Autism - The Legacy of Our War on Germs

In my last article, we discussed the fact that vaccines are loaded with toxic heavy metals and other chemicals as well as the fact that they're not studied for long-term side effects or safety and that they are not the public health miracle many people believe them to be. That is, they're not safe, not particularly effective and therefore not needed. I mentioned in that article that vaccines have been linked with autism. Now, I'd like to discuss that theory a little further.

In the early days of allopathic medicine, which is marked by the use of drugs or chemicals to combat illness, mercury was a common cure-all. Because of its ability to kill virtually any living thing, mercury was used to kill germs like the one that causes syphilis. Their frequent use of "quicksilver" led to these early allopathic physicians being labeled "quacks." Because these quacks' treatments were also dangerous to the point of often being deadly (George Washington was killed by his allopathic physician's heroic efforts) the terms quack and charlatan became synonymous. And yet, mercury continued to be a common treatment for bacterial infections until penicillin became available around the end of World War II.

The vaccine for pertussis (whooping cough) was developed around 1929. Pertussis is a bacterial infection, so the vaccine makers decided to use a mercury "preservative" that had just been patented called "thimerosal" to kill the pertussis germs or anything else that may have survived the manufacturing process. Thimerosal was a brand new drug at the time and had only been used on humans once in a case of sheer desperation. Here, a doctor tried using large doses of thimerosal to save several of his patients who were suffering from meningitis. All of those patients died-many of them shortly after receiving their thimerosal treatments. Still, this was the "safety study" that Eli Lilly used when applying for its patent on the pertussis vaccine. Apparently, this slipped by the people at the FDA. Many years later, the FDA asked Eli Lilly to produce some safety studies on the drug, but Ely Lilly refused saying the drug had been used for some 30 years at that point and that was proof enough of its safety. The FDA apparently agreed, because they dropped the case.

In the early days of vaccines, thimerosal was only used in the shots for diphtheria, pertussis and tetanus, later combined into one DPT shot. In those early days, only the well-to-do kids received vaccines. Autism was discovered in 1943 by Dr. Leo Kanner. These autistic children were always from the well-to-do families, which led Dr. Kanner to believe that these mothers were somehow colder in their child-rearing and that that was the cause of this disorder. As insurance companies began paying for vaccines, autism became evenly distributed amongst all classes of children.

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, two more shots were added to the vaccine schedule: HiB and hepatitis B. Each of these shots contained thimerosal as a preservative, thus tripling the child's exposure to mercury and raising the contaminant level far above what the EPA says is safe. Even worse, the hepatitis B shot was to be given within the child's first 12 hours on the planet. In the early 1990s, the CDC began receiving reports showing much higher rates of autism. What had been a relatively rare disorder affecting maybe one child in 100,000 was now affecting one child in every 1,500. In 2002, they performed another study and found that autism was now affecting one in every 150 children. In 2006, they increased their number again to one in every 100. In 2007 they adjusted it yet again to one in every 90 children. This dramatic increase in autism rates corresponded exactly with the increase in mercury exposure, just as the initial diagnosis corresponded with the first use of the drug in the 1930s.

We've known for many years that mercury is toxic to nerve cells and that it tends to preferentially accumulate there. It's also been shown that certain children lack a particular brain protein that helps to clear mercury from the brain. Autistic children lack this protein and therefore have much more mercury in their brains than normal children do. This is the genetic link to autism-an inability to clear mercury from the tissues.

The government and the drug companies claim there's no proof that autism is caused by mercury. By this, they mean there are no double-blind, placebo-controlled studies confirming the theory. This is because nobody does long-term double-blind, placebo-controlled studies on vaccines. They just do a short study and then give it to every child on the planet. Without a group of children who do not receive vaccines, it's very hard to prove that vaccines cause autism. Luckily, there is one group of kids who've been spared this assault-the Amish. The Amish generally refuse to vaccinate their children. Based on the number of children in their population and the CDC's national averages, we would expect to find 130 autistic Amish children. What we find, however, is that they only have four autistic kids amongst them. Of those four, three have been vaccinated and the other had a large mercury exposure from a power plant.

