I read this as well. The doctor makes absolute sense. I encourage all to read the entire interview. It is worth the time and effort.

Originally posted by EDteach
I read this as well. The doctor makes absolute sense. I encourage all to read the entire interview. It is worth the time and effort.

Yes, EDteach, I agree.


What of his points made sense to you?


What amazed me was the fact that he made about vaccines that it is far more of a broad-based, pre-cursor cause of a wide panoply of diseases than I had realized. Shocking, really.


Vaccines are like the condition of hyperinsulinemia, which is a very common pre-cursor of multiple named diseases, such as diabetes, hypoglycemia, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and so on.


I'm going to re-read the Moulden interview and get more from it; it's worth re-reading every few months, especially now when vaccines in such a false vogue of these crazy times.


I had lost a friend, who was a Gulf War I vet, who died of a brain cancer that was caused by the vaccines that he took -- he is one of the 42,000+ Gulf War I veterans who died as direct results from the vaccines; 250,000+ vets from that war are SO disabled that they cannot work to save their lives -- and this number is out of some nearly 700,000 who served in that war.


Such casualties of that war is unacceptably high, especially when only a bit over 100 men died in combat in that war.

Duplicate post deleted by the OP

[edit on 9-10-2009 by Historical-Mozart]

Does no one find it the slightest bit odd that this man's website prominently features "PURCHASE" and "BUY NOW" links? In fact, if you go to his homepage (www.brainguardmd.com), the only link that works in his main banner is the "DONATE" button, haha.

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
Does no one find it the slightest bit odd that this man's website prominently features "PURCHASE" and "BUY NOW" links? In fact, if you go to his homepage (www.brainguardmd.com), the only link that works in his main banner is the "DONATE" button, haha.

No. Nothing is free in life, unfortunately.

Originally posted by A Fortiori

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
Does no one find it the slightest bit odd that this man's website prominently features "PURCHASE" and "BUY NOW" links? In fact, if you go to his homepage (www.brainguardmd.com), the only link that works in his main banner is the "DONATE" button, haha.

No. Nothing is free in life, unfortunately.

Fair enough, but I've done a bit more reading on this "doctor", and a few questions come to mind. Now, these are just the first few things that come to mind as a clinician. He says that the particles in these vaccines are causing "white blood cells", a term which is SO broad it's unbelievable, to gather in the brain and cause "microstrokes" and "microtears".

Here are my questions:
1) If this is true, a simple MRI or autopsy would confirm this immediately. Why hasn't any physician noted these before? Why doesn't Dr. Moulen simply perform them himself?

2) Which "white blood cell" is he referring to? The only cells which commonly leave the circulatory system, especially in the brain, are macrophages. They don't tend to bind to each other or accumulate. in fact, this is the antithesis of their function and I have never observed it in any patient.

3) Where are Dr. Moulen's publications on the topic? He stresses, several times, how prestigious his research is, how much money he has received for it, and how firm his theory is, yet he has absolutely zero peer-reviewed studies. There are whole journals dedicated to EXACTLY his sort of work, that is, the pros and cons of vaccines, yet he can't get a SINGLE paper published? It makes me doubt the veracity of his claims.

4) Why does Dr. Moulen hold his clinical experience as plentiful and worthwhile when he has never practiced clinical medicine? He earned his MD and chose to neither become licensed nor practice. To call what he has "clinical experience" is an insult to myself and my colleagues who have logged thousands of hours, and I am still VERY early in my career.

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa

Originally posted by A Fortiori

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
Does no one find it the slightest bit odd that this man's website prominently features "PURCHASE" and "BUY NOW" links? In fact, if you go to his homepage (www.brainguardmd.com), the only link that works in his main banner is the "DONATE" button, haha.

No. Nothing is free in life, unfortunately.

Fair enough, but I've done a bit more reading on this "doctor", and a few questions come to mind. Now, these are just the first few things that come to mind as a clinician. He says that the particles in these vaccines are causing "white blood cells", a term which is SO broad it's unbelievable, to gather in the brain and cause "microstrokes" and "microtears".

It is possible that he is speaking in terms that his audience can understand. When public speaking you speak differently than you would among your peers.

