BeV79

[Health Action MA @HealthActionMA]

Watch how a graph with a truncated y-axis is being used by supporters of removing the religious exemption.

At first glance it looks like a big increase. In reality, Massachusetts religious exemption rates have remained consistently low — around 1% for 15 years — in a state with one of the highest childhood vaccination rates in the nation.

Changing the axis changes the story.
But the real story is this: access to education is on the line for a small group of families who have followed the law.

⏳ 15 days left — session ends July 31.

Whether this is your first time taking action or you have already contacted your legislators earlier in the campaign, please act again now.

📧 Send a one-click email in less than one minute:
👉 https://t.co/LWar5enfyk

This will send a message to your State Representative, State Senator, and the House Committee on Ways and Means urging them to oppose H.2554.

📞 Want to Do More?

Visit https://t.co/ykkmLnOhqy for:
✔️ Talking points
✔️ Phone call scripts
✔️ Legislator contact information
✔️ Advocacy resources and personalized email guidance

Please share this reel. Every email, phone call, message, and share helps ensure lawmakers hear from the families they represent before July 31.

#HealthActionMA #massachusetts #h2554

[Nicolas Hulscher, MPH @NicHulscher]

A SINGLE dose of a newly discovered frog gut bacterium ELIMINATES 100% of cancerous tumors within just a few days in mice.

A new landmark study found the natural bacterium Ewingella americana selectively targets, colonizes, and terminates tumors—with NO detectable toxicity.

They re-introduced cancer into the cured animals... and the tumors COULD NOT GROW.

[Wall Street Apes @WallStreetApes]

Here it is. A real documented case of an American recently getting bit by The Lone Star tick and she can longer eat meat

This is exactly what the World Economic Forum made speeches about as a possibility to get the population to stop eating beef

The woman developed Alpha-gal syndrome (AGS) and she says she now has to change her entire life

Here’s how it works

The Lone Star tick’s saliva contains alpha-gal (galactose-alpha-1,3-galactose), a sugar molecule found in most mammals like cows, pigs, sheep but not in humans

When the tick bites, it introduces alpha-gal into your bloodstream. In some people, this triggers the immune system to produce IgE antibodies against it

Later exposure to alpha-gal from food or products causes an allergic reaction.

There is no cure, main treatment is strict avoidance of triggers

It forces you to avoid mammal meat and often dairy because eating it can trigger a serious, potentially life threatening allergic reaction

If someone is dropping tick boxes and causing this it’s crimes against humanity and they need to be held accountable

[Nicolas Hulscher, MPH @NicHulscher]

PEER-REVIEWED PAPER SAYS GENETICALLY ENGINEERING TICKS TO SPREAD MEAT ALLERGIES IS “MORALLY OBLIGATORY”

Western Michigan professors claim that CRISPR-edited ticks should be used to spread alpha-gal syndrome as “moral bioenhancement” to FORCE humans away from eating meat.

This sounds like bioterrorism dressed up as bioethics.

CDC estimates that as many as 450,000 people in the United States may already be affected by alpha-gal syndrome.

Think about what is being proposed here: deliberately developing genetically modified ticks to spread a potentially life-threatening meat allergy that may already affect nearly half a million Americans.

[Del Bigtree @delbigtree]

In January, ACIP announced they were reducing the number of injections on the childhood vaccine schedule. People were celebrating. And then a federal judge named Brian Murphy stepped in and said no.

He cancelled the recommendations, disbanded the advisory panel, and said the people on it weren't qualified.

The case was brought by the American Academy of Pediatrics, an organization that takes funding from pharma. So what we're really watching is a pharma-funded trade group asking a federal court to restore a pharma-friendly committee, and a judge who obliged them.

Start with standing. For a case to even be in a courtroom, the party bringing it has to demonstrate injury. The American Academy of Pediatrics is a trade group. It doesn't vaccinate children. It doesn't bear any personal injury if the schedule changes. So why aren't the children they claim to be protecting the plaintiffs? I don't know how this case survives on that question alone, certainly not if it reaches the Supreme Court.