Further, in 2000, a House Committee on Government Reform, led by Representative Dan Burton (whose grandson developed autism after receiving several vaccines) began studying the issue of autism and vaccines. After almost three years of conducting hearings and requesting records, their final report stated, "Through a Congressional mandate to review thimerosal content in medicines, the FDA learned that childhood vaccines, when given according to the CDC's recommendations exposed over 8,000 children a day in the United States to levels of mercury that exceeded Federal guidelines... Thimerosal used as a preservative in vaccines is directly related to the autism epidemic. This epidemic in all probability may have been prevented or curtailed had the FDA not been asleep at the switch regarding a lack of safety data regarding injected thimerosal, a known neurotoxin."

Also in 2000, a secret meeting was held by the CDC, reported on by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., in an article titled "Deadly Immunity." Here, they discussed a large study that had been conducted on the CDC's own database pertaining to this subject. Their conclusion was that thimerosal was the cause of autism and that they needed to bury the information before the public found out and began rejecting vaccines altogether. But rather than destroy all the thimerosal-containing vaccines that had already been produced, they decided to phase thimerosal out over the next several years. This was done, of course, to save the billion-dollar drug makers from financial losses.

In 2001, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist introduced the Eli Lilly Protection Act, which was inserted as a rider on the Homeland Security Bill. This act was meant to protect the main producer of thimerosal (who had also made several large campaign contributions to Senator Frist) from potential lawsuits regarding the autism debacle. The bill passed but the rider was later repealed when angry parents who had children damaged by the drug sued.

Thimerosal has now been removed from most (but not all) childhood vaccines. It's still in most flu shots and it's in several booster shots given to adolescents. One recent study suggests that since the removal of thimerosal from most vaccines, the rate of autism is now declining.

Don't believe the stories when you hear that this issue is dead. Mercury and thimerosal did cause the autism epidemic. As Dr. Mark Geier, a scientist who has studied the issue in depth has said, "This is about as proven an issue as you're going to see... what is occurring here is a cover-up under the guise of protecting the vaccine program." The drug companies are not going to admit that they caused this horrendous problem, which will cost us billions of dollars to handle, not to mention the lives of hundreds of thousands of children and their parents. And the government will continue to protect the drug companies because they (the FDA) are the ones who allowed it to happen and they (the CDC) are the ones pushing the vaccines on our kids. This means it's up to us to educate ourselves and put the pieces together.

Please help spread the word about this issue. It's finally making its way into the mainstream and people are waking up, though many still refuse to believe the facts that are staring them in the face. Again, I've only scratched the surface of this story here.

Much more is included in my book, "Thugs, Drugs and the War On Bugs, How the Natural Healthcare Revolution Will Lead Us Past Greed, Ego and Scary Germs." You can go to my website http://www.HealthIsNatural.com to learn more about this ground-breaking book and to order your copy. Dr. Brad Case is a holistic chiropractor, clinic director of the Holistic Healing Center in Prunedale, California, and author of "Thugs, Drugs and the War On Bugs, How the Natural Healthcare Revolution Will Lead Us Past Greed, Ego, and Scary Germs", Book I in the Why We're Sick? healthcare series. He's also a contributing author of "101 Great Ways to Improve Your Health". Dr. Case has dedicated his life to exposing the myths and lies perpetrated by modern medicine and the mainstream media. His personal and professional mission is to revolutionize the way healthcare is delivered in this country and the world, leading to complete freedom of choice in healthcare and a common sense approach to treating and preventing disease. He puts out a quarterly newsletter and a monthly e-newsletter.

Dr. Case has discovered that there are just seven foundational causes for all disease. To help combat these stumbling blocks to health, he's developed the 20 Steps to Perfect Health?, a holistic program designed to get even the sickest patient well again. He has also developed a series of healthcare lectures called "The Perfect Health Seminars." His casual style and dry, irreverent wit tend to delight and buoy his audience, allowing them to digest this serious, and often scary information.

Dr. Case has a Bachelor of Science in Human Biology, and received his Doctor of Chiropractic from the National University of Health Sciences.

To schedule an appointment or book Dr. Case as a speaker, call: 831-663-2284. He can also be reached by email at drbradcase@sbcglobal.net. You can also follow him on Twitter at drbradcase. For more information about the Holistic Healing Center, including many amazing patient testimonials, or to sign up for his free health e-newsletter, please visit http://www.HealthIsNatural.com.

