My Son's Recovery from Autism- Without Pseudoscience!

A year ago, when I wrote "My Normal Baby's 12-Month Regression," I made a mental note to come back and update everyone in a year about my son's progress. After a significant developmnental regression, I knew that it was extremely likely that he, like his older sister, would be on the autism spectrum.

I never would have guessed just how remarkable the last year would be for my son. I never would have guessed that I would go from having an autistic one-year-old to a non-autistic two-year-old.
 Anti-vaxxers collectively spend millions on "curing" autism with bizarre treatment-- check out "10 Batshit Autism Treatments" for more on that-- but these treatments don't work and, worse, they're dangerous. I'm happy to say that my son was "cured" of autism in the only way that is backed by scientific study and endorsed by the Amerian Academy of Pediatrics.

I'll preface this with a (fictional) story. Suppose that a toddler's parents recognize that he is left-handed. There's a safe, effective method that can teach most left-handed toddlers to become ambidextrous, and the toddler's parents use it. Within a year, the toddler is functionally ambidextrous, and is able to use tools and machines designed for right-handed people, eliminating a problem that many lefties face.

This situation would not mean that a left-handed child is defective, or broken. It wouldn't mean that people should stop accommodating the needs of left-handed children and adults. It wouldn't change the fundamental fact that the child was born left-handed. It would simply mean that the child was given tools at an early age and was able to keep the good parts of being a lefty while never needing to worry that a classroom tool is made for someone else's grasp.

This is how I see my son. He was never broken and he was never in need of healing, but I gave him the ability to thrive in a world that is not made for people like him-- to such an extent that he effectively became neurologically "ambidextrous."

Darwin on his first day of school, last week.

My son Darwin's story goes like this:

At twelve months, Darwin had an extreme and sudden developmental regression. Since he had an older sister on the spectrum and had seemed "different" from birth, I contacted my community's Early Intervention program, which evaluated him and found that he had significant delays in several areas, including social-communication and motor skills. We began a weekly home-based program to address developmental problems including gross motor delays, extreme anxiety, sensory difficulties, disordered sleep, delayed speech, poor eye contact, and selective hearing.

At one point, Darwin's delays were so significant that I made myself come to terms with the possibility that he may grow up to be nonverbal-- the "bad" kind of autism that most parents fear.

Darwin's progress was by no means immediate. Even with Early Intervention, he did not walk until seventeen months and his sleep disturbances were so severe that, as a single mother, I was losing my mind. His neurologist suggested that I keep a tally chart to see how many times per night he was awakening, and I was disturbed to wake up and see fifteen to twenty tally marks every night. Several times, I fell asleep at stop-signs and red lights while driving his older sister to school. He would not respond to his name. He wouldn't speak to me. He wouldn't make eye contact.

At around a year and a half, it was pretty undeniable that Darwin was on the spectrum. His pediatrician, Early Interventionist, neurologist, and developmental pediatrician all agreed that it was unlikely that he was not autistic. Yet, he started to make progress, bit by bit.

In addition to his weekly Early Intervention meetings, where we discussed home-based strategies that would help him, Darwin received occupational therapy to help with his sensory processing difficulties. He also had speech therapy, which helped address early signs of echolalia (compulsive repetition of another person's words) and difficulty with auditory processing.

Every parent has a few moments in their child's development that they savor the most, those precious memories that they return to when they need to remember why it's all worthwhile. First words and first steps are common, but for the parents of special-needs kids, there are unsung milestones that matter just as much. I remember when Darwin finally (and suddenly) started speaking in real sentences. When he responded to his name. When he answered a question with "yes" or "no," instead of repetition. When he waved bye-bye for the first time following his regression. When he heard a washing machine and didn't scream in terror. When he let me buckle him into a car seat without a huge fight.

These memories mean everything to me. And, collectively, they added up to create the wonderful two-year-old that Darwin is today.

In the three weeks since Darwin's second birthday, we've had some amazing developments. He had his annual evaluation with Early Intervention, where we found that he'd gone from having severe delays in several areas, to being extremely advanced in every area tested. His social and communication skills are exceptionally advanced and he's finally hitting gross motor milestones on time.

 He speaks in long, complex sentences-- "Mama, if story time is over, would you like to rock in the rocking chair instead?"-- and plays well with his peers. He can run, jump with both feet on the ground, and initiate conversations with his peers. He started preschool last week and is thriving completely. He only wakes up once or twice a night and usually puts himself back to bed. Today, he "tested out" of occupational therapy and speech therapy, since he has no delays and his sensory processing abilities are now essentially typical.

Part of the summary sheet from Darwin's last home EI visit.

I couldn't possibly be more proud.

Given his monumental advances in the last couple of months, Darwin's care team now largely believes that he does not, at this point, have diagnosable autism. He has an evaluation scheduled for this November, after which I'll be able to say with certainty if he is currently autistic... But, at this point, I would be surprised if he meets any of the diagnostic criteria.

There's much about Darwin's story that is bittersweet. The part that hurts me the most is that I know, in my heart, that his sister would have had the same level of progress if I'd been as vigilant about evidence-based treatments, but I was so wrapped up in crunchy culture that I delayed and avoided these treatments when they would have been most effective. While she is happy and wonderful and thriving in her own way, it hurts as a mother to know that I could have helped her sooner but was too arrogant to do so. It hurts to know that her own struggles would have been far easier if I had put her needs ahead of my ideals.

I'm currently 24 weeks pregnant with a precious little boy, my third child. It's amazing to think about how much I have learned and grown as a parent through every step of my children's journeys. In my eight years as a mother, I have become a completely different person because of an ever-evolving struggle to be the parent my kids deserve. After all I've learned through my oldest two, I can't wait to see what my third will be able to teach me.

I don't want to change my kids. I don't believe that autism is a disease to be cured. However, I do want my children to be happy and healthy and to thrive to the best of their abilities. If I was able to "cure" Darwin's delays and sensory-processing difficulties to the point that he fell off the spectrum, I view that as something worth celebrating--

and as one more sign that the answers parents need are in science, not in naturalistic idealism.

My "Normal" Baby's 12-Month Regression

In my former life as an autism-fearing, anti-vax mom, stories like my son's kept me awake at night. I'd pore over all the tales on the internet: "I took my normal baby for his 12-month shots, and the next day, he was autistic."

My son did seem to be typical, by all accounts. Even though my mommy-instinct told me something was different, Early Intervention reassured me after two screenings-- one at six weeks and one at six months-- that he was doing fine. His pediatrician echoed their statements. The consensus was: this is a completely normal baby. Maybe a little wobbly, and on the late side when it comes to crawling and sitting up, but he's fine.

Well, then my "completely normal baby" started nearing his first birthday. He was cruising, standing unsupported, responding to his name, saying a few words. Then, bam: two weeks ago, he stopped being able to stand alone. He stopped cruising. He stopped taking steps. He no longer waved consistently when someone told him to say bye-bye. He stopped answering to his name. He traded his vocabulary of five words for a single one: "Hand," which he started repeating over and over again ad nauseum while looking at a hand.

If this had happened just two weeks later than it did, it would have coincided perfectly with his twelve-month vaccines, which included MMR. But, because it happened before his twelve-month shots, I know with certainty that his developmental regression had nothing to do with his vaccines.

