RFK Jr. Is Right: Hg Causes Autism

As people attack RFK Jr.'s new book and say a link between ethylmercury (thimerosal) in vaccines and autism has been disproven, tell them this: the second child ever diagnosed with autism (1943) had a father who was experimenting with ethylmercury...

How Mercury Triggered The Age of Autism

Autism Public Service Announcement

Canary Party Vaccine Court Video

A Glimpse into Autism

Meet Our Advertisers


Olmsted's Original UPI Series

  • The Age of Autism Tag

« The Aluminum Threat: An Interview With Chris Shaw | Main | Meet The Thinking Moms at the Autism One Generation Rescue Conference »

Best of Age of Autism: Mark Blaxill on Lies, Damned Lies and CDC Autism Statistics

Light bulb fire

Managing Editor's Note: We anticipate new autism prevalence numbers from CDC any moment. As April Fool's day and the cerulean silly season of awareness and celebration approaches, we thought we'd run this post Mark Blaxill: Lies, Damned Lies and CDC Autism Statistics again. This is the third airing of this post as the numbers continue to climb with no sense of the urgency and action this epidemic demands.

Dark_alley By Mark Blaxill

It’s official now, real autism rates have exploded to 1 in 100 American children. We’re facing a national public health emergency of historic proportions. Bigger than swine flu. Bigger than polio. Bigger than almost anything one can imagine except AIDS. No matter how hard some may try, it’s impossible to escape the inexorable upward march of the numbers.  Even Tom Insel, head of autism research at NIH and not exactly the autism world’s greatest forward thinker, has conceded the obvious: “There is no question that there has got to be an environmental component here.”

Following last week’s release of the latest CDC autism surveillance report, no amount of methodological obfuscation (“autism prevalence has clearly gone up but there are no real incidence studies”), epidemiological nihilism (“we simply can’t know without large scale, well-controlled, prospective studies”) or social deconstructionist nonsense (“autism is an intolerant invention of modern society”) should escape scorn . Anyone with brain, a conscience and an ounce of integrity must acknowledge that we face a crisis. Meanwhile, those who would accuse the autism parent community of “denialism”, unscientific reasoning and irresponsible irrationality need to explain how their own theories, so dependent on the evidence-free suggestion that rates are rising because of “better diagnosing”, deserve to be considered respectable scientific speech. There is no more unscientific position in public health today than the fiction that rising autism rates come from better diagnosing. Let’s be clear, the only evidence for better diagnosing is wishful thinking. Our public health institutions deserve no credit for a job done better; quite the contrary, they deserve an investigation into their negligence.

Nowhere is the institutional pattern of negligence, deception and propaganda surrounding autism more apparent than in the work of the Autism Developmental Disabilities Monitoring (ADDM) network. The design of the ADDM, a project of the CDC and its parent agency the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), reveals in sharp relief how determined CDC is to evade its autism responsibilities. And while there is no evidence of fraud in the preparation of the ADDM data, that’s about the only good thing you can say about the work. To be blunt, every ADDM publication so far has betrayed a fundamental dishonesty, reporting analysis that has been twisted for bureaucratic purposes to mask and suppress the magnitude of the autism problem. It’s a disturbing display of the triumph of public relations over professionalism, propaganda masquerading as science.

In their latest exercise in spin management, the CDC released a new ADDM publication last week: at noon on the Friday before Christmas. The timing of this release-- a transparent attempt to bury the surveillance news as deeply as possible-- was an indication of the seriousness with which the CDC treats the autism problem. In case anyone missed it, the leadership of the DHHS in the Obama administration has clearly selected influenza as their priority health policy concern; but their autism policy position has been less clear and this release of the ADDM findings marked the first major autism position statement of the new administration.

It was a sad day. For those of us who held out hope that a change in administration might create an occasion for change in autism policy, it’s time to declare the honeymoon over. With this release and the despicable way it was handled, the new administration has now taken ownership for the failure of America’s autism policy. They’ve even managed to take data suppression to a new, post-Verstraeten level. Blame Secretary Sebelius, blame Tom Insel, blame CDC Director Tom Frieden, or blame Obama himself. But make no mistake; the policies of the Obama administration are looking like a disaster for the autism community.

That might sound a bit harsh to the disinterested observer. After all, didn’t the CDC just come out and admit that the rates have gone up and are basically 1 in 100? One might think it would be unfair to criticize the new administration for publishing numbers that essentially confirm what the autism community has been arguing for years. How exactly, one might reasonably ask, could one argue that CDC has twisted the surveillance from ADDM to obscure the autism epidemic?