Then there's the ACIP argument itself. The judge ruled that Kennedy didn't have the authority to change the schedule without an ACIP vote. But ACIP votes are recommendations. The CDC is not bound by them. It can override them completely. So the judge is saying Bobby needed to go through a process that the agency he oversees doesn't actually have to follow. Think about that for a second.

And then the judge disbanded ACIP for being unbalanced. The irony is almost too much. ACIP has never been balanced. It has had conflicts of interest running through it for decades, documented by multiple investigations, with members voting on vaccines they had a direct financial stake in.

The most cited example is Paul Offit, who voted to add rotavirus vaccines to the childhood schedule while he was actively developing his own rotavirus vaccine. He went on to make tens of millions of dollars from it.

So when this judge says ACIP needs to be more balanced, what he means, functionally, is it needs more people like that.

@DrTrozzi

[Sylvia Fogel MD @FogelSylvia]

Dear Ms. Singer,
Your April 28 press release identifies several areas of agreement with the proposals adopted by the IACC on April 28 — among them, the urgency of wandering and elopement, inadequate medical care attributable to diagnostic overshadowing, and the persistent under-representation of individuals with profound autism in both research and federal policy. That common ground is real and valued and it is precisely because we share these priorities that the significant inaccuracies in your statement warrant a careful and direct response, in the interest of an accurate public record and the integrity of the work before us.

On wandering and elopement specifically — associated with at least 7–8 preventable deaths per month, estimated from media reports in the absence of active surveillance — the April 28 proposals built directly on years of prior IACC presentations and public comment. Families and advocates have raised this issue before the Committee repeatedly, and for years the urgency of those voices was not translated into concrete action. The April 28 proposals represent exactly that translation — finally moving from acknowledgment to recommendation. That progress deserves to be recognized for what it is.

Because we share common ground on these issues, I want to address several significant inaccuracies in your statement, in the interest of ensuring that the public record is accurate and that our shared goals are not undermined by mischaracterization.

The Statutory Authority of the IACC
Your statement asserts that the IACC's proper role is solely to "develop a strategic plan for the conduct of and support for autism research," and that the April 28 proposals fell outside that mandate. This is incorrect. I understand that this view may reflect the operational practice of the Committee during prior service periods, in which the strategic plan functioned as the primary — and at times, effectively the sole — vehicle for Committee output. That history is acknowledged. It does not, however, define the statute.

The Autism CARES Act, reauthorized in 2024 (Pub. L. 118-267), establishes a broad, lifespan mandate for the IACC that extends well beyond the strategic plan requirement. While the Committee is required to develop and update a strategic plan for autism research, that requirement exists alongside, not instead of, the Committee's authority to advise the Secretary of HHS directly, coordinate federal autism activities, and make recommendations addressing prevention, identification, intervention, treatment, services, supports, and real-world outcomes across the lifespan. These are co-equal statutory functions, not subordinate ones. Contrary to the assertion in your statement, translating lived experience and urgent community needs into actionable policy recommendations is therefore not outside the Committee's role — it is central to it.

The authority to make direct recommendations to the Secretary — outside of and in addition to the strategic plan — has existed since the Committee's authorizing legislation was first enacted. Whether that authority was exercised in prior cycles is a matter of historical record that this Committee does not presume to characterize on behalf of those who served before us. What is clear is that a thorough reading of the statute informed the April 28 recommendations from their inception. The Committee acted within its authority because it understood its authority.

The families who have waited years — in some cases, decades — for action on these issues did not require the Committee to discover new powers. They required the Committee to exercise the powers it has always possessed. April 28 was that exercise.

Profound Autism Designation and the Hughes et al. Study
With regard to your critique of the Committee's recommended criteria for the "profound autism" designation, we agree that continuous (24/7) support is the central defining criterion — emphasized by both the Lancet Commission (Lord et al.) and the INSAR Delphi process (Siegel et al.) in which you participated. It is therefore particularly notable that Hughes et al. — a study on which you are an author — did not operationalize this criterion at all. I want to address both that methodological problem and your claim that excluding IQ would eliminate nearly half the profound autism population.