You don't have to take my word for it, though: every major medical establishment in the world agrees that here is no link between immunization and autism. Studies involving a total of millions of children have concluded that vaccines don't increase the risk of autism or worsen autism symptoms in children who are predisposed. Vaccines do, however, coincide with the times when the first signs of autism show up: 12 months, 18 months, and two years. It's easy to see how the timing of these regressions and symptoms can look suspicious.

But, just as I know with certainty that my oldest child was autistic before she was vaccinated-- by the mere fact that she was diagnosed with developmental delays before she'd had a single shot-- I know with certainty that my son's developmental regression occurred before he was vaccinated. It further confirms what I've known for a long time, which is that I gave my kids autism through wonderfully unique genes, not through anything in their environment.

My son will be meeting with Early Intervention tomorrow, and once again, I'm struck by how profoundly different my feelings and experiences have been between when my oldest was diagnosed with developmental delays and when my youngest was. As I've written about before, I was naive and impressionable and full of self-blame seven years ago, but now? This is a walk in the park. Where once I felt fear and sadness and apprehension, I now feel nothing but overwhelming love for my children. I'm excited to watch them grow and thrive and become their own beautiful selves.

I can't wait to see what comes next. Parents with neurotypical kids have a fairly good idea of what they're getting. I have the privilege of discovering my kids anew every single day. Their passions become my passions. Their triumphs become my triumphs. I can't wait to guide my second child through whatever help he needs and then celebrate his successes, however small or large. I can't wait to learn what his strengths are and to mold my parenting to fit the ever-changing needs of a child who marches to the beat of a different drummer. I am genuinely excited to be taking this journey with my children, their tiny hands in mine.

Autism acceptance and vaccine advocacy became my life's work after a string of surprising coincidences, so I believe that it's a wonderful act of fate that I was once again blessed with a child who, by his mere existence, is showing the world about the necessity of evidence-based health care and the reality of autism as a heritable genetic condition. It will be a while before I find out for sure if my son really does have autism. It's possible, though not likely, that he will be neurotypical and just had a temporary developmental glitch. But, if he is autistic, I know for sure that it was encoded in his DNA, not a vaccine. I know for sure that he is not broken, but a beautiful and perfect human being made exactly the way nature intended him.

Jeff Bradstreet Abuses Children, Commits Suicide

I normally have deep sympathy for suicide victims, but there are rare exceptions. For example, I wasn't sad when Ariel Castro offed himself, and I'm not particularly sad that Jeff Bradstreet-- a child-abusing quack who endangered dozens of kids' lives with his "alternative" treatments-- is dead.

Bradstreet was an example of a truly vile and disgusting human being who put his goal of profit far ahead of his oath to protect his patients.

He became famous when he published a series of studies, none of which made the cut for peer-reviewed scientific journals, stating that thimerosal-- a mercury compound once used as a preservative in vaccines-- is the sole cause of autism. I don't even need to cite studies to debunk his claims, since autism rates have continued to rise since thimerosal was removed from routine immunizations, and since my own daughter was autistic before she was ever vaccinated. But, for the record, 131 studies- 107 of them listed here-- have found no link between vaccines and autism.

Bradstreet's practices went far beyond simply encouraging parents to avoid vaccines, although that would be dangerous enough. He subjected children to painful and dangerous procedures that were entirely unnecessary and provided no benefit. One of thousands of victims was Colten Snyder, whose parents brought him to Bradstreet's office 160 times in eight years.

There was no reason to believe that Colten was suffering from  mercury poisoning. A hair test showed a low level of mercury in his hair-- less than average for his age-- while a urine test found no detectable mercury, and five blood tests over the course of six years showed mercury levels well within the normal range. But Bradstreet insisted that-- since mercury is the only cause of autism-- Colten was suffering from severe mercury poisoning.

What ensued can only be described as medical torture. Colten was subjected to numerous spinal taps, had scopes inserted into his stomach, and-- worst of all-- was forced into years of chelation therapy. Chelation therapy  is a last-resort treatment for serious forms of confirmed heavy metal poisoning. It is only used in extreme cases because it is an inherently dangerous process, even when medically necessary. When administered by quacks like Bradstreet, it routinely causes dehydration, malnutrition, kidney damage, liver damage, allergic reactions, anemia, cancer, and-- ironically-- developmental disabilities caused by the toxicity of the treatment.

Even Jeff Bradstreet himself admitted that Colten reacted poorly to chelation therapy. After each session, he would experience discomfort, illness, weakness, and developmental regression. Yet Bradstreet continued milking Colten's parents for money while administering abusive treatments for eight whole years. In 2009, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims determined that not only had Bradstreet engaged in dangerous and unnecessary mistreatment of Colten, but that Colten's treatment was indicative of a larger pattern of medical abuse of autistic children in Bradstreet's hands.

Bradstreet managed to continue practicing his corrupt and abusive form of medicine, but not without drawing the attention of the FDA. In June of 2015, the FDA raided Bradstreet's office with the help of the Georgia Drugs and Narcotics Agency. Although the FDA hasn't been clear about the reason for the search, the involvement of the GDNA suggests that he may have been involved in dealing controlled substances in addition to his long-standing career in the medical abuse of children. Whatever was found during the raid, it was damning enough that Bradstreet shot himself less than a week after the search, while the FDA carried out their investigation.

It's not surprising that conspiracy theorists have claimed that-- in some mind-blowing effort orchestrated effort by the Pharmaceutical Industry, the FDA, the GDNA, local and federal law enforcement, and an unspecified hitman-- Bradstreet was murdered. They say that this was to hide the success of his "treatments" and to continue covering up a link between autism and immunization. So far, I haven't heard anyone explain how murdering him could have possibly been necessary or beneficial to preserving anyone's profits, but conspiracy theorists aren't known for being the most sane or stable people.

I feel sorry for Jeff Bradstreet's family and loved ones. Losing a loved one is always difficult, especially when it happens through suicide. However, I have very little sympathy for Bradstreet himself. I don't feel sorry for people who become wealthy by abusing children and then make a cowardly escape when there a a threat of accountability. When child abusers die, it makes the world is a safer and healthier place for children. My sympathy goes only to his loved ones and his victims.

10 Most Batshit Autism Treatments

Trigger warning: this stuff is disturbing, especially if you are a survivor of child abuse.

When the news about parents using enemas of Miracle Mineral Supplement-- also known as chlorine dioxide, or bleach-- to treat autism made the rounds over the last few months, I was relatively quiet about my feelings on it. This will be the first time I admit why I didn't say or write something sooner.

You see, back in my crunchy days, I messed up in a lot of ways,and this was one of them.

I knew that this was happening six whole years ago, and I did nothing to stop it. 

No, those aren't worms. They're pieces of a child's intestines.

I even personally knew one of the victims. She was seven. Her name was Danielle. When her grandmother, a friend of mine highly involved in alternative-medicine, told me that they were using chlorine dioxide enemas to treat her PDD-NOS (now known to be a form of autism), I thought that sounded strange and worried about what it might be doing to the Danielle, but I ultimately looked the other way and figured it was none of my business and her family was doing what was best for her.