Ah, the joys of deconstructing CDC statistics. How do they lie to us? Let me count the ways.

1. Start the history of autism in 1992

CDC surely understands that a huge part of the controversy over rising autism rates is defining when the increases started so we can better locate the environmental roots behind autism’s recent rise. They also understand that the criticism over CDC’s own role in this controversy begins with the escalation in the childhood immunization program that started with the introduction of new vaccines for Haemophilus influenza B (Hib) and hepatitis B in 1990 and 91, respectively. And they certainly understand that an honest investigation of the effect of their own policies must include a comparison of autism rates for children born in 1989 or earlier with those born in 1991 or later.

So what has the CDC done with ADDM? They left the investigation of children born in the 1980s out of the ADDM entirely! According to ADDM, the history of autism surveillance starts with children born in 1992. Anything before that becomes ancient history as far as CDC is concerned.

But what makes this omission even more dishonest is that the CDC began its own autism survey work with data that did include children born in the 1980s. In fact, they led one of the more thorough autism survey analyses ever conducted, one in which CDC-paid clinicians personally conducted diagnostic interviews for every suspected case of autism in a target population in Brick Township, New Jersey born between 1988 and 1995. They can even compare this NJ data with their own data from four NJ counties in ADDM (which included Ocean County and Brick Township).

And what did CDC find when they did this thorough analysis?

• That among children born 1988 or 1989, there were exactly ZERO cases of full syndrome autism; yet by the 1993 birth year the full syndrome rate had soared to 1 in 128.

• That cases of all autism spectrum disorders (ASDs) went from a rate of 1 in 225 among children born between 1988 and 1991 (the most precise data breakdown received from CDC) to over 1 in 80 for children born in 1992.

• And that the rates of ASD found in its ADDM analysis of children born in NJ in 1992 and 1994, far away the highest rates in the ADDM network, may have actually understated the autism rates in some parts of NJ.

We know all this not because the CDC actually published these numbers honestly on its own (their published report on the Brick Township survey actually denied that there was an upward trend!), but because SafeMinds founder Sallie Bernard had questions about the findings, asked CDC employees for unpublished data and received some partial responses. Left to its own devices, however, the CDC chose to launch its official history of autism rates starting with children born in 1992. The only conclusion one can draw is that they don’t really want the world to know what autism rates were before 1990.

The sharp rise in NJ autism rates for children born between 1988 and 1994 is displayed in Figure 1. (Click to enlarge)

ADDM charts  





2. Hide behind diagnostic changes and then don’t control for their effect

 

The solitary argument supporting the denial of the autism crisis is the notion that autism rates have risen due to “better diagnosing” and a broadening of the diagnostic criteria for autism. The fragile factual foundation of the “better diagnosing” argument lies in the adoption of a revised set of criteria for an autism diagnosis in the fourth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM IV). DSM IV was published in 1994 around the time the autism epidemic was first becoming visible.

There was nothing special about the 1994 revision of the DSM. First published in 1952, the DSM, the bible of the psychiatric profession, was first revised in 1967 (DSM II). “Infantile autism” was slotted within the broader category of pervasive developmental disorders (PDDs) and first formally included in the third edition, which was published in 1980. Seven years later, the revised third edition was published and with it an update of the DSM criteria for autism (renamed “autistic disorder”) and the PDDs. Then, seven years after the revised third edition came the fourth edition, with another refinement of the criteria for the PDDs and “autistic disorder.”

The key point to remember is that the DSM criteria for all “mental disorders” are revised regularly and autism is just one part of this ongoing process. If you read the literature surrounding the autism revisions, you will see that the DSM IV was never intended to radically expand the definition of autism. Quite the contrary, these revisions are mostly technical publications designed to aid practicing psychiatrists in making consistent diagnoses. But since the timing of this new volume coincided conveniently with the upsurge in autism cases, history has been rewritten. Because as the first children of the Age of Autism were born in 1991 and went in to receive their first diagnosis of autism at the average age of four or five,  the DSM IV criteria had, quite naturally, just been introduced.

Very little about autism or the PDDs changed in DSM IV. There was a bit of tightening in the checklists. The “age at onset of symptoms” threshold (implicit in Kanner’s phrase “infantile autism” but jettisoned in the revised third edition) was reintroduced and set at 36 months (DSM III had it at 30 months). The overall intention was described explicitly in 1997 by some of its designers: “The change from DSM III to DSM III-R [revised] is an example of the broadening of the concept of autism; from DSM III-R to DSM IV, a corrective narrowing occurred.” [emphasis added] 

But there was one material change in DSM IV. For the first time, Asperger’s syndrome was included as part of the PDDs. That should have been neither radical nor confusing. After all, Asperger’s syndrome, by definition, doesn’t involve the language deficits of full syndrome autism. Because of that difference (quite obvious and not confusing for parents, but seemingly the confusion at the root of the epidemic for others) the age of diagnosis usually comes much later: typically eight years of age for Asperger’s vs. three to five years of age for autism.