Your press release states that 42.7% of individuals in Hughes et al. qualified for profound autism solely on the basis of IQ. What that figure does not reflect is that the study's alternative criterion — being "nonverbal or minimally verbal" — was defined so narrowly as to exclude many individuals who would be considered minimally verbal in standard clinical practice.* In other words, the 42.7% figure is an artifact of an unusually restrictive speech threshold, not evidence that IQ is the only reliable way to capture this population. Had the study used a clinically representative definition of minimally verbal, the proportion qualifying on speech criteria alone would have been substantially higher — and the case for IQ as an indispensable criterion correspondingly weaker.

There is a further methodological problem with Hughes et al. that bears directly on this debate: the study did not operationalize the requirement for continuous, 24/7 support — which is widely understood to be the defining feature of profound autism. IQ appears to have served as a substitute for that criterion, not because it is the conceptually correct measure, but because continuous support needs were not assessed. Where a study does not measure what matters most, the proxies it uses in its place should not be held as the standard.

Additionally, approximately 20% of participants in Hughes et al. had no IQ data available. In those cases, IQ was imputed using functional and behavioral measures — including the Vineland and the presence or absence of self-injury and aggression. This is precisely the kind of functional proxy the IACC's criteria are designed to use directly. It is difficult to argue that IQ is essential when the study itself relied on functional measures to estimate it for one in five participants.

This is not unique to Hughes et al. The 2018 CDC ADDM surveillance report (Maenner et al.) — one of the most comprehensive autism datasets available, covering over 5,000 eight-year-olds across 11 states — found that nearly 40% of children with ASD had no cognitive ability data at all. If IQ is unavailable for four in ten children in a rigorously conducted federal surveillance study, it cannot reasonably serve as a required criterion for identifying profound autism in research or policy contexts.

While the INSAR Delphi process included support from approximately two-thirds of participants for incorporating IQ, a substantial minority of qualified experts did not consider it necessary. IQ testing is resource-intensive, variably available, and may not be feasible or reliable for individuals with significant communication and motor challenges. In more than two decades of clinical experience, I have not encountered a single individual with a measured IQ below 50 who did not require continuous or near-continuous supervision for safety. That relationship exists — but it exists because low IQ tracks with high support needs, not because IQ is the construct we actually care about. The IACC's criteria are designed to measure that construct directly.

I recognize there may be genuine disagreement here among qualified researchers and clinicians. What I hope we can agree on is the underlying purpose: ensuring that individuals with the highest support needs are no longer excluded from research and policy. A definition grounded in functional support needs — directly measured rather than proxied — is more likely to achieve that goal, not less.

FACA Compliance
Your allegation that the Committee did not operate within Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) requirements is serious, and it is inaccurate. I would ask that you review these claims with counsel experienced in FACA before making such assertions in a public press release. I address each claim in turn.

Your assertion that materials were "marked final" is factually incorrect as framed. Materials carried "final" in their working file names solely to distinguish them from earlier drafts and to ensure the correct version was transmitted to ONAC on April 20. The decision by ONAC staff to post documents to the public website using the original working file names — without relabeling them appropriately, as would be standard practice — was entirely ONAC's, not the Committee's. This was not a trivial oversight; it created a misleading public record for which the Committee bears no responsibility.

Moreover, the claim that documents were treated as final and not subject to amendment is directly contradicted by the record. Committee member Elizabeth Bonker added language to Attachment C on profound autism during the meeting itself — precisely the kind of deliberative amendment that characterizes an open, functioning advisory committee. Members were specifically instructed to read each attachment and offer their views. That is not the behavior of a committee rubber-stamping pre-determined outcomes. It is the behavior of a committee doing its job.