The Legacy of Operation Ajax

Iran has always played a pivotal role in world politics. It was once a world-class empire, it is strategically located at a crossroad between Europe, the Near East, and Asia, and it has the world's second largest petroleum reserves. In the 18th and 19th Century, it was the battleground between imperial rivals Russia and Britain in what came to be known as "The Great Game". In both World Wars, Iran held a strategic position and was pivotal to the Allies' victory. In 1951, the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC) controlled Iranian petroleum production. Little of the company's profits went to Iran and the AIOC's Iranian workers were severely mistreated and underpaid. On April 30, 1951, everything changed. The Iranian parliament, with the support of Prime Minister Mossadeq, voted to nationalize Iran's oil. The following years would change Iran, America, and the world forever.

In Stephen Kinzer's book All the Shah's Men, the author prefaces the book with the discourse of an Iranian woman,

'Why did you Americans do that terrible thing?' she cried out. 'We always loved America. To us, America was the great country, the perfect country, the country that helped us while other countries exploited us. But after that moment, no one in Iran ever trusted the United States again. I can tell you for sure that if you had not done that thing, you would never have had the problem of hostages being taken in your embassy in Tehran. All your trouble started in 1953. Why, why did you do it?'

This woman's statement gives us a glimpse of Iranian sentiment regarding American involvement in the 1953 Coup, codenamed Operation Ajax; an event that to this day few Americans know about. Are her statements accurate? Did the United States really destroy a democracy? Examining her claim will show that her views hold some truth, and that her sentiments reflect a deep resentment among Iranians. This examination will summarize the Iranian-American interactions that culminated in Operation Ajax, examine the effects of the 1953 Coup, and determine that the Coup was detrimental to Iranian-American relations; specifically, the Coup hurt American credibility, resulted in anti-American sentiment, and directly led to the Hostage Crisis of 1979.

A Brief Look at the 1953 Coup

In 1950, Iran's economy was in a state of depression. Contrarily, the flourishing Anglo-Iranian Oil Company was pumping oil from Iranian soil with the help of Iranian workers, yet it was the United Kingdom who benefited the most. The company paid the British government more in income taxes than it paid Iran in royalties. According to Pollack, "[The AIOC] lied and manipulated its books to underpay the Iranian government to the tune of billions of dollars...violated the terms of the 1933 concession...paid [workers] 50 cents per day...[while workers had] no vacation, no sick leave, and no disability compensation." The anger and resentment over the AIOC, as well as Mohammad Reza Shah's attempts to centralize authority in his hands led to the establishment of the National Front.

The National Front's confrontations with the Shah, and later the British government, led to the American involvement in Iran that culminated in the events of August 1953. There were two different presidential administrations in America during the time period of the National Front, and while these administrations held the same ideology, they undertook different policies towards Iran. The Truman administration's black-and-white image of the Cold War led to its support of the National Front and Mossadeq's efforts. He was worried that British demands would lead to the Iranians turning to the Communists for help. Furthermore, Truman recognized that the National Front was a nationalist movement, a not a Communist movement. This mentality led to closer relations between Iran and the United States during this period of the Nationalization Crisis, including defensive pacts, monetary aid, and more pressure American on the British government to compromise with the Iranians.

In 1950, ARAMCO, an American oil conglomeration, agreed to a 50-50 profit split between it and the Saudi government. At this point, the Iranian parliament, known was the Majles, attempted to workout a compromise with the British. The British refused. This refusal, coupled with ARAMCO's deal, eliminated any moderate solution and led to the drive for nationalization, resulting in the Majles's nationalization legislation, which was passed on April 30, 1951.

The British were furious. Their government plotted attacks as well as a coup attempt in Iran, but the Americans once again stepped in supporting the Iranian cause, as fears grew that a British invasion would lead to a similar Russian invasion. Yet, regardless of America's pro-nationalist stance, Mossadeq denounced any American intervention in Iranian affairs.