Since then, I've seen graphic photos of bloody diarrhea and chunks of intestinal tissue pop up in parenting groups, where mothers using MMS asked if these results were normal or a sign that MMS was working. I feel sick-- not just from the horrors of the treatment, but also from knowing that it happened to a child I knew, and that I didn't do anything to stop it.

MMS bleach enemas have become the most notorious quack treatments for autism, but there are many more that are equally dangerous. Here are nine others, which are often (in cases like Caroline's) components of Munchausen-like cases of abuse.

1. Dolphin Therapy

This one might seem harmless enough, but swimming with dolphins is deadly and cruel-- not just for the dolphins held unfairly in captivity, but also for the children who are endangered by the practice. As I discussed in a previous post, dolphins are 300-pound predators who, when confined to unpleasant lives in captivity, can become unpredictable and deadly. You wouldn't treat autism by tossing your kid into a tiger cage, would you?

2. Chelation Therapy

Chelation therapy is a dangerous treatment that pulls heavy metals out of the bloodsteam. For people with extreme, life-threatening cases of heavy metal poisoning, it is sometimes worth the risk. However, even children with severe lead poisoning are almost never subjected to it, because it can cause lethal side effects including infection and organ failure. Using it to save the life of a child who ate an entire box of iron supplements might be sane. Using it to treat autism-- a condition that has nothing to do with heavy metals-- is deadly and abusive.

3. Chemical Castration

Parents actually do this to their children. Lupron is the trade name of a powerful drug that blocks the production of testosterone. It has no accepted medical use for children, except for sometimes delaying puberty in children with serious hormonal disorders. Parents request it for their autistic children largely because it can prevent what they call "testosterone-related behaviors" like masturbation and curiosity about sex. It doesn't appear to matter to these parents that the treatment has severe long-term physical and psychological consequences.

Some parents train their kids with shock collars.

Others use starvation and treats.
Others use clickers and rewards.
Others think their children are human.

Minor difference of philosophy.

4. Dog Training
In addition to "neutering" children with autism, some parents and medical experts also advise the use of dehumanizing therapies that are in practice nearly identical to dog training. Applied Behavioral Analysis is evidence-based in that it does "work" to make autistic kids more compliant and communicative, but it comes at a cost to the children's mental wellbeing. One ABA method, for example, involves making children go hungry and then rewarding them with food when they speak. Another involves the use of clicker training. It's not surprising that ABA is wholly condemned by most autistic adults who were "trained" with these techniques.

5. Shock Collars

In one disturbing form of autism treatment, popularized by a leading facility, children with  autism are forced to wear backpack-like devices that administer electric shock when he child misbehaves. Noticing a pattern here? Many of the most deranged forms of autism treatment are cruel even compared to the way we treat animals. It's not surprising that the ASPCA recommends against shock collars to punish barking dogs. Why treat your child worse than you would treat your chihuahua?

6. Holding Therapy

Holding therapy sounds benign enough-- nothing wrong with holding a child, right? Right-- unless you use the form of "holding therapy" commonly prescribed by quacks to treat autism. In a previous article, I discussed just why this "therapy," which involves restraining children against their will and forcing them into physical contact and eye contact, is actually very dangerous and inhumane. Not only is there no evidence supporting the use of holding therapy, but it's psychologically traumatizing and even deadly. Children have actually died as a result of injuries incurred from holding therapy and related forms of abuse.

7. Restrictive Diets

Of course, there's nothing at all wrong with limiting your kids' intake of junk food, regardless of their neurology. And, of course, parents have an obligation to avoid certain foods when the child has a bona fide allergy to their ingredients. The problem is that restrictive diets for autism go far beyond what could be considered safe or healthy. I discussed here why I will absolutely never use these restrictive diets for my children. In short, they can cause serious nutritional deficiencies and can worsen food-related compulsions in autistic children, who as a group are already highly susceptible to disordered eating.

8. Adrenal Cortical Extract

Adrenal cortical extract-- essentially the stress hormone of cows, in the form of an injection-- makes no sense as an autism treatment. There is no conceivable reason that it would treat autism and no evidence that it does so, yet parents like Caroline's gladly inject it into their children. I'll never understand why these parents, who are so terrified of injecting their children with researched, sterile, life-saving vaccines, eagerly inject them with cow hormones. The side effects of ACE can be very serious, and most often include painful infections of the site of the injection. Why do that to a child?

9. Putting Children in Refrigerators
It sounds like a bad joke, but it's real. Parents who use "packing" to treat autism strip their children down to their underwear, wrap the children up in cold towels so that they can't move, and then actually put their children into refrigerators. They do this several times a week. The treatment, which is most heavily promoted in France, has no known effective uses, and while proponents claim the risk of hypothermia is low, I can't imagine that it is healthy or safe.

4 Reasons Not to Use Holding Therapy for Autism

There are many unscientific treatments for autism, but few are as dangerous or ill-informed as the use of "holding therapy." In theory, holding therapy for autistic kids works by forcing children to bond with their parents or caregivers, repairing supposed damage that was caused by their parents' inability or refusal to form a healthy attachment. Holding therapy involves restraining a child (sometimes violently) and forcing him to make eye contact or to give and receive affection. This method is not only ineffective; it can be deadly. Here are four reasons to never use holding therapy as a treatment for autism.

1. It's based on misconceptions and bad science. The use of holding therapy for autism arose in the 1950s, when mothers were almost always blamed for the challenges of their special-needs kids. Psychologists believed that autism happened because of "refrigerator mothers" who weren't affectionate or interactive with their kids. We now know that "refrigerator" parenting has nothing to do with autism. Most children with autism are parented affectionately and attentively, and the causes of autism are now believed to be entirely, or almost entirely, genetic. Given that the hypothesis behind holding therapy for autism has been proven incorrect, there's no reason to encourage or use the therapy at all.

2. Holding therapy ignores everything we know about autistic children. The idea that autistic children don't enjoy being held is a stereotype, and a harmful one, at that. Many autistic children are highly affectionate, often seeking out human contact excessively and inappropriately. There isn't a reason to force a child into something that she would seek out willingly. We also know that autistic children tend to become very upset by unwanted touches and unwanted eye-contact, and this could actually cause behavioral and developmental regressions.

3. It creates confusion about rules and body contact. Regardless of age, development, or emotional structure, all children need to know the rules for safe touches and contact with other people. A child needs to know that she is not allowed to touch people without their consent, that they cannot touch her without her consent, and that some types of touch (specifically, hitting and sexual contact) are never acceptable. When you restrain an autistic child against her will as part of holding therapy, you tell her that it's okay for one person to restrain another person and that adults don't have to respect a child's personal space. This can set up a dangerous precedent and could lead to the child being abused, or abusing someone else, due to confusion about touching rules.

4. Holding therapy kills children. Many special-needs children have died as a result of injuries incurred from holding therapy. This is probably the most serious and worrisome consequence of holding therapy for autistic children. Children have suffocated, starved, and been physically crushed by adult caregivers who were using holding therapy in a deeply misguided attempt to cure developmental or psychological problems in children. There is no reason to subject children to these dangerous practices because of a flawed and outdated understanding of the needs of autistic children. If you have, or know, a child with autism, contact his pediatrician for help with evidence-based therapies, rather than resorting to holding therapy and other dangerous practices.