Here are my questions:
1) If this is true, a simple MRI or autopsy would confirm this immediately. Why hasn't any physician noted these before? Why doesn't Dr. Moulen simply perform them himself?

If people are looking for these things it is possible that it would "confirm" it, but when you are not looking for a particular "tell" it has the potential to be overlooked. I thought that he had performed these procedures himself. From his lecture it appears he has.

2) Which "white blood cell" is he referring to? The only cells which commonly leave the circulatory system, especially in the brain, are macrophages. They don't tend to bind to each other or accumulate. in fact, this is the antithesis of their function and I have never observed it in any patient.

You have to watch the videos. *yawn* He gets into it by I think the third one.

3) Where are Dr. Moulen's publications on the topic? He stresses, several times, how prestigious his research is, how much money he has received for it, and how firm his theory is, yet he has absolutely zero peer-reviewed studies. There are whole journals dedicated to EXACTLY his sort of work, that is, the pros and cons of vaccines, yet he can't get a SINGLE paper published? It makes me doubt the veracity of his claims.

My dissertation has been peer reviewed and I cannot get that published by my degree holder for another two years as it is pending the expiration of an NDA that I signed.

4) Why does Dr. Moulen hold his clinical experience as plentiful and worthwhile when he has never practiced clinical medicine? He earned his MD and chose to neither become licensed nor practice. To call what he has "clinical experience" is an insult to myself and my colleagues who have logged thousands of hours, and I am still VERY early in my career.

I had to work while going through school and now am in the unfortunate position where I will take a huge pay cut to start over as a professor. You never know the circumstance.

Now, all of this said. There are times I post on ATS because I firmly believe in what it is that I am giving and opinion on, and sometimes I post to provide balance. The jury is out for me on this gentleman. As evidence based medicine is touted for treatment, I think we should also be practical given the nature of the modern research community and look to "evidence" outside of a study that, more often than not, are either politically motivated or "motivated" by the funder.

There is a correlated rise in the West where children receive more vaccines, more processed foods, more junk of autism, ADHD, and other "diseases" that are supposed to be genetic. Some would say the rise is due to better diagnostics, but that is a cop out. All of us have "senses" when we were in school, when we had fewer vaccines, fewer corn syrup products (soda actually had sugar in it until the late eighties), etc there were fewer ADHD or HD kids. They were proportionally few. They are no longer "few". I'm not removing the "stimulus" of video games and television. I'm saying we can observe and be honest about what we observe.

When the Amish are the least affected corner of the populous in the US that ought to show us evidence of something.

I am rambling because it is late...sorry about that. I usually post more coherently.

It is possible that he is speaking in terms that his audience can understand. When public speaking you speak differently than you would among your peers.

Fair enough.

If people are looking for these things it is possible that it would "confirm" it, but when you are not looking for a particular "tell" it has the potential to be overlooked. I thought that he had performed these procedures himself. From his lecture it appears he has.

Have you ever taken/examined an MRI? There is no way that hundreds of thousands of physicians could have missed these wide spread "microstokes" and micro-tears of vessels on literally tens of millions of MRIs since the technology's conception. That very idea is preposterous and you should feel silly for suggesting it. Microtears are not that hard to see on MRIs, and I don't see why you would think it would take one man who has NO clinical experience and NO radiological background to see them.

You have to watch the videos. *yawn* He gets into it by I think the third one.

*yawn* I don't feel like paying for his more comprehensive videos, and the two I did watch were full of ego stroking and non-science.

My dissertation has been peer reviewed and I cannot get that published by my degree holder for another two years as it is pending the expiration of an NDA that I signed.

Did you honestly just equate a dissertation with what this man is called decades of scientific work? Surely you know the difference.

I had to work while going through school and now am in the unfortunate position where I will take a huge pay cut to start over as a professor. You never know the circumstance.

Canadian medical schools aren't in the practice of graduating students without the intention of practicing. The fact that he attained an MD but did not seek licensure or practice suggests to me that he either couldn't pass the terminal licensing exam or showed poor enough skills that he was unable to obtain a residency. Financial hardship rarely, if ever, factors into this decision in medical school as it would cost you more money to NOT practice than to do the opposite.