Britain then attempted to take the nationalization issue to the United Nations. Mossadeq's speech to the world community in defense of his actions was compelling and he won the admiration of the American people and the United Nations. The United Nations declared then that the nationalization crisis was an internal issue. This was one of Mossadeq's greatest victories. Yet the British felt humiliated and were still unwilling to compromise.

At this point, an internal power struggle in Iran led to Mossadeq's de facto control of the government, and the Shah's defeat and escape to Rome. It was now that the British attempted a compromise, but Mossadeq was unwilling, making him seem stubborn, particularly in the eyes of newly elected President Eisenhower.

One of the turning points of this conflict came with Eisenhower's inauguration as President of the United States. Mossadeq thought that Eisenhower would be even more sympathetic to his cause, but he was mistaken. Eisenhower also took a black-and-white approach to the Cold War, much like Truman, but the discrepancy can best be summarized by the phrase, "you're either with us, or against us." As far as John Foster Dulles, the Secretary of State (whose brother, Allen Dulles was the head of the Central Intelligence Agency) and President Eisenhower were concerned, Mossadeq was against them. Initially, Eisenhower was sympathetic to Mossadeq, but Secretary Dulles convinced him otherwise. The issue was exacerbated by Mossadeq's threat to side with the Soviets if the British-Iranian dispute were not resolved.

On August 15, 1953, the CIA, operating from the American Embassy in Tehran, underwent its first operation: Operation Ajax. The undertaking sought to depose Mossadeq and re-install the Shah as the autocratic leader of Iran's government. Through the dispersion of money and the gathering of crowds, the operation was successful, and Mossadeq was defeated.

The Myth of the 1953 Coup

"At a time when America is telling the world its aims are to bring democracy to the whole plant, the Mossadeq era proves all of America's protestations to be a long lie." - An Iranian Blogger

Many Iranians denounce America's involvement in the 1953 Coup, but did the event destroy a democracy and is the United States to blame?

First, it is important to note that Mossadeq had a near autocracy during his rule. After the deposition of the Shah, Mossadeq was given near-autocratic powers by the Iranian Majles. Second, the United States had previously made efforts to help the Iranians, but Mossadeq seemed unwilling to reciprocate. Finally, it was Iranians who carried out the Coup with CIA support; it was not an exclusively American undertaking; there was then a great deal of disaffection with Mossadeq in Iran, particularly among Iran's political elite. In terms of CIA involvement, the Americans only used $100,000 and British intelligence to engineer the Coup.

Mossadeq was certainly not a perfect leader. He possessed many character flaws that hurt his cause. His antics may have been received with favor in Iran, but internationally, they made him a spectacle and a laughing stock. Mossadeq also became increasingly isolated and trusted no one, particularly his fellow Iranians. This led to his denouncement of those who voiced any opposition to his plan as traitors and British conspirators, thereby deepening his opposition base. Mossadeq was also uncompromising; he was unwilling to broker a 50-50 deal with the British, a deal which Truman appealed to Mossadeq to accept. His inflexibility particularly after this incident led Eisenhower and his administration to believe that the only solution to the Mossadeq situation was to depose Mossadeq and place a more easily influenced leader in Iran.

While there is a great deal of evidence and claims that the Coup was not solely fueled by the CIA, the organization did act as a catalyst and was responsible for placing the Shah in power after Mossadeq's fall. Keddie states that "the coup could not have succeeded without significant internal disaffection or indifference, but without outside aid it would not have occurred." The CIA unified Mossadeq's opposition and armed them with money and information, allowing the Coup to take shape. As opposed to restoring power to the Iranian parliament after the Coup, the CIA supported a more malleable figure: the Shah, thus guaranteeing that Iran would become an authoritarian state. This later came to be seen as evidence that America did not want democracy for the Middle East, but rather wanted to control the region.

Regardless of the truths and myths of the Coup, the sentiments of the Iranian people determined the event's impact on Iranian-American relations. Neither the realities nor the actualities of the events of August 1953 matter when dealing with such an emotional issue. While many argue that it was not solely the actions of the CIA that led to Mossadeq's toppling, the myth and political folklore created from the event tell a different tale. Many Iranians regard Mossadeq as "an uncorrupted modernizer and democrat who defied the imperialists." Iranians also conclude that Iran would be a democracy today were it not for the events of 1953. While the idea seems far-fetched, as Mossadeq was a near autocrat during his rule, he was still democratically elected and his powers were derived from the Iranian parliament. The emotional nature of the incident led to the status of Mossadeq as a martyr and a symbol of American treachery. Among the burgeoning Iranian blogs, many place pictures of Mossadeq without any text on significant dates associated with the popular leader as a show of morning over a lost opportunity. The caption of one blogger read, "In honor of Dr, Mossadeq, a man who never betrayed his own people..."