7-Y.O.'s Parenting Book More Scientific Than Sears

Bill and Bob Sears-- father and son-- are the patron saints of today's crunchy parenting community. You can't swing a dead cat in a green mommy group without hitting a citation of Dr. Sears. It's convenient: when you want to say or believe something that contradicts medical consensus, it's nice to be able to have at least one doctor whose name you can whip out as evidence that someone has your back.

I've been there. I still vividly recall my embarrassment when I tried to cite Sears seven years ago and was quickly shut down by a pediatrician who told me he wasn't very smart and was out to make a profit by telling parents what they wanted to hear. I wouldn't have guessed that I would ever be on the other side of the fence. I definitely wouldn't have guessed that my daughter-- the unvaccinated, breastfed, all-organic baby on my hip-- would be.

Yet here she is. My seven-year-old wrote a parenting book more evidence-based and scientific than Sears. I didn't put her up to this. She did all of her research independently of me by reading parenting magazines, parenting books, and handouts she got at our health department and pediatrician's office. In fact, when I tried to get her to revise her page about sleep safety, she absolutely refused, telling me that it's her book and she's going to go with what the experts say. I cosleep with her baby brother, so reading about how he could "DIE" because of my decision was a little unnerving-- even though I know I weighed those risks against the risk I was taking by accidentally falling asleep with him in the rocking chair.

Here's what my daughter had to say.

Cover:

Being a Big Sister, Big Brother, Mommy, or Daddy

by: Vivian Russo

Table of Contents:

1. I'm going to teach you about...
2. How can we work together?
3. You should feed ___ to your baby
4. Where should my baby sleep?
5. When should I take my baby to the doctor?
6. What should I do if my baby has a diaper rash?
7. When should I feed my baby solids?
8. What should I be expecting?
9. How do I know when to feed my baby?
10. What can I do to help my baby's development?
11. How am I going to know when my baby will do what?
12. How do I show love to my baby?





Title Page:

Being a Big Brother, Big Sister, Mommy, or Daddy

by: Vivian Russo










I'm Going to Teach You About...

Hello, my name is Vivian! I am the author of this book that you're reading. I am 7 and I am going to teach you about being a parent or an older sibling! Also I am a big sister! My baby brother's name is Darwin! 

How Can We Work Together?

Working together is simple. All you have to do is think hard! My mommy, Juniper, has always thought of ways that I can help with Darwin! So has my Mer-Mer [other mommy], Meredith!

You Should Feed _____ to Your Baby

Babies under six months should have food that is mashed up and looks like apple-sauce but with a different color. Make sure that it is safe for your baby. To do this, use your memory. If your baby's pediatrician said your baby can have it, it is safe for your baby. So is it if there is a picture of something your baby can do on it. Some babies that are five months old can have apple-sauce.

Where Should My Baby Sleep?

The safest place for your baby to sleep is in a crib. It's not just that your baby has to be in a crib. The crib [should be] in the baby's parents' room. Here is why. If your baby does not sleep in your room, it will increase the risk of SIDS! Just like what would happen if you baby sleeps on his tummy! Now, why your baby shouldn't sleep in your bed: if your baby sleeps in your bed, you can roll over on him. In a crib, there is no one who can possibly roll over on the baby! Also there is nothing that can stop your baby from rolling off the bed. Newborn babies can DIE if they roll off the bed . In a baby's crib, if a baby rolls too far, they would just bonk their head a little. Also, never put blankets in a baby's crib, because they can get on their face, stop breathing, and DIE!

When Should I Take My Baby to the Doctor?

You should take your baby to the doctor when your baby has an appointment there, or is sick, or is hurt. Usually, when your baby has a doctor's appointment, it is because your baby needs a vaccination. Vaccinations prevent sicknesses and do not cause autism. In fact, my mommy didn't vaccinate me when I was a baby and yet I'm autistic! Also, if you hear that your baby is going to take a medicine that you don't want your baby to take, DON'T argue with the doctor! Ask questions instead.

What Should I Do If My Baby Has a Diaper Rash?

If your baby has a diaper rash, treat it with ointment. The best ointment is zinc-oxide ointment!

When Should I Feed My Baby Solids?

Once your baby's pediatrician says it is okay, your baby can have any food that it is able to bring to its mouth besides pecans, marshmallows, peanuts, and other things that are small or hard to chew.

What Should I be Expecting?

If you're pregnant with a baby, expect it to be like you: hungry a lot and hard to take care of.

How Should I Know When To Feed My Baby?

Newborn babies shake their heads and suck their thumbs when they are hungry. Other babies cry when they are hungry. Breast milk is best for babies. Formula is good, too. Don't give babies real milk!

What Can I Do To Help My Baby's Development?

Babies have good eyesight on things that are black-and-white. The book Look-Look is full of black and white things! Order it online to help with your baby's development.

How Do I Know When My Baby Will Do What?

Your baby's pediatrician will know, or you can contact Early Intervention to find out about it. All babies develop differently.

How Should I Show Love to My Baby?

Now that you have read my book, showing love to your baby is simple now that you know more about them!















Clearly, my seven-year-old has a firmer grasp on science than the leaders of the Cult of the Natural Mom. Here's what she got right that Bill and Bob Sears got wrong.

Introducing Solids: 

What my seven-year-old says: "If your baby's pediatrician said your baby can have it, it is safe for your baby. So is it if there is a picture of something your baby can do on it. Some babies that are five months old can have apple-sauce." [This refers to the labels on foods that say "supported sitter," "sitter," "crawler," or "toddler."] / "Once your baby's pediatrician says it is okay, your baby can have any food that it is able to bring to its mouth besides pecans, marshmallows, peanuts, and other things that are small or hard to chew."

What Dr. Sears says: "It's best to wait until at least six months to introduce solid food." / "By six to seven months of age, the intestines are mature and able to filter out more of the offending allergens. That's why it's particularly important to delay introducing solid foods if there is a family history of food allergy, especially to delay introducing foods to which other family members are allergic."

What the science says: Vivian is right. Sears is wrong. The AAP confirms it's okay to introduce solids foods, including highly allergenic foods, when the baby's pediatrician approves and when he has reached the necessary developmental milestones (which can happen for some babies at as early as four months of age). And the science shows that waiting too long for solids actually increases the risk of food allergies.

Safe Sleeping

What my seven-year-old says: "The safest place for your baby to sleep is in a crib. It's not just that your baby has to be in a crib. The crib [should be] in the baby's parents' room. Here is why. If your baby does not sleep in your room, it will increase the risk of SIDS! Just like what would happen if you baby sleeps on his tummy! Now, why your baby shouldn't sleep in your bed: if your baby sleeps in your bed, you can roll over on him. In a crib, there is no one who can possibly roll over on the baby! Also there is nothing that can stop your baby from rolling off the bed. Newborn babies can DIE if they roll off the bed . In a baby's crib, if a baby rolls too far, they would just bonk their head a little. Also, never put blankets in a baby's crib, because they can get on their face, stop breathing, and DIE!"

What Dr. Sears says: Sears claims that bed-sharing with a baby is actually safer than having a baby sleep in your room in a separate bed. He supports this claim by pointing out that all of his kids bed-shared and survived, and by collecting testimonials from parents who bed-share, whose babies aren't dead.