The procedural record is equally clear. The meeting agenda was developed in collaboration with the Designated Federal Officer (DFO). The Office of National Autism Coordination (ONAC) received proposals for full Committee deliberation on the evening of Monday, April 20. IACC members received the agenda and proposals on Thursday, April 23—five days in advance of the meeting, which is typical for a FACA committee. The agenda and proposals were made publicly available on the IACC website as part of standard transparency practices. As is customary, the distribution and posting of materials were handled by ONAC, not Committee members, and ONAC had intended for materials to be distributed on Thursday, April 23.

The proposals then underwent more than two hours of open Committee deliberation, including the amendment of one proposal, before being adopted by a clear majority that included many federal members. This is precisely how a deliberative body is supposed to function. Families and advocates had brought the issue of wandering and elopement before the IACC for years, and for years it was heard and not acted upon. This meeting acted.

Given your extensive twelve-year experience with the IACC, I am sure you are aware that FACA requires transparency and public access to advisory committee materials but does not establish a minimum advance distribution period. There is no specified number of days by which materials must be provided prior to a meeting. Likewise, FACA requires that advisory committee meetings be open to the public, ensuring that proposals are discussed in a transparent forum, but it does not prescribe any minimum duration for deliberation. It does not require that votes be deferred to subsequent meetings. These are the actual requirements of the statute. The April 28 meeting met all of them.

I encourage you to issue corrections on both points — the "marked final" assertion and the allegation that FACA requirements were not followed. More importantly, the urgent real-world needs of the autism community — and the thoughtful, evidence-based recommendations that emerged from the April 28 IACC meeting — deserve to be celebrated and built upon. The individuals and families we both care about are best served when we direct our energy there, rather than toward assertions that do not withstand scrutiny.

Looking Forward
We are aligned on the issues that matter most — wandering and elopement, diagnostic overshadowing, and ensuring that individuals with the highest support needs are seen and served by research and policy. I hope we can build on that common ground. The families who have waited years — decades — for action on these issues deserve nothing less than our full collaboration and our most rigorous work. There is far more that unites us than divides us, and I remain committed to keeping the focus where it belongs: on the individuals and families who are counting on us to get this right.

Regards,
Sylvia Fogel M.D.
Chair, Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee

These statements are made in my personal capacity and do not necessarily reflect the views of the IACC or any federal government entity.

*Footnote — Technical Note on the Hughes et al. "Minimally Verbal" Criterion
The criteria used to define "minimally verbal" in Hughes et al. were considerably more conservative than the way the term is typically used in clinical practice. In the study, children were categorized as "nonverbal" if they had no words or word approximations — that criterion is straightforward. "Minimally verbal" was defined very narrowly: either speech consisting primarily of echolalia or jargon, or a history of administration of ADOS Module 1, which is specifically designed for individuals who do not consistently use phrase speech. The ADOS defines phrase speech as flexible, non-echoed three-word utterances that include a verb.

In practice, an individual who uses a limited number of simple phrases — such as "wanna go potty" or "wanna go out" — may be administered Module 2, yet still lack the generative, flexible language expected even in early childhood. In clinical settings, such individuals would commonly still be considered minimally verbal. Importantly, the study did not use Module 2 administration as the threshold — it used Module 1 — reflecting a particularly narrow definition that does not fully align with how the term is used in clinical practice.

The real-world significance of this distinction is considerable. An individual may have some simple, context-specific speech and still lack the functional communication needed for safety — for example, the ability to call 911 and effectively seek help in an emergency. The IACC's broader definition of minimally verbal is designed to capture this population accurately, rather than exclude them on the basis of a speech threshold that does not reflect functional communicative ability in the ways that matter most for research and policy.

[Truthstream Media @truthstreamnews]

The new kill switch law has spawned a whole new genre of horror film.

[The HighWire @HighWireTalk]

Dr. William Shaw's lab found that 60 to 70% of people with autism had overgrowth of Clostridia and Candida in their intestines, organisms that antibiotics leave behind while killing beneficial bacteria.

Treatment would clear the overgrowth and symptoms would improve, sometimes dramatically. Then treatment stopped, and the autism returned along with the Candida.