The Legacy of the Coup

"...Operation Ajax has left a haunting and terrible legacy." - Stephen Kinzer

The Coup has had many repercussions on American-Iranian relations, reaching from anti-American ideological positions to historical occurrences, such as the Hostage Crisis.

The ideological products of the 1953 Coup include anti-Americanism and an obsession with foreign intervention in Iran. The ideologies did appear before the Coup, but they were strongly reinforced and solidified by the events of August 1953.

First, the anti-Americanism found in the Iranian Revolution and during the Shah's time can be attributed to the actions of the CIA and the Coup's placement of the Shah as despot of Iran. While it is important to acknowledge that the British were involved in the Coup, not only did the Iranians think very little of the British, but also the United States was "seen as a betrayer and not just an old enemy." Prior to the Coup, the United States was very popular in Iran. But because the Americans were responsible for the Shah's dictatorship and for supporting him throughout his reign, the blame for the Shah's actions fell on America. The Shah thereby became a symbol of America's intervention in Iranian affairs. The conspiracy theories that Iranians had perpetuated turned out to have truth behind them: "...the United States did help to overthrow Mossadeq, and it was culpable in the establishment of the despotism of Mohammad Reza Shah that succeeded him." The event led to a lot speculation about how Iran would have been without Mossadeq's removal. It became commonplace for Iranians to claim that were it not for the 1953 Coup perpetrated by the Americans, Iran would be a flourishing democracy, an economic powerhouse, and even an American ally. Furthermore, the Shah's atrocious repression of any opposition, as well as his corruption are blamed largely on the United States. The Shah's actions were so horrific that in 1976, Amnesty International stated "no country in the world has a worse record in human rights than Iran." In 1977, Jimmy Carter came to Iran supported the Shah, proclaiming that Iran is "an island of tranquility in a sea of turbulence." America's support of the Shah regardless of his actions was a sore point that Iranians did not forget.

Second, the Iranian focus on imperialist intervention can be attributed to Mossadeq's obsession with foreign involvement in Iranian affairs. The Coup proved the presence of foreign collusion in Iran, an obsession that would blind politicians and Iranians from the political and economic woes of Iran. The paranoia it created acted as a unifying force against the meddling foreigners, particularly the US and Britain. While Iranians had previously held such ideas, the Coup confirmed those notions. Furthermore, the events of 1953 taught Iranians that taking an extreme position would be the most successful method of action. Even though Mossadeq's extreme position led to his downfall, he achieved the status of a martyr, being even more popular after his downfall than before. Khomeini adopted this technique during the Revolution of 1978-79.

The historical products of the 1953 Coup are key to Iranian-American relations. Much of the anti-American and anti-Western activities carried out by Iranians before and after the Revolution can be attributed to what is seen as America's act of betrayal. Specifically, the 1953 Coup is responsible for the Hostage Crisis. The hostage-takers' capture of the American Embassy in Tehran was an attempt to stop history from repeating itself, as the 1953 Coup's base of operations was the American Embassy. The Iranian students who stormed the Embassy did not want to be subject to further actions against their best interest. Massoumeh Ebtekar, the spokesperson for the hostage takers said, "In the back of everybody's mind hung the suspicion that, with the admission of the Shah to the United States, the countdown for another coup d'état had begun. Such was to be our fate again, we were convinced, and it was to be irreversible. We now had to reverse the irreversible." The students who stormed the embassy allegedly had copies of the memoirs of Kermit Roosevelt's (a key operative of the Coup) called Countercoup during the time of the hostage-taking. Furthermore, the students also believed that the hostages could be held as collateral to insure that the Americans would not engage in another coup attempt. The Coup's creation of the Hostage Crisis showed the lasting impacts of August 1953.