What the science says: Vivian is right. Sears is wrong. A massive study, the largest of its kind, examined rates of sleep-related death in babies across all different parenting styles and found that babies who bed-share have a higher rate not just of suffocation and overlaying, but also SIDS itself, compared to babies who sleep separately from their parents. This risk exists even when parents practice safer cosleeping. That's not exactly welcome news to me, since I bed-share with my son, but science is real whether I like it or not. That's why the American Academy of Pediatrics is clear on their sleep safety recommendations, which are identical to my daughter's. Room-share, but don't bed share, and put babies on their backs in a crib with no pillows or blankets.

Vaccines
What my seven-year-old says: "Vaccinations prevent sicknesses and do not cause autism. In fact, my mommy didn't vaccinate me when I was a baby and yet I'm autistic!"

What Dr. Sears says: "Some research shows that the measles virus in the MMR vaccine, which is given at age 1, may be one of the 'triggers' that begins the cascade of intestinal inflamation that leads to brain inflammation and autism. Honestly, I've read ALL the research, and both sides present good data and good arguments."

What the science says: Vivian is right. Sears is wrong. To date, there have been 118 studies-- 107 of them on this list-- proving that vaccines don't cause or 'trigger' autism. They are all much, much larger and more reliable than the single fraudulent study carried out by a rogue physician who is no longer permitted to practice medicine. Millions upon  millions upon millions of children have now been studied, and it is clear that vaccinated children do not have higher rates of autism. That's why it's the consensus of the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Centers for Disease Control, and every other major medical establishment in the industrialized world that vaccines do not cause autism.

Medication
What my seven-year-old says: "Also, if you hear that your baby is going to take a medicine that you don't want your baby to take, DON'T argue with the doctor! Ask questions instead."

What Dr. Sears says: "Try to avoid over-treating with unnecessary antibiotics [...] If the ear is not red or bulging and your child is acting fine, you may not need another course of antibiotics."

What the science says: Vivian is right. Sears is wrong. While increased antibiotic resistance is a serious consequence of the overuse of antibiotics-- something caused largely by the use of antibiotics in animal agriculture-- it is not a parent's place to decide when they are, or are not, necessary. The AAP advises doctors to be more judicious about when to prescribe antibiotics. It does not ask parents to make that call. If you're not a physician yourself, you are not in a position to "try to avoid over-treating." Ask questions if you're concerned. If your doctor thinks it's okay to forgo antibiotics, great. But don't make that call yourself.

Early Intervention
What my seven-year-old says: "Your baby's pediatrician will know, or you can contact Early Intervention to find out about it. All babies develop differently."

What Dr. Sears says: Sears's website has many articles about child development. Not a single one of them advises parents to talk to a pediatrician or Early Intervention about developmental delays.

What the science says: Vivian is right. Sears is wrong. Hands-down. The American Academy of Pediatrics, Zero to Three, and the CDC all strongly encourage regular developmental screening and early intervention for children who are not hitting developmental milestones on target. Science shows that there are essentially no drawbacks to early intervention: no side effects, no risks. Yet early intervention dramatically improves the wellbeing and learning of children with developmental differences. They speak, run, play, interact, and learn at a much, much faster pace and more completely than their similarly delayed peers who do not get EI.

Bonding
What my seven-year-old says: "Showing love to your baby is simple."

What Dr. Sears says: Well, there's an entire culture behind this one. Dr. Sears claims that his highly marketed form of parenting is the be-all, end-all of baby bonding. He warns against formula, cribs, strollers, and all those other tools for not-quite-so-perfect moms who don't necessarily want their children attached to them like limbs at all times.

What the science says: Vivian is right. Sears is wrong. there are as many ways to bond with babies as there are babies. Bonding is highly individual and varies based on the needs of the individual parent and the individual child. The American Academy of Pediatrics advises parents to bond through eye contact and loving touch, but emphasizes that babies with traumatic births and babies who can not be breastfed can still bond successfully.

This last part is what means the most to me, out of my daughter's entire masterpiece. When I had her, I honestly believed that, if I didn't do everything according to the rules prescribed by Sears, I would somehow not have the close bond with her that I desperately craved and wanted. As a result, I made myself sick and exhausted through years of unnecessary toil. I worsened my scoliosis-related back pain by wearing her for years. I gave myself premature osteoporosis by breastfeeding her for two-and-a-half years while battling an eating disorder. I went years without going out, or spending time with friends, or even remembering who I was outside of "Mama."

And it was all unnecessary. I don't regret bonding with my daughter, but when I had my son, I quickly learned that breastfeeding, baby-wearing, and immersive, all-consuming parenthood are not necessary-- or even always helpful-- for creating a strong bond between parent and child. In fact, my bond with my son was strengthened by the fact that I weaned him when it was medically necessary, that I sometimes leave him with babysitters when I need a break, and that I pee in peace without wearing him with me into the bathroom. I love him just as deeply and completely as his sister, because I bonded with him in the unique way that he and I both needed-- Sears be damned.

The Sears family isn't just sanctimonious. It's dangerous. They fuel the culture of women who forgo medically necessary medication so that they can breastfeed. Of moms who use the proven-dangerous alternative vaccine schedule recommended by Sears, unknowingly jeopardizing their children in the process. Of moms who make medical decisions that contradict the expertise of their pediatricians, because Sears told them that mom knows best.

My allegedly brain-damaged 7-year-old can tell the difference between Sears and science. Can you?

Lorrin Danielle Kain: A Reason Not to Vaccinate?

In 1994, a car seat manufacturer produced a small lot of defective car seats. A six-week-old baby was seriously injured as a result and suffered from traumatic brain injury that led to long-term disability, and, fifteen years later, death. The little girl and her family were compensated by the company and the car seat was recalled.

Nothing can change or undo what happened to this little girl. Nothing can take away a parent's grief. No statistics about "one in a million" can temper the anger directed at the car seat manufacturer. It was a tragedy. A horrible, deadly, and possibly preventable tragedy, and fury and despair are understandable reactions.

But should the parents be trying to persuade others to never use any car seats, ever again?

This is exactly what happened in the heartbreaking case of Lorrin Danielle Kain, a beautiful little girl who passed away in 2009-- except that it wasn't a car seat. It was a vaccine.

After reading everything I could find about Lorrin and her condition, I have a few nagging doubts about whether Lorrin's condition was genuinely a vaccine reaction. At least a few people have pointed out that Lorrin's symptoms actually match Dravet syndrome, a serious form of epilepsy that has not been linked to immunization. But let's assume that Lorrin suffered and died because of vaccines.

That still isn't a good reason not to vaccinate your kids. 

Lorrin suffered because of a bad batch, not because vaccines are fundamentally dangerous. According to Lorrin's mother, Lorrin received a dose from a "hot lot"-- a defective batch of vaccines that caused "seizures or worse" in eleven children who received it. As tragic as it is, defective batches happen in absolutely all kinds of products. Consider, for example, that contaminated foods cause 3,000 deaths per year and go nearly unnoticed. Cantaloupe from a farm that had received "superior" health inspection ratings from multiple third parties killed 33 people in 2011, but I didn't hear anyone say that cantaloupe should be banned. We need both food and medicine to survive. Tragedies like this are reason to call for better safety in food and medicine, not to abandon them entirely. |

Not only has the batch been off the market for over two decades, but so has the entire line of inoculations. The DTP vaccine-- the one that caused Lorrin's reaction-- is not available anymore in the United States. Lorrin's mother and her supporters often conflate the DTP vaccine, which Lorrin received, with the Tdap and DTaP vaccines, which are part of the modern immunization schedule. They're not the same thing, and it's dangerous to treat them like they are. Conflating the Lorrin's vaccine with DTaP is like comparing the inactivated polio vaccine-- which can't possibly cause polio infection-- with the live-virus inoculation, which can. It's a completely different shot with completely different risks, and modern medicine has dramatically reduced the risks associated with many immunizations.