The question was why the body wasn't maintaining the clearance on its own. A German study provided a striking piece of the answer: the measles vaccine was found to knock out children's immunity specifically to Candida, and only to Candida, leaving every other immune function intact.

The implications reach beyond autism. The same Clostridia and Candida pattern showed up across psychiatric diagnoses, and Dr. Shaw's lab documented complete reversal of severe schizophrenia using an antibiotic targeted at the bacterial overgrowth.

[Rony @Ronycoder]

Instead of watching an hour of Netflix, watch this 1 hour Yale lecture. It will teach you more about options trading and the exact models hedge funds use than most people learn in their entire careers on Wall Street.

[Just Jen ℞ 🫡🇺🇸 @JustJenRX]

To the gentleman who made this epic speech to preserve DIGNITY, GROWTH, AND TRANSPARENCY IN OHIO…THANK YOU!

You ROCK!!! 🪨

[Andrew Bridgen @ABridgen]

MUST WATCH! This is incredible!

Swine Flu "Pandemic" 1976 investigation by Michael Wallace CBS 60 mins.
How is it that this happened in 1976 with the flu vaccination and then so few questioned the covid shots in 2021?!!!

[BeV79 @MMommy23]

@jadwigapilled @HaterReport It honestly looks like the ref walked up and said something and he was just trying to hear in all the noise. 🤷🏻‍♀️

[Fervent @FerventHosp]

Introducing The House Defendants

#KarenRead #TrueCrime

[BeV79 @MMommy23]

Oh hello no @RFKJr_Official

[The HighWire @HighWireTalk]

We know you haven't been living under a rock, so many of you know that President Trump just signed an executive order invoking the Defense Production Act to scale up domestic glyphosate production, citing national security.

The MAHA community is sounding the alarm. And they have every right to.

This is the same chemical that the International Agency for Research on Cancer labeled a "probable carcinogen" in 2015. The same chemical that Bayer/Monsanto has paid out $11.8 billion euros to resolve, facing 200,000 harm claims and 125,000 lawsuits. The same chemical whose key safety study (ghostwritten by Monsanto employees) was just retracted in December.

And now the executive order includes an immunity clause. Under the Defense Production Act, no person shall be held liable for damages resulting from compliance with an order issued under it.

Bayer/Monsanto has been lobbying hard for exactly this kind of liability shield while fighting hundreds of thousands of cancer lawsuits. The timing is not lost on anyone.

Florida's own testing found glyphosate residue in six out of eight bread loaves tested, including two brands of Organic Dave's Killer Bread. Nature's Own, Sara Lee, and Wonderbread came in at 132-191 parts per billion. The EPA says that's fine. The EPA has always said it's fine.

Here's what RFK Jr. said in 2024, before taking office: "My USDA will ban" the practice of using glyphosate as a desiccant on wheat. In 2022 he called it "huge news" when India banned it. He flagged that 80% of urine samples from American children had measurable glyphosate levels and linked it to breast cancer, endocrine disruption, and infertility.

A spokesperson for Secretary Kennedy issued a statement calling the executive order putting "America first where it matters most."

The MAHA community that helped put this administration in power is asking a very reasonable question right now:

What happened?

Read this full article by @smiddendorp22 below and share it with your friends.

https://t.co/qOqhgyso7J

[RyanPatrick🇺🇸🦅 @RyanHatesGovt]

This sums it up perfectly.

[Phillip McLaine @PMclaine89201]

Somerville, Dorchester, Charlestown, Arlington, Lexington, Concord, Cambridge and Boston and others all have significant events to commemorate before we get to 2026.

How about Ticonderoga? If not for those cannon.

1776 would not matter but for what happened in 1775.

[Phillip McLaine @PMclaine89201]

The 250th anniversary of the battles in Lexington/Concord are approaching and it’s shocking how little this is being commemorated.

The re-e actors are doing their part, they always do, but where is @PeteHegseth
@DeptofDefense
@POTUS

This needs some national attention.