Operation Ajax initiated a shockwave that changed the Iranian landscape greatly. The deeply rooted anti-American sentiment of the past and of the present is fueled by the 1953 Coup, and the Hostage Crisis was a direct attempt to stop a repeat of Operation Ajax. The installment of the pro-American Shah following the Coup may have seemed to create stability in the Middle East, but in the long run, a deep-rooted distrust of Americans was created; a distrust that is proving hard to overcome.

Conclusion

"Operation Ajax taught tyrants and aspiring tyrants there that the world's most powerful governments were willing to tolerate limitless oppression as long as oppressive regimes were friendly to the West and Western oil companies. That helped tilt the political balance in a vast region away from freedom and toward dictatorship" - Stephen Kinzer

In All the Shah's Men, Stephen Kinzer gave a review of what a handful of American historians said regarding the Coup. Mark Gasiorowksi said, "U.S. complicity in [the Coup] figured prominently...in the anti-American character of 1978-79 revolution, and in the many anti-American incidents that emanated from Iran after the revolution, including...the embassy hostage crisis." Mary Ann Heiss stated that the Coup showed the United States' lack of interest in what is best for Iranians. Keddie stated, "...However exaggerated and paranoid some charges by Iranians may be, suspiciousness and hostility have their roots in real and important occurrences."

Indeed, the American deposition of one of Iran's most popular figures, and Time Magazine's Man of the Year in 1951 (beating out the likes of Winston Churchill, President Truman, and Dwight Eisenhower), provides evidence of the self-advancing position of the United States and the disinclination towards policies that would benefit the people of the world.

It is important to take some lessons from the 1953 Coup. For one, foreign intervention in internal affairs rarely produces positive effects; it destroys the credibility of foreign governments and further pushes a country into isolation. A regional or global hegemony must be mindful of the people's perceptions of its actions. What one government may declare as the only rational option, others may consider a gross injustice.

Citations

BP, BP Statistical Review of World Energy. (2005, June), 8.

Stephen Kinzer, All the Shah's Men (Hoboken: John Wiley and Sons, 2003), ix.

Nikki R. Keddie, Modern Iran: Roots and Results of Revolution (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2003), 123-124.

Kenneth M. Pollack, The Persian Puzzle: The Conflict Between Iran and America (New York: Random House, 2004), 52.

Pollack, The Persian Puzzle, 53.

Pollack, The Persian Puzzle, 55.

Pollack, The Persian Puzzle, 56.

Pollack, The Persian Puzzle, 57.

Pollack, The Persian Puzzle, 59.

Pollack, The Persian Puzzle, 63.

Pollack, The Persian Puzzle, 63-64.

Nasrin Alavi, We Are Iran (New York: Soft Skull Press, 2005), 37.

Pollack, The Persian Puzzle, 68-69.

James L. Gelvin, The Modern Middle East: A History (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 279.

Moyara de Moraes Ruehsen, "Operation 'Ajax' Revisited," Middle Eastern Studies 29, no. 3 (1993): 8-9.

Pollack, The Persian Puzzle, 63.

Keddie, Modern Iran, 130.

Pollack, The Persian Puzzle, 69.

Alavi, We Are Iran, 35.

Alavi, We Are Iran, 36-37.

Mostafa T. Zahrani, "The coup that changed the Middle East: Mossadeq v. the CIA in retrospect," World Policy Journal 19, no. 2 (2002): 1.

Kinzer, All the Shah's Men, 215.

Keddie, Modern Iran, 131.

Pollack, The Persian Puzzle, 68-69.

Gelvin, The Modern Middle East, 281.

Gelvin, The Modern Middle East, 282.

Alavi, We Are Iran, 40.

Alavi, We Are Iran, 36.

Pollack, The Persian Puzzle, 70.

Zahrani, "The coup that changed the Middle East," 4.

Gelvin, The Modern Middle East, 280.

Zahrani, "The coup that changed the Middle East," 4.

"How to Change a Regime in 30 Days," The Economist, August 14, 2003, 1.

Kinzer, All the Shah's Men, 204.

Kinzer, All the Shah's Men, 213.

Kinzer, All the Shah's Men, 214.

Kinzer, All the Shah's Men, 214.