So what's different? The D, T, and P stand for diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis. All variations of this class of vaccine-- and there are many-- protect against these three serious illnesses. DTP, which was given until the mid-nineties. contained whole cells of the diseases it protected against, and that meant a relatively large number of side effects, mostly in the form of fevers and local swelling. But DTP is a thing of the past, a chapter in medical history books not far from the smallpox vaccine.

The "a"s in DTaP and Tdap, which are given today, stand for acellular, meaning that they contain just a few proteins from the pertussis bacterium. The use of acellular vaccines is a victory for modern medicine: the  American Academy of Pediatrics points out that, today, we protect against 11 diseases by exposing kids to just 130 antigens (proteins from germs). Compare that to a hundred years ago, when a single smallpox vaccine contained 200 antigens altogether. As much as parents fear overwhelming the immune system, kids' bodies actually just need to react to a few little pieces of germs in today's schedule.

As a result of these advancements, today's DTaP shots are even less likely than their predecessors to cause serious adverse events. The advent of acellular vaccines means that kids today have about 90% fewer side effects from DTaP than they did from its predecessor twenty years ago.  In other words, the vaccine that your baby would get in 2015 is only one-tenth as dangerous as the vaccine that caused Lorrin's reaction in 1994.

Even if we were still using the DTP vaccine that Lorrin received, the risk of a serious adverse reaction would still be infinitesimally small. The World Health Organization reports that serious adverse reactions occurred in only about 1 in 750,000 children who received the vaccine, when it was available. By comparison, diphtheria had a death rate of about 1 in 5. Untreated tetanus kills 1 in 4-- and with excellent treatment might kill as few as 1 in 9 and cause permanent disability in 1 in 3. 

In developing countries where most moms are unvaccinated and can't pass tetanus immunity to their newborns, tetanus still accounts for nearly 1 in 5 newborn deaths. Pertussis (also known as whooping cough) is the most mild of the three infections, but is still pretty serious: it kills 1 in 50 babies who contract it and lands 2 out of 3 in the hospital. Even when we still relied on the modern DTaP vaccine's whole-cell predecessor, it was still very much worth the risk. 

Lorrin's mother found comfort by aligning herself with the anti-vaccine movement and its claims that vaccines cause autism. The anti-vax website Age of Autism regularly features information about Lorrin and her family, and Lorrin's image and story are promoted on autism-related websites and social media pages as evidence of the link between autism and vaccines. This doesn't make much sense to me. Lorrin did not have autism-- it was never, ever part of her diagnosis. She may have developed an adverse reaction to a vaccine, but "I believe the MMR vaccine causes autism because Lorrin Kain developed brain damage from DTP," makes about as much sense as, "I believe that aspirin causes cancer because I heard of someone who died from a penicillin allergy." It is neither the same substance nor the same condition. The people exploiting Lorrin's death to promote their agenda are helping no one.

Statistics don't do much to quell grief. I could never look Lorrin's mother in the eye and tell her, "Your daughter's death was worth it because vaccines save lives."

But I could also never say, "Your child's death was worth it because a defective batch of DTP vaccines hurt someone 21 years ago," to the mothers of Callie Van Tornhout, Brie Romaguera, Brady Alcaide, Landon Dube, or any of the other thousands upon thousands of children who die because of diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis. I can not justify the abandonment of an entire class of live-saving preventative medications because a tiny number of people have suffered from adverse reactions.

Lorrin's family will always have my deepest sympathies. I believe that no parent should ever lose a child. It is not a pain that I would wish on my worst enemies, and I consider myself lucky every day that my children are healthy and happy. It is because of that-- because of my desire to see children live and thrive-- that I am a vaccine advocate. We can't let extraordinarily rare accidents lead us to abandon a miracle of modern medicine that saves so many new and innocent lives. 

Dr. Tenpenny, Autistic Adults "Wearing Diapers and Helmets" are Right Here.

Notorious anti-vaccine quack Sherri Tenpenny posted a meme on Facebook today. It’s a picture of Yoda from Star Wars with the statement, “If autism today is because of better diagnosis, where are all the 30-year-old autistics wearing diapers and helmets?”

I’m not sure what version of Star Wars Dr. Tenpenny has seen that includes Yoda talking like that, but I’m not terribly surprised that a woman who is so revoltingly unfamiliar with science-fact is also unfamiliar with science-fiction.

Tenpenny's question follows less scientific reason than my infant son's "Throwing The Spoon On The Floor Again" experiment and shows a willful dismissal of scientific evidence surrounding autism-- not to mention a tremendous disregard for the lives and dignity of autistic individuals.

Autistic adults are out there. I know many of them. Some of them have jobs and spouses and children of their own. Some of them are non-verbal and communicate through typing or sign language. Several of them live with their parents and a few need assistance from home-health services. A couple of them might be incontinent, but that's none of my business and none of my concern.

One hundred percent of them are human beings.

Absolutely none of them are autistic because of vaccines.

Most were not diagnosed with autism as children.

Don't believe me? A study in 2006 looked at a large amount of data collected from various studies and epidemiological records. They found strong evidence that the increase in diagnosed autism were purely because of changes in diagnostic criteria, and no evidence whatsoever that rates of autism are actually increasing. The authors of the study stated:

"There is a strong genetic component which, along with prenatally determined neuro-anatomical/biochemical changes, makes any post-natal 'cause' unlikely [...] There has (probably) been no real increase in the incidence of autism. There is no scientific evidence that the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine or the mercury preservative used in some vaccines plays any part in the aetiology or triggering of autism, even in a subgroup of children with the condition."


That same year, another study was published examining the effects of "diagnostic substitution" in the apparent increase in autism rates. The scientists behind the study found that rates of other diagnoses have been declining at exactly the same rate that diagnoses of autism have been increasing. The vast majority of adult with nonverbal autism "in helmets and diapers," as Dr. Tenpenny so insultingly puts it, were diagnosed as children with mental r*tardation without further specification. As I discussed in a blog a few weeks ago, my own autism-like symptoms, such as obsessive interests and phobic avoidance of certain foods and clothes, were diagnosed in the 1990s as pediatric OCD. Many so-called high-function autistics were believed to have OCD, AD(H)D, and various learning disabilities, and were not accurately diagnosed with autism until adulthood, if ever.

As for where they all are? Well, Dr. Tenpenny, autistic adults are among you, but the vast majority don't fit your stereotype, so you're not seeing them. That's because, rather than being in "nonverbal" and in "diapers and helmets," over  80% of autistic people learn to communicate verbally. Nearly 100% learn to use the toilet without assistance. I have so far never met a single autistic person, adult or child, who needed to wear a helmet. Autistic adults are generally indistinguishable from anyone else, other than seeming a bit eccentric.