There’s nothing wrong with including Asperger’s syndrome in the PDDs. Indeed, formally recognizing the disability of those with only the social and behavioral deficits of the PDDs was a step forward. But that small bit of progress should never have been allowed to confuse the issue of time trends in autism. The arithmetic involved isn’t very hard.  It’s like avoiding confusion between pandemic swine flu and other upper respiratory infections like the common cold (hmm, maybe there’s a pattern HERE). If you want to control for the impact on autism surveillance data of the DSM IV inclusion of Asperger’s syndrome you can do one simple thing.

Separate diagnoses of “autistic disorder” cases from cases diagnosed with Asperger’s syndrome.

And for that matter do the same thing with PDD-NOS, which with one label or another (as “other infantile psychoses”, “infantile autism, residual state”, “atypical PDD”, or just as PDD “not otherwise specified”) has always been included in the PDDs.

But what approach did ADDM adopt? They did exactly the opposite. CDC dumped all PDD diagnoses together in one big lump, therefore specifically choosing NOT to measure the effect of the diagnostic revision they intimate has changed the rates.

Why on earth would CDC not require more precision in the gold standard of autism surveillance? They certainly know how to conduct a more detailed analysis. They did it in Brick, where they measured both the rate of all autism spectrum disorders and full syndrome autism. You can see the results in Figure 1, which shows how ASD rates in 6 year old children born in Brick Township in 1992 (1 in 82) compared with children born the same year (and surveyed two years later) in a four county sample that included Brick, (1 in 99 had ASDs). And while Brick ASD rates in the 1992 birth year are a bit higher than the ADDM rates, they show a consistent trend before (rising sharply) and after (leveling off) even though they were diagnosing children earlier (and possibly missing some milder Asperger’s cases).

The NJ data don’t give you any reason to believe the changing diagnostic criteria have anything at all to do with the rising rates. They simply show that the ADDM methods are designed only to perpetuate the confusion over what’s going on with autism.

3. If the sample doesn’t suit, change it

One of the oddities of the ADDM network is how unstable it is. The “2000” report (actually 1992 births diagnosed by 2000) lists 6 states as part of the network, a list that grew to 14 in the “2002” report (1994 births diagnosed by 2002). Given ADDM’s biennial reporting cycle, most of us who were waiting for the “2004” report last week were surprised to find the main emphasis on the “2006” numbers. This latest version included 11 states, strangely eliminating 2 of the 6 states in the 2000 group and 4 of 14 in the 2002 group (meanwhile, the numbers for “2004” were buried in an appendix; more on this below). What could possibly explain this revolving door of ADDM states? Why wouldn’t CDC simply choose a representative sample of states and counties and follow them in consistent fashion?

Well for starters, the ADDM sample is almost certainly not representative. The Department of Education (DOE) provides data on special education enrollments via the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (see Fighting Autism). Based on the IDEA standard, CDC has consistently excluded from ADDM the states with the high autism prevalence rates; at no point have the top 5 states in the IDEA rankings, Oregon, Minnesota, Maine, Rhode Island and Connecticut, been included. New Jersey, by far the state with the highest rates ever surveyed by CDC barely makes the IDEA top 10. ADDM has also excluded states with their own surveillance activities. California (15th in the IDEA rankings), the state that launched the earliest alarm over rising autism rates is also not part of ADDM. Neither is Minnesota, a top 5 state that has also been the site of prior autism surveys.

In addition to excluding states with high rates and prior independent surveillance, ADDM has also manipulated the network. They have had four reporting cycles and have modified the states in each cycle, moving old states out and new ones in. There is no apparent scientific reason for these changes, nor has CDC given any explanation for the changes in the ADDM network.

So one can only assess the effect of these changes by judging the impact of their actions on the ADDM results as the network evolved over the four reporting cycles. These actions suggest that the CDC’s changes to the ADDM network have systematically reduced the ADDM reported rates and lowered their reported rate of increase.

