refuse to abandon our authentic selves. It also helps if we simply tell the truth, and choose to place ourselves only in harmonious and balanced situations.

Often, when we’re afraid, we feel intimidated and act before we’re ready. But during such hard times, it’s more important than ever to act only when mind and heart are in alignment. And when we feel gripped by fear, one way out is to communicate directly and act immediately to alleviate the fear.

Fear is often accompanied by worry, but worry is absent when we’re lost in the moment—so it’s helpful to cultivate practices and thinking that help us maintain a moment-by-moment focus. Meditation, yoga, biofeedback, and visualization are such practices.

Because we often worry when life feels out of control, setting comfortable limits and boundaries is essential, as is refusing to overextend ourselves to make things happen—even when others create an unnecessary emergency.

If we take the time to observe ourselves and our states of mind, we will find other antidotes to fear and worry. They are but the storms and low points of our emotional life; they are not who we are. We are more complex than our emotions.

Whether it’s fear of something imagined—the possibility of swine flu, avian flu, smallpox, terrorist attack, financial ruin, falling meteors—or of an emergency actually taking place in the present moment, there are things we can do to escape the grip of fear and therefore bring more oxygen to our brains so that we can think more clearly and make better decisions. Here are some things to do:

Name that emotion. The next time you feel out of control, practice naming your emotions: This is anger. This is envy. This is disappointment. When you feel strong emotions, they may seem stronger because you are experiencing several at once. Differentiating them helps you to have a better relationship with them, and 
to understand what they’re trying to tell you.

Change your thinking. Even when you’re in a foul mood, resist the temptation to let your thoughts wander in negative directions: to what’s wrong with you, to old problems, to things that make you angry. Think in ways that you know will bring out your positive emotions. For example: Rather than a problem or a bad experience, focus on plans and actions for the current day.

Focus outside of yourself. Try to direct your thinking away from problematic thoughts and emotions. Think of a lovely fantasy vacation, something you want to make, something you’re looking forward to, someone you love. Make a special place in your imagination where you can go when you’re experiencing prolonged stress.

Practice positive thinking. Positive thinking is a skill that must be practiced. People talk about having “a spiritual practice”—it’s called that because you have to practice being spiritual. The practice is about working with what is, whether we like it or not.

Stand by yourself. Often, when we’re afraid, we lose perspective on our good qualities. When you’ve experienced something stressful, treat yourself the way you treat your child when she’s had a bad day. Have a nice meal. Drink a cup of hot tea. Cover up with a blanket. Sit by the fire. Listen to relaxing music. Don’t turn against yourself in hard times—take care of yourself.

Use a mantra. A mantra is a word or phrase that can be repeated over and over again. It can drown out negative thoughts and help you keep your focus in the present. Music can be a mantra. Prayer is a mantra. The sacred syllable Om is used as a mantra in eastern religions. My adult children have offered me helpful, secular mantras such as “It’s all good” and “No worries.” I recently saw a wonderful Israeli film, Ushpizin, in which the mantra was “All is God.” The Buddhist monk Thich Nhat Hanh offers up the mantra “Breathing in I calm myself. Breathing out I smile.”

The “Litany against Fear,” from Frank Herbert’s novel Dune, has served me as a mantra of sorts for 40 years, and was especially helpful during pregnancy and birth. I’ve memorized the words, so I’m ready with them at a moment’s notice. I even act them out:

I must not fear.

Fear is the mind-killer.

Fear is the little-death that brings 
total obliteration.

I will face my fear.

I will permit it to pass over me and 
through me.

And when it has gone past I will 
turn the inner eye to see its path.

Where the fear has gone there will be 
nothing.

Only I will remain.

Keep your sense of humor. Humor is the universal antidote to fear, anxiety, and worry. Sit yourself down in front of a funny or uplifting movie. Listen to Monty Python’s Flying Circus. Play some games. Cultivate your inner prankster. When we’re thinking funny or silly thoughts, fear and anger vaporize.

There’s always something to worry about. If things aren’t going to work out, worry does no good. And if things are going to work out regardless, worrying about them will not help. Either way, worry is useless. It’s a sign of being off balance, over-
extended, overtired, or out of control. 
As parents, we can’t afford it. It robs our energy, ruins our health, and sets a bad example. Therefore, we must somehow find the courage to fight fear in hand-to-hand combat, cut off its head, and claim our birthright: Paradise is a state of mind.

NOTES

1. Ulrike Lemke et al., “The Glucocorticoid Receptor Controls Hepatic Dyslipidemia through Hes1,” Cell Metabolism 8, no. 3 (September 2008): 212–223.

2. Jenny Choi, Steven R. Fauce, and Rita B. Effros, “Reduced Telomerase Activity in Human T Lymphocytes Exposed to Cortisol,” Brain, Behavior, and Immunity 22, no. 4 (May 2008): 600–605.