Some of our brothers and sisters with autism, most of whom were diagnosed with mental r*tardation, have been shipped away to institutions where they are hidden from the public eye and won't be noticed or insulted by people like Dr. Tenpenny. Others live with their parents and don't get out much, or when they do, it's among peers who would be less judgmental than Dr. Tenpenny. If she'd be willing to take a minute to actually get to know the autistic community, Dr. Tenpenny would find that many people who are stereotypically "low-function" would be happy to communicate with her online about their experiences as autistic individuals. They're out there. And their lives and experiences matter.
There is no autism epidemic. There is no increase in the actual rate of autism, and wild and offensive speculation about the supposed absence of autistic adults won't magically undo the insurmountable evidence that autism has always been part of the human experience. Dr. Tenpenny's bullying of the autistic community needs to stop. 

12 Things the Anti-Vaccine Movement Got Wrong

I know the anti-vaccine movement like the back of my hand, because I used to be part of it. I believed nearly every lie they told, because the story they created-- one in which "childhood illnesses" were no big deal, and in which I could keep my kids safe with crystals and kale-- was comforting. But the more research I did (real research, from reputable sources) the more I found out that the anti-vaccine movement's most sacred lies were flat-out wrong. Here are ten of the worst, and most easily disproven, lies told by the anti-vax movement.

1. Myth: Vaccines contain aborted fetal tissue.
Fact: They don't, and never have.

Vaccines have never contained the tissues of aborted fetuses. The only tiny grain of truth in that claim is that aborted fetuses, from pregnancies terminated over fifty years ago, were used to cultivate cell lines that are still used today to manufacture vaccines. The cells have divided trillions of times since the original fetuses died. This is nothing new: cell lines are used all the time in medicine. Henrietta Lacks, who died in 1951, still has living cells that are still saving the lives of people daily. However, no trace of fetal tissue is present in vaccines, nor is there any trace of human DNA in vaccines. Even those who oppose abortion should not oppose this use of embryonic cells: not only have fetuses never been aborted for the purpose of using them in vaccines, but the MMR vaccine has saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of fetuses, since rubella was once a leading cause of fetal death. I also doubt that most vaccine opposers would decline an organ transplant from a murder victim just because they ethically opposed the person's cause of death.

2. Myth: Disease rates have gone down because of improved hygiene, not immunization.
Fact:  Sanitation does not explain the decline of vaccine-preventable ilness.

There's actually evidence that improved sanitation caused outbreaks of polio. Safety protocols like handwashing and clean water are important, but that doesn't mean that vaccines aren't a necessary and causative factor in reducing disease. Most animals still live in the same degree of filth (or worse) compared to 300 years ago, yet we've seen diseases affecting them be eradicated or nearly eradicated. Rinderpest, which infects cattle, is the second disease after smallpox to be completely eliminated. To this day, ninety-nine percent of cases of rabies are caused by dog bites in areas with low immunization rates, but almost none occur in countries with mandatory vaccination of pets. If improved sanitation were the cause, I think my dogs missed the memo that it's now passe for U.S. dogs to lick their butts.

3. Myth: Today's vaccine schedule contains way more diseases than ever before.
Fact: Today's vaccines protect against more diseases than ever, but with less exposure to actual viruses and bacteria.

Science has refined vaccines so that children's immune systems can build a response to bacteria and viruses, without actually needing to be exposed to live or whole-cell germs. The American Academy of Pediatrics points out, "Although we now give children more vaccines, the actual number of antigens they receive has declined. Whereas previously 1 vaccine, smallpox, contained about 200 proteins, now the 11 routinely recommended vaccines contain fewer than 130 proteins in total. "  In other words, we expose kids to fewer bits of germs in eleven vaccines today than we did in just one vaccine a hundred years ago.

4. Myth: Too many vaccines at once will overwhelm the immune system. 
Fact: Vaccines can't and don't "overwhelm" the immune system.

Not only is there much less to react to than ever before, but children's bodies are very resilient and can tolerate receiving many vaccines at one time or in rapid succession. Kids are exposed to hundreds of germs on any given day, but we don't worry that they will be "overwhelmed" by germs crawling on the monkeybars at the playground. The AAP also points out that the side effects from a single vaccine given by itself are about the same as the side effects from six at one time. Why make your child suffer the same uncomfortable reaction six times when his immune system could tackle them all at once?

5. Myth: Vaccines "shed" and can sicken those who are around a recently vaccinated person.
Fact: Only two standard childhood vaccines can possibly cause "shedding" and the risk is infinitesimal.

Vaccines can only "shed," or spread viruses and bacteria to the people around the recently vaccinated person, if very specific circumstances are met, and they almost never are. The only vaccines that shed are live vaccines, and only two live vaccines are typically given to children in the US, the rotavirus vaccine and the chickenpox vaccine. Rotavirus only spreads post-vaccination if an immunocomprimised person touches the recently-vaccinated baby's poop and then doesn't wash their hands. Chickenpox only spreads post-vaccination  if a child is one of the very few people who develops a mild chickenpox infection from the vaccine, and if an immunocomprimised person who has never caught or been vaccinated for chickenpox touches the rash. How often does this happen? Well, it's only been recorded five times with chickenpox out of 55 million vaccines administered. So the odds are roughly one in eleven million and only apply if someone is immunocomprimised and plans on touching baby poop or chickenpox rashes. And, by the way? Those five people who caught shed chickenpox had very mild infections and were fine.

6. Myth: Vaccines are injected directly into the bloodstream.

Fact: Vaccines are injected into muscle tissue.

People who claim that vaccines are dangerous typically point to the idea that we don't know what effect "chemicals" might have on children if those chemicals are injected directly into a child's bloodstream. Well, there's good news on that: not a single vaccine is administered intravenously, and never has been. Vaccines are injected into muscle tissue, where they are absorbed a bit more gradually (that's why your child might have a little bump at the site of the injection). Vaccines never enter a child's bloodstream directly.

7. Myth: Vaccine-preventable illnesses are almost always mild.

Fact: Most vaccine-preventable illnesses are very serious, and all can cause death.

Every mother wants to believe that so-called childhood illnesses are just a fact of life, and a harmless one. But they're not. Let's look at diphtheria, for example. My grandmother's sister was one of the 1 in 5 victims of diphtheria who succumbed to the disease. Over 28% of children under five who contract measles need to be hospitalized, while anywhere from 11-78% of people with tetanus die. The worst is rabies, which claims the lives one hundred percent-- that's right, one hundred percent-- of people who are exposed who aren't quickly vaccinated against the disease. Even if all these diseases really were harmless, they are in the very least unpleasant. Why make your children suffer when it's preventable? Vaccine-preventable diseases are a big deal.

8. Myth: Vaccines contain mercury.

Fact: The standard children's immunization schedule has not contained mercury since 2001.

Children's vaccines used to contain thimerosal, a compound that contains mercury. It was an important ingredient because it prevented fungi and bacteria from growing in vaccines and causing serious side effects. Although there was never any evidence that thimerosal caused autism or other adverse effects, it was withdrawn from all children's vaccines in the United States in 2001 as a precaution. It remains an ingredient in the flu shot but is no longer present in any other recommended childhood vaccines. Yet rates of autism continue to increase. 