Specifically:

• CDC has removed states with high and/or rising rates. Following the 2002 report, NJ, Utah (UT), West Virginia (WV), and Arkansas (AR) were all removed from ADDM (an action that was not visible to the public until last week). These 4 states were ranked #1, #3, #5 and #6, respectively out of the 14 states reporting results from 2002. This systematic purging of high prevalence state is visible in Figure 2 below. (Click to enlarge)

• This purge not only excluded states with high rates in 2002, it also excluded 2 of the three states with the largest rates of increase between 2000 and 2002: WV with a 39% increase in just 2 years, and NJ with a 7% increase. Only the CDC’s self-managed program in GA, with an autism growth rate of 17%, remained in ADDM.

• In 2002, CDC added Alabama (AL) to the ADDM. AL is one of the bottom 10 states in the IDEA rankings, and at the time it entered had the lowest rate in the ADDM network. CDC retained AL in the network for all subsequent reports. Most recently CDC added Florida (FL) to the ADDM in 2006. FL (which is close to the median in IDEA) entered ADDM with the lowest reported autism level of any state.

• Pennsylvania (PA) and Colorado (CO) were both removed in 2004 (or provided no records) and then reinstated in 2006. CO is another bottom 10 state in IDEA. And although the full state of Pennsylvania is in the top 10 of the IDEA ranking, Philadelphia County (the ADDM site) has autism rates well below the statewide average. Both PA and CO autism rates were among the lowest in the latest ADDM report. (Click to enlarge)
Blaxill chart 2

In case anyone is missing the point, these are not neutral shifts. It doesn’t take a degree in statistics to figure out that if you remove the states with the highest rates in the sample, the average rates will go down; similarly, if you add in states with low autism rates, the average will fall even further.

And if you try to compare these averages while the sample is shifting, you will report misleading trends. The ADDM network estimates for 1992 birth year (2000 report) are not comparable to the latest estimates for the 1998 birth year (2006 report). Only 4 of the 6 original sites remained in 2006; and only 10 of the 14 sites reporting in 2002 remained in 2006. The exclusions and additions skewed the data in critical ways.

Even so, the ADDM rates went up anyway. Figure 2 shows that rates within each state rose consistently (every line on the chart goes up) despite the biased shifts of the overall sample. Maryland (MD), North Carolina (NC) and Missouri (MO) rates rose consistently throughout the period. Rates in South Carolina (SC) went down through 2004 and then shot up in 2006. Rates in Arizona (AZ) started out among the lowest in the ADDM, but as of 2006 are the highest in the network. Only Wisconsin (WI) shows a mixed recent trend, with a declining rate between the 2004 and 2006 reports.

In short, last week’s high autism rates would have been significantly worse had the CDC not manipulated the ADDM network to keep the rates low. As a result, some observers even called the ADDM report good news because the average rate of 1 in 110 was lower than an earlier report of 1 in 91. But that’s simply an artifact of CDC’s monkeying around with the sample: there’s little doubt that the “official” rate of 1 in 110 would have risen to over 1 in 100 with the inclusion of higher recent rates in NJ and the elimination of FL.

4. Spinning the numbers down

If states moving in and out of the ADDM network were the only evidence of manipulation, one might argue these changes were innocent coincidences, driven by a handful of unavoidable local funding problems. But the CDC’s statistical sleight of hand runs far deeper than that and is revealed most clearly in the packaging of trend information in each ADDM report release.

Trend reporting requires comparing data from different time periods. And when it comes to trend analysis, it doesn’t take a degree in statistics to know you should always compare “apples and apples” between one time period and the next. This ought to be an easy thing to accomplish in a highly organized effort like the ADDM project. But CDC has consistently twisted its reporting to suppress the evidence supporting increases in the autism rate.

Two ways this suppression has been demonstrated are revealed below in Figure 3, where the red markers and lines show what CDC reported and the black lines show what an honest, “apples to apples” comparison would have shown instead. 

1. Apples and oranges. In 2007, CDC released results simultaneously from its 2000 and 2002 reports. The initial 2000 ADDM survey contained six sites and the 2002 network was expanded to 14. When releasing the two reports on February 9, 2007, CDC’s accompanying press release noted that ASD prevalence for children born in 1992 was 6.7 per 1,000 (the “apples”), while the prevalence for children born in 1994 was 6.6 per 1,000 (the “oranges”), implying that the rate was the same (or might have even gone down) over the 2-year time period (these two numbers are represented by the two red markers in Figure 3 for 2000 and 2002). But these were not comparable numbers. A true “apples to apples” comparison of the sites included in both studies would have shown a 10% increase in those 6 sites over the two year period (the black line labeled “fixed 6 state set” in Figure 3). (Click to enlarge)
 