There is a correlated rise in the West where children receive more vaccines, more processed foods, more junk of autism, ADHD, and other "diseases" that are supposed to be genetic. Some would say the rise is due to better diagnostics, but that is a cop out. All of us have "senses" when we were in school, when we had fewer vaccines, fewer corn syrup products (soda actually had sugar in it until the late eighties), etc there were fewer AD

It's interesting you bring up correlation. There is a common phrase in medicine and sciense: correlation is not causation. Let me paint this picture a bit more bluntly.

You say there is a "correlated rise" in vaccines, junk food, and autism. Okay, let's expand that concept.

I say there is a correlation between decreasing numbers of pirates and autism. The fewer pirates we saw in the world, the more autism we saw.

Additionally, I think AIDS is caused by the Chinese. The more Chinese people there are in the world, the more AIDS cases there are. I defy you to disprove my logic.

Do you see how ridiculous you sound when you use that sort of "correlative proof" ?

i try to tell my dad all the time to stop taking the vaccines and i even sent him links to dr. horowitz, dr. blaylock, and monteith. he is still stuck in his baby boomer mentality. so i told him that if you die from the vaccines after taking them and i warned him not to, then he better write me into his will so i can get his house to have a place to live. he laughed at that. that was something he could understand.

i hope my dad listens and stops getting those yearly va vaccine shots that his free vet health care pushes on him. he still doesn't get why he can't remember anything like he used to. what an idiot.

i tell him anyway to not take the vaccines. hope he breaks free of his lifelong brainwashing and wakes up before he takes the swine flu garbage.

Great Thread

I think this H1N1 is some form of Propaganda probably to test our fear of biological warfare and obviously to make the pharma share holders richer. This swine Flu mediatic fiasco is driving everyone insane. I spoke to many people who are scared to death to get swine flu they believe they might die from it or be like impaired sick for the rest of their lives. They think the death toll will rise like crazy. So because they fear it so much they are most probably going to take it. why risk it? Seems to be their modo ...

So its a double edged question for many. Why risk taking a vaccine that could make me sick. Or why risk not taking it and maybe die from H1N1.

Some dont understand that it seems for at least now: Seasonal flu still kills much more people then H1N1 as a comparison. The real fear is from the potential mutation that might occure. Then still hypothecally it could become dangerous. I read at some places it already had mutated in some regions. They found in Canada at least 2 if not more people immuned to the vaccine and Tamiflu but they said it wasnt transmitted behond that patient ... The patients were fine and quickly recuperated. So even if it mutates it might not become deadlier.

So really its confussing. No signs of emminent deaths world wide. Yet the vaccine is ready. People are starting to take it. News dont stop talking about H1N1. (Reminds me of the fear system when they kept repeating terrorists, terrorists every 2nd sentence to make sure the world would panic and support war). Its in stock so the pharmas have to pass it off now for the big bucks and the media is helping the marketing plan. Bassically this is what it is.

This being said only until there is evidence of a mutated H1N1 that is more virulant in transmission and death casualties, Then maybe considering vaccination could be an option.

As for me. Im not taking it neither if my immidiate familly up to now. The best is to wait and see. Just to many contradictory statements. Even my stepdaughter's doctor admitted not knowing anything about it and for now he isn't recommanding it to any of is patients. He said all I know about it, is the pamphlets they sent the clinic. No real data. So for now personally I dont know but the health departement as an other opinion it seems.

Fear no One, Trust no One ...

[edit on 10-10-2009 by NIGHTRID3R]

If people are looking for these things it is possible that it would "confirm" it, but when you are not looking for a particular "tell" it has the potential to be overlooked. I thought that he had performed these procedures himself. From his lecture it appears he has.

Have you ever taken/examined an MRI? There is no way that hundreds of thousands of physicians could have missed these wide spread "microstokes" and micro-tears of vessels on literally tens of millions of MRIs since the technology's conception. That very idea is preposterous and you should feel silly for suggesting it. Microtears are not that hard to see on MRIs, and I don't see why you would think it would take one man who has NO clinical experience and NO radiological background to see them.