Tags: , , ,

[ 13 comments ]

Parents Will Fund The Research

October 4th, 2009

Well, the vaccine conference is over, at least for me. There is one last panel tonight on vaccines and political action, but it’s time for me to rest and to catch you up on this amazing event. I had originally intended to blog everyday, but the conference schedule has literally been non-stop and this is the first chance I’ve had to organize my thoughts.

The conference presentations were uniformly excellent, the material diverse and far reaching and the attendees inspired and activated. There is no doubt in my mind that we have reached a critical mass. It is just a matter of time before we resuscitate the informed consent doctrine in the US. Perhaps it is the fear of mandatory vaccines for swine flu that finally will tip the point.

In the spirit of The Seven Traits of Highly Effective People, I want to “start with the end in sight.” I will tell you about the end of the conference and then go back to the beginning. Over the next two weeks, I will blog about what I’ve learned from the sessions.

Barbara Loe Fisher, co-founder and president of the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), made her closing remarks joyfully today. Just yesterday, Dawn Richardson, president of Parents Requesting Open Vaccine Education (PROVE), suggested that since the government was unwilling to fund research into comparing health outcomes between vaccinated and unvaccinated children, we do it ourselves.

Barbara offered that NVIC would immediately begin to take donations to fund such a scientific study, to be conducted by independent, credentialed researchers and published in an important medical journal. In just the last 24 hours of this conference, NVIC has raised $110,000 for this study and will issue a press release regarding it tomorrow, Monday 5 October 2009. This is an historic moment.

I would suggest that you go immediately to the NVIC website and sign up for their newsletter so that you can receive the press release. While you’re at it, make a donation to NVIC. Family membership is just $25. Their mostly volunteer staff has been doing so much for all of us since 1982 and they operate on a budget of less than $300,000 a year. Barbara said that if they had more funding for the organization, they could:
Mount a national advertising campaign.
Offer a 24 hour a day national vaccine reaction reporting hotline.
Create statewide legal and medical networks.
Coordinate state leaders working for state exemptions.

Dawn Richardson from Texas, who suggested that parents do the study, has developed model state language for a medical exemption. She did a session Thursday night on “State Organizing To Get & Protect Vaccine Choices” and I’ve asked her to write an article for us on this topic. Look for it in early 2010. More tomorrow.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

[ 2 comments ]

At the Vaccine Conference

October 1st, 2009

I’m in Reston, Virginia right now, here to attend the 4th International Public Conference on Vaccination put on by the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC). The conference is being held from Thursday, October 1st through Sunday, October 4th, 2009. Monday, October 5th, is a group lobbying day on Capitol Hill. The day includes a congressional briefing on the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) and time for conference participants to visit their own state legislators to discuss vaccine safety issues.

I always love visiting the DC area, probably because I’ve come here mostly to attend vaccine conferences or congressional hearings on vaccines. I knew that the conference would give me the impetus I wanted to get my blog started because I’m eager to share all of the fabulous information I will be learning during the next three days. It will also be an opportunity for me to solicit great articles for 2010.

I intend to keep you posted on the exciting presentations from the conference. I’m particularly looking forward to hearing George Annas on “Informed Consent,” Vicky Debold on “Vaccinated and Unvaccinated: Measuring Outcomes” and Andy Wakefield on “Vaccines and Inflammation.” I’ll especially watch out for any information to help you quell the swine flu hysteria.

I’ll be giving the opening speech Friday morning on “The New Health Journalism: Challenging the Status Quo” and will post my talk online later that day.

On Friday evening, I’ll be the moderator for the “Mother & Child Panel” with Amy Lansky, Stephen Marini and Jeanne Ohm. What a lineup! On Saturday, I have the honor to moderate Bob Sears, who will talk on “The Alternative Vaccine Schedule’ and Larry Palevsky on “Getting Sick to Stay Well.” And Sunday, I’ll be thrilled to moderate Joe Mercola’s talk, “Take Control of Your Health.” I can’t wait to meet him.

And, Saturday night, I will receive the Courage in Journalism award from NVIC. I cried when I read Barbara Loe Fisher’s email letting me know. She wrote, “I would like to present you with the NVIC’s Courage in Journalism award in recognition of your many years of leadership in framing the paradigm shift that is occurring in child health toward achieving wellness without constant use of multiple vaccines or drugs.”

More on all this soon. Stay tuned.

Tags: , , ,

[ 23 comments ]


.
Find us on facebook Follow us on twitter
Sign up for our newsletters Subscribe to our RSS feed


Ad Slot: Top Box

    Welcome to A Quiet Place

    Mothering's long-time editor and publisher, Peggy O'Mara, shares observations and insights about overcoming parenting obstacles, appreciating unacknowledged epiphanies, and taking care of yourself. Also, great food ideas and recipes, as well as beautiful home and garden tips.

Search








Bottom Box