2. Oops, we forgot to mention 2004. But this increased rate was lower than many of us would have expected. So for nearly three years we have been waiting for the release of the 2004 numbers. It had taken six years to release the 2000 numbers and four years to release the 2002 data. But despite the natural expectation that the process might go faster, nearly five years later, the 2004 data had still not been released. To the surprise of knowledgeable observers, when the next ADDM report was issued last week, there was almost no mention at all of the 2004 findings. Instead, the entire focus was on the 2006 results. The extended delay occurred because CDC failed to issue the 2004 numbers at all! Why might they do this? One clue is revealed in Figure 3, which shows the second “apples to apples” comparison of states included in both the 2002 and 2004 surveys (the black line labeled “fixed 8 state set”). Based on an honest comparison, between 2002 and 2004, the autism rate rose by 31%. Why CDC failed to report the 2004 numbers entirely is anyone’s guess. Perhaps they hoped the numbers would flatten out in 2006. But as the red line from 2002 to 2006 shows, the upward trend simply continued and so ADDM was forced to report a 57% increase in autism last week. This time, and to their credit, the CDC’s report (the dotted red line) was a true reflection of an “apples to apples” trend. (Click to enlarge)

Blaxill chart 3


As autism rates have converged toward 1 in 100, CDC now seems to have abandoned its enthusiasm for suppressing the real autism data. Instead, it simply announced the ADDM results the week before Christmas on a Friday afternoon, hoping no one would notice they don’t have a plan to do anything about it and went back to work on the swine flu.

But it’s worth pausing for a moment to reflect on a few numbers in the latest release. Any average rate, of course, includes a mix of groups with both higher and lower risk. We all know that autism rates are higher in boys, but it’s still mind-boggling to think about the toll autism is taking in some demographic groups. The rates in the most seriously affected clusters now are over 2%. By my calculation, the autism rate among white males born in Missouri in 1998 is 1 in 45. In Arizona, it’s even higher, at 1 in 42. I know it’s not fashionable to worry these days about white male American boys. Maybe it’s time to start.

It’s night in Jungleland

The reason these male demographics stand out is because autism rates are three to four times higher, of course, in boys. They’re often (but not always) higher in white, non-Hispanic populations. They also seem to be higher in states, like NJ, with serious pollution concerns and/or aggressive vaccination policies. These two environmental factors, leading suspects in the autism epidemic, are front and center in NJ, the state with the oxymoronic nickname, “The Garden State.”

Every visitor to the Garden State who flies into Manhattan or Newark spends some time driving down the massive refinery strip on the NJ Turnpike. Bruce Springsteen, NJ’s unofficial poet laureate, wrote songs about this scar in the middle of the state’s main commercial corridor, the inescapable stigma of any New Jersey native, trying to defend their state to outside visitors. Springsteen wrote about going “New Jersey Turnpike ridin' on a wet night 'neath the refinery's glow, out where the great black rivers flow.”

Not far away from the great black rivers, in the sprawl that defines the greater New York metropolitan area lies the heart of the American pharmaceutical industry. Merck’s headquarters are in Whitehouse Station, NJ. Johnson & Johnson is headquartered in New Brunswick. Major headquarters for Warner Lambert, Squibb, Wyeth and Schering-Plough were all NJ-based prior to their acquisition by larger companies and retain extensive operations all through the state. Their outsized political influence has led to unusually aggressive childhood vaccination policies.

When it comes to demographics like this, things can get personal and they do for me. I’m a white, non Hispanic male. I was born and raised in New Jersey. My father, who commuted to Manhattan his whole career, took on the chairmanship of a local autism charity when he was dying of cancer during the 1980s. One of his partners at Morgan Stanley had an autistic son, who was the only child with autism I knew who lived in my hometown. I don’t know what the autism rate was back then, no one ever did a formal survey, but it wasn’t very high. Everyone knew autism was rare.

But I was born in 1958. Just over thirty-five years later, my calculations from the ADDM report for 2004 suggest that 1 in 50 white males born in NJ in 1994 were autistic. That was the highest rate ever reported in the US until Arizona and Missouri overtook it in last week’s report. If I had been born a few decades later, I would have fallen into that demographic. Maybe my own life would have been dramatically different. That’s enough to make you pause.

As a teenager growing up in NJ, I grew up listening to Bruce Springsteen’s music: I danced with pretty girls to Rosalita, played fake saxophone riffs along with Clarence Clemons and drank beer with my high school buddies singing along with Born to Run that “we got to get out while we’re young.” So I found myself wondering this weekend, what would The Boss think about all this? I surfed the internet reading through some of his song lyrics and found a small bit of inspiration in the lines below. I thought of changing a few words to fit the current situation, but you don’t mess with The Boss.