I have never had an MRI. None of my friends have had an MRI. Neither have my parents (yet) had an MRI. If the argument is the rise in autism and neurological disorders due to heavy vaccination programs, and if the premise is that this very expensive test that only happens in the US at a doctor's request, then I can still imagine it going "unnoticed" until recently.

Per Johns Hopkins Medical:

Most people don't even notice microstrokes, which usually affect only a small number of brain cells. Although microstrokes sometimes show up as tiny spots on brain scans, other times they can't be picked up at all. The bottom line is that there's no way to interpret killing off of neurons as being a good thing, even in small numbers. So it seems pretty obvious that doing anything you can to prevent microstrokes -- especially engaging in regular physical exercise -- is essential for protecting your brain and guarding your memory.

I continue to conjecture if you are not looking for them you may not notice them.

Note: "silliness" is highly derogatory and not at all good form. Point of fact, it is rude and impolite.

My dissertation has been peer reviewed and I cannot get that published by my degree holder for another two years as it is pending the expiration of an NDA that I signed.

Did you honestly just equate a dissertation with what this man is called decades of scientific work? Surely you know the difference.

Yes, I did equate it, and I feel you are deliberately misreading my argument if you have state: "Surely you know the difference." I have a research background, and held two MS prior to my PhD. I know exactly how long I have had to sit on my findings and, yes, they are research (laboratory)-based.

Canadian medical schools aren't in the practice of graduating students without the intention of practicing. The fact that he attained an MD but did not seek licensure or practice suggests to me that he either couldn't pass the terminal licensing exam or showed poor enough skills that he was unable to obtain a residency.

He is choosing to go into consulting versus medical practice. You are supposing that he "couldn't pass" a licensing program, and I am supposing he wants to make money.

There is a correlated rise in the West where children receive more vaccines, more processed foods, more junk of autism, ADHD, and other "diseases" that are supposed to be genetic. Some would say the rise is due to better diagnostics, but that is a cop out. All of us have "senses" when we were in school, when we had fewer vaccines, fewer corn syrup products (soda actually had sugar in it until the late eighties), etc there were fewer AD

It's interesting you bring up correlation. There is a common phrase in medicine and sciense: correlation is not causation.

At the risk of sounding snide...duh. Did I state that it was?

No, my position is that the beginning of all research is observation and correlation of the various clues in order to compile them into enough evidence to apply for research and/or create your protocol. Example, "Why does this one town have a higher than average cancer rate? Is it the water? Are they all using the same water supply, etc."

Let me paint this picture a bit more bluntly.

You are not being "blunt" you are attempting to talk down to me in order to establish yourself as being somehow more reasoned or understanding of this subject matter.

You say there is a "correlated rise" in vaccines, junk food, and autism.

Okay, let's expand that concept.

You ought to have said: Allow me to produce an analogy that in now way shape or form does credit to the original statement so that I might hyperbolize the argument in order to avoid answering it.

I say there is a correlation between decreasing numbers of pirates and autism. The fewer pirates we saw in the world, the more autism we saw.

Additionally, I think AIDS is caused by the Chinese. The more Chinese people there are in the world, the more AIDS cases there are. I defy you to disprove my logic.

I give you a scenario that is grounded in reality and what the CDC and EPA deal with daily in both Select Agent and Outbreak management and you give me pirates. That is incredibly immature of you and a complete disregard for anyone's intelligence other than your own.

Shame on you.

Do you see how ridiculous you sound when you use that sort of "correlative proof" ?

No, I see how arrogant and ridiculous you sound when you attempt to deflect what diagnostic and outbreak analysts have to deal with on a daily, monthly, yearly basis. When tracking cancer rates in Eurasia we had to compile "cluster studies" prior to investigation. That is correlating location to disease trait. If we stopped there that would be shameful. I've never said one ought to. Correlating diverse variables is the first step in an investigation of any type.

I was arguing for allowing the individual to present evidence or at least argue the evidence rather than use ad hominem attacks that do nothing to elevate the level of discourse and understanding for other posters. You are not even attempting to do that. You don't want to waste your time with reading his ideas and presenting a counter to each one, but you will waste my time with fictitious pirate studies....