9. Myth: Most people who catch vaccine-preventable diseases are vaccinated.
Fact: Not really, and that doesn't matter.

Someone failed Statistics 101. It is true that, in some cases of disease outbreaks, a fair number of vaccinated people have gotten sick. This is no surprise to anyone: everyone knows that vaccines don't prevent 100% of cases (which is why herd immunity is so important). But the thing to bear in mind is that a tremendously disproportionate number of people who are unvaccinated get sick.  Think of it this way: out of a hundred kids, let's say six aren't vaccinated. Five unvaccinated children get sick, while ten unvaccinated children get sick. It's true in this casethat most of the sick kids were vaccinated, but it's also true that being unvaccinated correlates with getting sick. This is the way the statistics have played out in every VPD outbreak in modern history. This is basic knowledge that was discovered and taken to heart when vaccines were developed.

10. Myth: Death and autism are listed as vaccine side effects on the package inserts, so they must be real side effects.

Fact: Death and autism are not side effects of vaccines, and the package insert doesn't change that.

Vaccine manufacturers are required by law to include all possible side effects of their vaccines on the package inserts, including those that were not confirmed by actual scientific research. The Vaccine Averse Event Reporting System, or VAERS, is the FDA's method of collecting anecdotal reports about vaccine injuries. In other words, anyone can file a VAERS report saying whatever they want. If a parent has a child who is diagnosed with autism months or years after a vaccine, she can report it to VAERS as a side effect. The same is true of the exhaustive list of other VAERS reports, which include things like "automobile accident" and "drowning." Dr. James R. Laidler illustrated this by submitting "Turning into the Incredible Hulk" as a vaccine side effect (and was approved!). Anyone can report anything to VAERS. That doesn't make it valid science.

11. Myth: If your kids are vaccinated, you shouldn't care whether or not mine are.

Fact: Yes, I should.

For one thing, I don't want your kids to die. The fact that they're not my kids doesn't mean I don't care about their safety. I have been a scared anti-vaccine mom before, and my children survived my mistakes, but I am upset by stories of other parents making the same mistake I did and not being so lucky. Furthermore, when you don't vaccinate your children, they become carriers who can infect people who can't be vaccinated: infants, the immunocomprimised, the elderly, and those with genuine allergies to vaccine ingredients. These people are at a very high risk of dying from vaccine-preventable illnesses, and you are to blame if your children transmit them.

12. Myth: People who support vaccines are shills paid by Big Pharma.

Fact: We are real people and we aren't being paid.

I have been a vaccine advocate for four years. I have been featured in national and international news. I have had millions of views of my articles about vaccine advocacy. And I haven't been paid a single dime. My "real" writing career isn't spent advocating for vaccines because there is no money in this. The one time I was contacted by a pharmaceutical company about giving a speech, they apologetically explained that they were not legally allowed to compensate me. This is a labor of love, and there isn't much (if any) money in it for me. The same is true of every other vaccine advocate you know: your doctor, your friends, your online enemies. We do what we do because we care, not because we're out to get rich. I am a vaccine advocate because I care about children's lives.

Swimming with Dolphins for Autism is Cruel and Dangerous

"Swimming with dolphins" has become something of a running joke among the special-needs moms I know. We started using it as a synonym for all ineffective and potentially dangerous autism treatments after one mom was shunned by her family for refusing to pay nearly $300 a week for hour-long "dolphin therapy" for her nonverbal five-year-old son. It sounds wonderful in theory, of course. Who isn't mystified by the idea of such beautiful, sentient animals unlocking emotions and expression in special children? From "Flipper" to "Dolphin Tale," we've been culturally tuned to believe that it's possible, and beautiful, for children to develop deep connections with dolphins.

The problem is that both children and dolphins suffer when parents resort to swimming with dolphins as a therapy for autism. Experts on both dolphins and autism are sounding the alarm and urgently warning parents to avoid this unproven and deadly "treatment." In "Dolphin-Assisted Therapy for Autism and Other Developmental Disorders: A Dangerous Fad," published by the American Psychological Association, two leading Emory University experts discuss the facts about swimming with dolphins, and their findings are grave.

After examining all available research about swimming with dolphins for autism, dolphin expert Lori Marino and leading psychologist Scott Lilienfeld concluded, "Despite dolphin-assisted therapy's extensive promotion to the general public, the evidence that it produces enduring improvements in the core symptoms of any psychological disorder is nil." The researchers found that all studies on swimming with dolphins for autism found little to no benefit, and the benefits that were found were simply "novelty" and "placebo." In other words, plenty of autistic children might find it enjoyable to swim with dolphins, but that doesn't mean that it's a clinically valid therapy or that it's worth the expense-- and the very serious possible drawbacks.

Marino and Lillenfield caution that swimming with dolphins isn't harmless to try, because it's dangerous to both dolphins and the autistic children who supposedly benefit from swimming with them. They found several cases of children being injured while swimming with dolphins, either because of accidents related directly to swimming or because of injuries actually inflicted (intentionally or accidentally) by the dolphins themselves. Just as seriously, they noted that dolphin-assisted therapy is very expensive and that it exploits romantic hopes for a magic cure, financially draining parents and encouraging them to forgo more effective treatments.

The greatest victims of dolphin-assisted therapy for autism, by far, are the dolphins themselves. The World Society for the Protection of Animals notes that dolphins in captivity are extremely unhappy, stressed, and physically ill. These highly intelligent animals are streamlined for life in the open ocean, where they have opportunities to hunt, socialize, and exercise in healthy ways, but, in captivity, they are confined to tiny spaces where they are deprived of food in order to train them to perform unhealthy and unnatural "tricks."

For example, dolphins in captivity are starved into beaching themselves as one "trick," which allows people who are swimming with dolphins to pet and kiss them. In reality, this is an excruciatingly painful trick to perform because the weight of the dolphin's body is not made to be supported outside the water. Due to the tiny size of their enclosures, the animals are also unable to use their complex language of clicks and whistles to communicate with one another. It's like being trapped in a bathroom with five other people, with your mouths all duct-taped shut so you can't speak. Dolphins in captivity "look happy" because their jaws are naturally shaped in a way that gives them a natural "smile," but they are miserable.

As friendly and pleasant as dolphins seem, and as peacefully as many of them endure their lives of misery, these unhealthy environments can bring out dangerous behavior. We can't ignore the fact that captive dolphins are 400-pound, wild predators. Parents wouldn't put their special-needs children into cages with "tame" lions in hopes of a magical experience, so why should it we leave our children at the mercy of captive dolphins? It's unwise, and arguably abusive to both the child and the dolphin, to assume that a large, stressed, sick predator will not lash out unpredictably in a way that could harm your child.

My six-year-old autistic daughter is receiving dolphin therapy in another way-- a way that doesn't threaten her safety or the well-being of wild animals. She knows that we do not visit zoos or aquariums that keep dolphins in captivity, and she learns about them in other ways that are far more soothing and therapeutic than a rollick in a pool with some stressed-out animals. Instead, we watch documentaries, read books, and sponsor wild dolphins. It's a "therapy" that has encouraged my daughter to express deep empathy and passion for the needs of wild marine mammals. I'll gladly take that instead of an expensive one-on-one session with an abused animal.