Outside the street's on fire in a real death waltz
Between flesh and what's fantasy and the poets down here
Don't write nothing at all, they just stand back and let it all be
And in the quick of the night they reach for their moment
And try to make an honest stand but they wind up wounded, not even dead
Tonight in Jungleland

1 in 100 children. 1 in 50 boys like me. No one sounding the alarm. What is our world coming to?

Mark Blaxill is Editor-at-Large for Age of Autism and a Director of SafeMinds. To read this post in .pdf format click HERE.


Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I have seen the following in the media: the rate of autism is 1 in 88, and 3 of 4 are boys, how is it possible that the rate for boys is 1 in 44? It's been a long time since I had Stats but my quick estimate is that the rate for boys is closer to 1 in 24?? Can someone confirm?

from
A grandma who sees an increase in sick children.

The Brick Township investigation is particularly disturbing with the early investigation proceeding as if all the stops usually pulled out by CDC tracking were being put into action, only to be internally shut down with a release of indeterminate results and what sounds like a flight from the scene. Nearly, two decades later we are still getting indeterminate results from various stage-production efforts at confronting the epidemic(s) are children are facing. I'm not sure I can bring myself to lobby these people to, apparently, inconvenience themselves any more to do their professed jobs.

I really wonder if a better course might be to call for the pulling public funds from these agencies back to the states and local communities. Maybe our local agencies would at least attempt some of the much needed health of never-vaccinated populations or at least discourage the use of some of the more unjustifiable vaccines without the research in place?

re: Chloe's Mom

Both of my daughters essentially received the same schedule, though I have no idea if any of the vaccines were the same formulation. My daughter on the spectrum received hers at a more accelerated pace, received at least one dose from a vial that had not been properly agitated during earlier uses, and received one round at the end of three days of fighting a fever. I also have a memory of watching a nurse patiently siphoning the dregs for another of her doses from one multi-dose vial before throwing it away. I personally do not believe they received the same exposures, even though on their personal records, they had the same vaccines.

If anyone here knows of any research that shows the administration and storage methods for multidose vaccine vials provides equal distribution of components, particularly the components already dosed well above safety guidelines, I would greatly appreciate any reference.

If it is demonstrably highly likely that from every vial one or more doses contained perhaps twice or even 50% more, of Hg or Al for example, and with the chance some children will receive such doses in combination or in a series of visits, wouldn't that significantly alter how the safety/causation studies need to be conducted?

No one group, physician, academic, or bureaucracy has completely mapped or documented the damage done by vaccines. The vaccine studies previously done have not used the NEVER vaccinated as a control group. The vaccine studies executed have for the most part had pharmaceutical industry financing and support. Any hypothesis asserted in a study MUST be validated in replicated studies by researchers unconnected to money and final outcomes, otherwise, how can we have confidence in the results? The responsibility for validity in study methodology and results lies with those who make scientific claims, not with those of us forced to use drugs or vaccines for which the claims have been made. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence of harm.

Those menatally retarded of the past may indeed be vaccine injured. Those with muscular dystropy may be vaccine injured. Those with hemophilia may be vaccine injured. Those with fragile X syndrome may be vaccine injured. Type I diabetics may be vaccine injured. Those with PKU may be vaccine injured. Obviously, none of these are autism, which has it's own peculiar constellation of causes and effects, particularly for children born in the 1990's. What all of these conditions have in common is that vaccination may be either the primary cause or a contributing cause of the initial damage. And I challenge any researcher to show just cause as to why I should believe otherwise.

Chloe's Mom:
Here is the video, that I watched last night. I suppose it is called U tube.
I very rarely bring in links -but here it is.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wf8sw3n7xrE

I do not have two different fathers for my kids. I do know that my husband worked his way through school and had many tetanus shots and a tick shot because the forest service loved him and hired him every summmer. He has an IQ of 120 - hard working, never considered himself smart, always bragged on me and claimed I was the smart one of the family.
At age 28 his work gave tetanus shots and he took one and left -- and collapsed at home with a seizure.

Yes, it is inherited -- in a way. Once an immune system is compromised it is passed on both through the mother and the father. That is why the Europeans did not have so much trouble with measles - the previous generations of both men and women had been exposed and their immune system had passed what I got to go---

"I have 2 girls, 1 w/Asperger's. The other is not autistic. I lived in the same area, SF Bay Area, Suburbs. i have immunized both children with the SAME immunizations. I do NOT "buy into" the vaccine cause of Autistic disorders. I know many families with multiple children w/autism. I believe there IS a genetic connection."