[edit on 10-10-2009 by A Fortiori]

[edit on 10-10-2009 by A Fortiori]

[edit on 10-10-2009 by A Fortiori]

[edit on 10-10-2009 by A Fortiori]

I have never had an MRI. None of my friends have had an MRI. Neither have my parents (yet) had an MRI. If the argument is the rise in autism and neurological disorders due to heavy vaccination programs, and if the premise is that this very expensive test that only happens in the US at a doctor's request, then I can still imagine it going "unnoticed" until recently.

This has no bearing on whether or not MRIs would spot these microstrokes. Just the number of MRIs performed in America since the inception of the technology lone number in the millions. The Johns Hopkins quote you posted very clearly states that they ARE distinguishable from typical physiological features. Are you truly saying that hundred of thousands of internists and neurologists, along with hundreds of radiologists, have missed these everytime?

Yes, I did equate it, and I feel you are deliberately misreading my argument if you have state: "Surely you know the difference." I have a research background, and held two MS prior to my PhD. I know exactly how long I have had to sit on my findings and, yes, they are research (laboratory)-based.

A dissertation is, in now way shape or form, similar to basic science research published in journals all over the world. Dissertations are typically wider in scope, lower in funding, and of the more general nature. Typical R1-funded work focuses on a specific problem/protein/gene etc. and attempts to solve that, rather than earn a degree. There is a massive difference, and you are being either deceptive or disingenuous in trying to equate them.

He is choosing to go into consulting versus medical practice. You are supposing that he "couldn't pass" a licensing program, and I am supposing he wants to make money.

In order to be a medical consult, you must have clinical experience and a license. He has neither.

As for your "analogy", it is absolutely NOT based in reality or science. To say that an increase in one condition MUST correlate to an increase in another is absolutely bunk. Don't you think better diagnostics, along with the change from "autism" to "autism spectrum disorders" might have increased this number a great deal? Don't you think a steady rise in teen pregnancy along with a steady decline in adequate prenatal diet has contributed a bit as well?

These sorts of things require actual scientific study, not a bunch of "what ifs" based on half-truths, non-science, and wishful thinking. I know it's easier to deal with these things when you have a "big bad wolf" to point to as the source, but sometimes it's just nature and disease, not some nefarious plot against you.

This has no bearing on whether or not MRIs would spot these microstrokes.

It said they go unnoticed in MRIs because of their size, meaning unless you are looking for it. Read it again. Yes, distinguishable but able to go unnoticed.

Are you truly saying that hundred of thousands of internists and neurologists, along with hundreds of radiologists, have missed these everytime?

You are not in the medical profession. I do not believe this--or maybe Canada's medical system is just that different from the US. If you go in for an MRI on say your knee in Canada will they look at your cranium?

A dissertation is, in now way shape or form, similar to basic science research published in journals all over the world. Dissertations are typically wider in scope, lower in funding, and of the more general nature. Typical R1-funded work focuses on a specific problem/protein/gene etc. and attempts to solve that, rather than earn a degree. There is a massive difference, and you are being either deceptive or disingenuous in trying to equate them.

First, dissertations are not typically "wider in scope" in fact they narrow your field of expertise. Second, I was not equating them. I stated this as an example of a limitation to being published; that perhaps he signed an NDA, etc. You are so randy to win an argument that you are either intentionally misreading or just so excited to be right that you are making a mountain out of a molehill.

Pirates anyone?

He is choosing to go into consulting versus medical practice. You are supposing that he "couldn't pass" a licensing program, and I am supposing he wants to make money.

In order to be a medical consult, you must have clinical experience and a license. He has neither.

Did I say what type of consulting? You can OT consult, which from the looks of his website is what he is doing.

It said they go unnoticed in MRIs because of their size, meaning unless you are looking for it. Read it again. Yes, distinguishable but able to go unnoticed.

I am absolutely in the profession, and the numbers I was shooting off (millions of MRIs) was specific to cranial. Any patient complaining of head pain following trauma or other common indicators gets an MRI or CT. Period. Of course, this is in America, I'm not sure how it is where you are, assuming you aren't in America, as well.
[

First, dissertations are not typically "wider in scope" in fact they narrow your field of expertise. Second, I was not equating them. I stated this as an example of a limitation to being published; that perhaps he signed an NDA, etc. You are so randy to win an argument that you are either intentionally misreading or just so excited to be right that you are making a mountain out of a molehill.