[BeV79 @MMommy23]

@PMclaine89201 @Bederowlaw Absolutely! Every year they circulate a post about a Tpr feeding a homeless woman to show how great they are. He was fired for not taking a shot. The message was “do what we say or else” not “do the right thing”

[Sama Hoole @SamaHoole]

1866: Cotton seeds are agricultural waste. After extracting cotton fiber, farmers are left with millions of tons of seeds containing oil that's toxic to humans. Gossypol, a natural pesticide in cotton, makes the oil inedible. The seeds are fed to cattle in small amounts or simply discarded.

1900: Procter & Gamble is making candles and soap. They need cheap fats. Animal fats work but they're expensive. Cotton seed oil is abundant and nearly worthless. If they could somehow make it edible, they'd have unlimited cheap raw material.

The process they develop is brutal. Extract the oil using chemical solvents. Heat to extreme temperatures to neutralise gossypol. Hydrogenate with pressurised hydrogen gas to make it solid at room temperature. Deodorise chemically to remove the rancid smell. Bleach to remove the grey color.

The result: Crisco. Crystallised cottonseed oil. Industrial textile waste transformed through chemical processing into something white and solid that looks like lard. They patent it in 1907, launch commercially in 1911.

Now they have a problem. Nobody wants to eat industrial waste that's been chemically treated. Your grandmother cooks with lard and butter like humans have for thousands of years. Crisco needs to convince her that her traditional fats are deadly and this hydrogenated cotton-seed paste is better.

The marketing campaign is genius. They distribute free cookbooks with recipes specifically designed for Crisco. They sponsor cooking demonstrations. They target Jewish communities advertising Crisco as kosher: neither meat nor dairy. They run magazine adverts suggesting that modern, scientific families use Crisco while backwards rural people use lard.

But the real coup happens in 1948. The American Heart Association has $1,700 in their budget. They're a tiny organisation. Procter & Gamble donates $1.7 million. Suddenly the AHA has funding, influence, and a major corporate sponsor who manufactures vegetable oil.

1961: The AHA issues their first dietary guidelines. Avoid saturated fat from animals. Replace it with vegetable oils. Recommended oils: Crisco, Wesson, and other seed oils. The conflict is blatant. The organization issuing health advice is funded by the company that profits when people follow that advice.

Nobody seems troubled by this. Newspapers report the guidelines as objective science. Doctors repeat them to patients. Government agencies adopt them into policy. Industrial cotton-seed oil, chemically extracted and hydrogenated, becomes "heart-healthy" while butter becomes "artery-clogging poison."

1980s: Researchers discover that trans fats, created by hydrogenation, directly cause heart disease. They raise LDL, lower HDL, promote inflammation, and increase heart attack risk more than any other dietary fat. Crisco, as originally formulated, is catastrophically unhealthy. This takes 70 years to officially acknowledge.

Procter & Gamble's response: Quietly reformulate without admission of error. Remove hydrogenation, keep selling seed oils, never acknowledge that their "heart-healthy" product spent seven decades actively causing the disease it claimed to prevent.

Modern seed oils remain. Soybean, canola, corn, safflower oils everywhere. Same chemical extraction process. Same high-temperature refining. Same oxidation problems. Just without hydrogenation so trans fats stay below regulatory thresholds.

These oils oxidise rapidly when heated. They integrate into cell membranes where they create inflammatory signalling for months or years. They're rich in omega-6 fatty acids that promote inflammation. They've never existed in human diets at current consumption levels.

But they're cheap. Profitable. And the food industry has spent a century convincing everyone they're healthy. The alternative, admitting that industrial textile waste shouldn't have been turned into food, would require acknowledging the last 110 years of dietary advice was fundamentally corrupted from the start.

Your great-grandmother cooked with lard because that's what humans used for millennia. Then Procter & Gamble needed to sell soap alternatives and accidentally created the largest dietary change in human history.

We traded animal fats that built civilisations for factory waste that causes disease.

The soap company won. Your health lost.