@Chloe's mom

Of course there is a genetic connection. That is not up for debate. But the consensus now is that there's a strong environmental component too. The "genetic connection" is simply a genetic susceptibility to whatever in the environment is triggering autism. Your children are not genetically identical. So one could be susceptible to vaccine components and not the other. The fact that you did not observe a regression immediately following vaccinations doesn't mean your child was not adversely affected. Many parents did observe a catastrophic reaction to vaccines - including seizures - later autism. I wonder how you'd feel if your child had such a reaction and other parents told you they "don't buy" it.

There is no way tens of thousands of autistic children were misdiagnosed as MR. Even the head of the NIMH says the increase in autism is real.

BTW, of all the adults I know of who are diagnosed MR, not one has had their diagnosis changed to "autism." Where are all the MR adults undergoing diagnosis changes? You'd think it would be written about in the news, but it's not. It's just a theory with zero substantiation - a theory disseminated by those responsible for the autism epidemic.

Chloe's Mom
Then Kanner a world reknown Psych just renamed retarded for atuism and everyone said at the time -- well -- okay?
Your child was fine until preschool and then regressed.
You went in to get the preschool DPT or DTaP shot and all was fine?
My daughter did okay with the DPT shot untill the fourth one. That was the one in which the injection site swelled up the size of a baseball and then six (something) weeks later she came down with Kawasakis.
when it came time for her the fifth DPT shot (Pre-School) in half an hour's time she ran a temp of 105 and passed out, for about 15 minutes. Then she got up on that pretty Sept day and went outside to play with out a temp or nothing???

She is now 30 and she has an IQ of 125, she also had a mood disorder I did not recognize when she was little. She could be sweet or grumpy - not that big a deal. In her teen years it brought her depression, it did not help that her monthly messed up and docs gave her a shot to stop it. This is when she became very angry (that was her depression). In her 20's with two degrees plus a nursing degree that brought her to the HEP B SHOT-- it took a week after the third Hep B for her to become very stiff - SED rates in her blood went very high. It took a year for her to slowly build up to full blown bipolar.

These shots are sometimes slow in what they do, and accumalative. Take your eye off your kid for a second and you could miss it. Then you think it is genetic.

Autism Speaks wants brains - Chloe's Mom - they have already made up thier minds that Kanner did not know what he was talking about and thus they would waste any brain sent to them by a loving parent. Besides - mine - are - going - to - live.

I watched a video last night

I have 2 girls, 1 w/Asperger's. The other is not autistic. I lived in the same area, SF Bay Area, Suburbs. i have immunized both children with the SAME immunizations. I do NOT "buy into" the vaccine cause of Autistic disorders. I know many families with multiple children w/autism. I believe there IS a genetic connection. My children have different fathers. AUTISM SPEAKS has a "Brain Donation" program - need autistic and non-autistic brains to compare brain gene mutation. Myself and other family members are on the list of donors. And the National stats are still 1 in 110 children. Remember - is not new. These children decades ago, were "labeled "Retarded" and were commited to institutions! My daughter matured and met all her milestones. Then, in pre-school she began biting, growling traits and was labeled as "ADHD" and put on Ritilyn. Great. She was in 2nd grade when I diagnosed her thru many, many days/months of research. When I told her Psych she had autism, he told me I was incorrect. Fired his ass! After intense therapy and school's testing, I was validated. Her struggles with peers and socialization is about a 5th grade level, and she's an Honor Roll student in 9th grade. To say her struggles are intense, embarrasing, and depressing is an understatement. She has trials every day! Let's hope there's a day when this stops. Until then, pray for our children and adults affected.

I am concerned about this problem. I don't have anyone close that has a chid with autism. To me it is clear that vaccinations play a big part if not all of the problem. I don't know what I can do to help bring awareness. I started looking into vaccination a few years back. I have ason that is 26 and when he was in 6th grade the school wanted him to have the hepatitis B vaccine and we said no. They told us it was the law. We pulled him and put him in a local Chriatian school and they told us it was not a state law. A friend of ours son had the vaccination and in a month or 2 he developed juvenille diabetes thou there had never been any that ran in their family. I think the HB vaccine had something to do with it.

Well, I think the govt. officials (CDC, HHS) know exactly that primarily toxic vaccines are responsible for autism epidemics. They simply don’t care about it, as their principal responsibility and loyalty is to pharma cartels. They only care for pharma profits and their own generous honoraria (bribes), which they receive. It is very sad, but we must not fool ourselves about their true intentions toward our children. They are cruel and evil. Now the pharma cartels will massively poison the autistic children with toxic psychotrops and multiply their profits. This is their bottom line, I believe.

Thank you Mark.