Dissertations are "wider in scope" in the sense that they are not as technical or informative as a basic science paper. That is what I was trying to imply, and I'm sorry if it was unclear. The fact remains that Dr. Moulden has produced ZERO papers, but claims that he "has the research to back this up". Great, then show us. If you can't, tell us why. Otherwise, it comes off as being this big black box that quite literally has nothing inside.

Did I say what type of consulting? You can OT consult, which from the looks of his website is what he is doing.

Just in case you missed it (I'm being generous and assuming you aren't trying to lie), Dr. Moulden offers "MASS testing" and "diagnosis" on his website. If he has no medical license, he is committing a felony by defrauding the public by posing as a medical professional. Plain and simple. You CAN NOT consult, and most CERTAINLY can not diagnose without a medical license. It's that cut and dry, honest.

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa

It said they go unnoticed in MRIs because of their size, meaning unless you are looking for it. Read it again. Yes, distinguishable but able to go unnoticed.

I am absolutely in the profession, and the numbers I was shooting off (millions of MRIs) was specific to cranial. Any patient complaining of head pain following trauma or other common indicators gets an MRI or CT. Period. Of course, this is in America, I'm not sure how it is where you are, assuming you aren't in America, as well.

Are you American or Canadian? You are speaking for "America" but have referenced Canada's system often.

As for the millions of MRIs. Yes, due to head injury... they are done some of the time here in the US. I've had a concussion from playing ice hockey and never had an MRI, so... I know other people with concussions and no MRIs, but, yes, they are used for that. They are an expensive diagnostic tool and I am happy to hear that Canada uses them more often the US as we are moving (I think to socialized medicine). Here you get the healthcare that your insurance company will pay for.

Let's talk populations. You are a "research scientist", yes? If the target population is "school aged" how many of this so-called "millions of MRIs" are performed on school-aged children?

First, dissertations are not typically "wider in scope" in fact they narrow your field of expertise. Second, I was not equating them. I stated this as an example of a limitation to being published; that perhaps he signed an NDA, etc. You are so randy to win an argument that you are either intentionally misreading or just so excited to be right that you are making a mountain out of a molehill.

Dissertations are "wider in scope" in the sense that they are not as technical or informative as a basic science paper. That is what I was trying to imply, and I'm sorry if it was unclear. The fact remains that Dr. Moulden has produced ZERO papers, but claims that he "has the research to back this up". Great, then show us. If you can't, tell us why. Otherwise, it comes off as being this big black box that quite literally has nothing inside.



It depends upon the dissertation. Parts of mine were highly technical.But again, I was making an example and you are now arguing for the sake of argument.

Well, if he is not published then I would wonder why he has never published a paper, but I would not state without equivocation that he has less than honorable motives for why he has not. Why? Because I do not know him.

That was my problem with your post. I greatly dislike it when people attack a person they do not know and question their motives. If you don't like his points then refute them not him.

Did I say what type of consulting? You can OT consult, which from the looks of his website is what he is doing.

Just in case you missed it (I'm being generous and assuming you aren't trying to lie), Dr. Moulden offers "MASS testing" and "diagnosis" on his website. If he has no medical license, he is committing a felony by defrauding the public by posing as a medical professional. Plain and simple. You CAN NOT consult, and most CERTAINLY can not diagnose without a medical license. It's that cut and dry, honest.

In the United States you certainly can consult as an Occupational Therapist with his degrees.

Also, once more, you are being rude and insulting with : "I'm being generous and assuming you aren't trying to lie". You are dismissive and juvenile. Why should you even feel the need to post "I'm being generous and assuming ..."? That is facetious, and unnecessary.

I've yet to insult you. I've only stated the devil's advocate argument which is necessary to provide balance and you have insulted me at every turn and now bring in to question my integrity. You should be careful as pattern and habit become character. Currently, you have shown yourself to be rude and unkind when absolutely unnecessary to be so. Is that the type of person you choose to be?

[edit on 13-10-2009 by A Fortiori]