Here is another inspirational story of someone named Mark speaking truth to power

“Whether or not he accepts that report was done by investigators, I was aware that a report had been prepared effectively profiling me, and I said: ‘Well, you know about me, but I also know about you, and I know that your mother is still alive. She’s 102 years old’ And I said to him that she would be ashamed of your conduct. She would be ashamed of all this. …” Mark Lewis, recalling a conversation with Rupert Murdoch.

See Frontline website March 27, 2012 at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/media/murdochs-scandal/mark-lewis-the-lawyer-who-walked-into-a-john-grisham-novel/

Sue Morgan;
Do not despair, If the only ones that read these articles are parents with kids that have autism --- it is a pretty long list - some of those parents are pretty smart, wonderful, caring, movers and shakers of the world. Make yourself a list of them, they are not going away.

I read all your reports and stories from the US ..it is the exact same in the UK ..non- speakers etc...Of course were all whatever!!how strange we have all never met but have the same stories to report ...and nobody in the world want`s to listen to us all...

Angus

As long as autism is considered a psychiatric/genetic disorder with no medical origins, no brain damage, no infectious connections, it will never be taken seriously, even if these children with diagnosed autism start dropping dead in the streets before the age of 30. Autism needs to be removed from the DSM completely, reevaluated in respect to all of the body's major systems and reevaluated epidemiologically. Neither our government nor the medical profession are sufficiently objective and independent from the pharmaceutical industry to qualify for such an effort.

No one reads these articles except autism parents. Will it take having every family touched by autism before we can make a difference?

My Funk & Wagnall from MCMLXXXIII, 1983, says, "Autism, severe infant disorder of communication and behavior that develops before the age of three. ... The incidence of the disorder is approximately 4 in 10,000, and autistic males outnumber females by 4 to 1."

All four of my kids were born in Monmouth Medical Center in Long Branch. Asbury Park was next door. The Asbury Park of Bruce Springsteen was long gone. The locals were trying to revive it's memory at the time by cleaning up the boardwalk, bringing in businesses, etc. Anything to bring back the tourists - and their money. Now they have "Jersey Shore". When I remember New Jersey I remember the lonliness of having four kids with autism which everyone assumed was my genetic fault, after all, everyone knows the "autism genes" pass through the mother! My other stark memory is of the mother of another autistic child from my daughter's special ed pre-kindergarten class, with an educational background almost identical to my own. Was there something about studying statistics and operations research? Or our ethnic ancestry? Something in the water? Something that brought on autism in our children?

Oh, just got an email from Jgilmore;
QUOTE:

"New Autism Rate: 1 in 88 Take Action!

What are the Feds doing about it? Not much.

Rumors are swirling that the federal government will release this Friday the next round of official autism prevalence statistics and the news will be grim, the “official” autism rate is expected to be 1 in 88, up from 1 in 110 in 2010, which was up from the 1 in 166 rate in 2008. Given the 4 to 1 ratio of boys to girls, the rate for boys is probably in the neighborhood of 1 in 48. The autism rate has doubled in four years. This is a public health catastrophe. And what is the federal government doing about this? Not much."

Mark I have always loved the title of your article.
It might just end up being a famous quote in the history books - if there is anyone left to write/read 'em.



And not a hint so far????? of what the new numbers will be.
Which is scary.
Are the numbers so high - that the number has to fiddled with and that takes some time/and secrecy????

Stuff like that can still get out.
It happened at the EPA for temperatures involving global warming. I get mad at these federal programs -but so far there are still employees with a conscious that came from the honest general population of Americans that are honest.

Mark, thanks for the pdf. When my husband and I married I moved in with him to an apartment in Eatontown, NJ. We moved to Oakhurst where we lived for 8 years and started our family. We had four children, none of whom spoke fluently until they were 5 years old. I'm just grateful they started late rather than never. Neighbors of ours had two children diagnosed with what could only be described today as Asperger's, if it could even be described in that way. My kids were far deeper on the autistic spectrum than these two neighbors but they were hired as representatives for an autism charity which was searching for autism "genes". Having been trained in statistics, but not realizing that vaccination could be a precipitating factor, I knew genes alone could not account for my families' autism. It wasn't until a pediatric practice insisted on my son catching up with the vaccination schedule and his subsequent descent into complete mutism that I finally conceded that vaccination had to be the factor causing the autism. I couldn't believe the FDA, NIH, CDC, AMA, the American Pediatric Association and hell, why not the American Statistical Association, couldn't see what was going on and speak out. I assumed these vaccines were validly studied, with replication by independent objective researchers. If none of this can be assumed, it can only be assumed that the corruption of our society is so wide so deep so vast that only a miracle of grace can melt hearts so calcified by greed and power.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.