Nope. No Questions.

Comment from David Foster on CDC's William Thompson: "So much for all the claims that there is no concrete claim of malfeasance by the CDC. 'I have a boss who is asking me to lie.' Any questions?" -0- Obama to...

How Mercury Triggered The Age of Autism

Conversation with the Authors of Plague

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

« Geraldine’s Land of Opportunity as 1 in 38 Became Autism Speaks’ New Normal | Main | Happy Easter from Age of Autism »

Age of Autism Weekly Wrap: AS OK's CDC BS

AofA Red Logo Ayumi YamadaBy Dan Olmsted

The new study that claims the number of "antigens" in vaccines has no bearing on the risk for autism isn't really worth much comment. It's just more messing around by the CDC with data they've already abused (Price, 2010) to obscure the link between thimerosal and autism. That study was described as "an interesting case of over-matching" in a published paper by  DeSoto et al. It's a devastating critique of the BS the CDC piles higher and deeper all the time to avoid implicating itself in the autism epidemic.

And it's exactly why reasonable people have long wanted to wrest vaccine safety oversight from the conflicted hands of the CDC. Any report on immunization safety "from the Immunization Safety Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Ga.," is suspect.

As Dr. Bob Sears said, it's "another waste of money in another attempt to pretend to do research on vaccines and autism. ... You would probably find the exact same results no matter what group of kids you studied. Pretty much all children in any given span of years receive the exact same number of shot antigens. ... So, why would it even be useful to study this?

"All this study proved is that all the kids in that HMO got about the same vaccines over that 5 year time period. This doesn't give us any useful data on how vaccines would have or would not have influeced the rate of autism."

A reader named Ed Burke offered this analogy: 

"I don't have a horse in this race, but I am surprised that no one is talking about what the study shows, which does little or nothing to inform the debate as to whether the current recommended vaccine schedule is safe.

"If you fire paint guns across a schoolyard all day and that night compare the kids with splattered clothes to the ones clean, they were all exposed to the same number of paintballs. The paintballs still caused the splattered clothes.

"If you expose a population of kids to a slew of vaccines and then compare those who develop autism to those who don't, and say, well, the autistic kids were not exposed to any more vaccines than the non-autistic kids, that does not prove the vaccines do not cause autism any more than our hypothetical proved paintballs do not cause splattered clothes.

"I have yet to see the CDC study that compares kids who get no vaccines to those that get the current schedule, stating what percentage in each group gets autism. I have heard rumors the CDC does not want the public to have this information. This is an obvious study for them to produce to make their case. Its absence is a strong indicator that vaccines cause many cases of autism."
Another commenter on AOA, "Taximom," made this interesting observation:  "For starters, it looks like a significant percentage of their CONTROL group may have had symptoms of autism: 'Of the remaining 752 controls included in the analysis, 186 had an SCQ score <16 but had indications of speech delay or language delay, learning disability, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder or attention deficit disorder, or tics, or had an individual education plans.'

"186 of the 752 controls had possible symptoms of autism. Those were the CONTROLS? Nearly 25% of the CONTROL group may have had possible symptoms of autism???? Wow, it's....almost like...they...picked a control group that had the same rate of autism as the test group. Gee. How on EARTH did that happen? (Oh, that's right. They didn't have an unvaccinated control group.)"

Given such fundamental weaknesses, it's noteworthy that Autism Speaks is nonetheless using this crappy study as a cudgel. Acting as an Amen Chorus rather than a check-and-balance to the thoroughly corrupt vaccine apparatus at the CDC, Autism Speaks' Chief Science Officer Geraldine Dawson says this study shows it's time to stop talking about vaccines. Listen to how NPR describes it:

"Autism Speaks, a major advocacy and research group, seems ready to move beyond the vaccine issue. Geraldine Dawson, the group's top scientist, praised the new study and says the result should clear the way for research on other potential causes of autism.

"These include factors like nutrition, which can affect a baby's brain development in the womb, Dawson says. Other factors could include medications and infections during pregnancy, she says, or an infant's exposure to pesticides or pollution.

"'As we home in on what is causing autism, I think we are going to have fewer and fewer questions about some of these things that don't appear to be causing autism,' Dawson says."

Dawson talks about autism as a genes-and-environment disorder. If that's true, a study like this would not account for genetic vulnerabilities that might make some kids more susceptible to antigens than other kids. As David Kirby presciently pointed out a couple of years ago, mitochondrial problems -- which led to the vaccine court award to Hannah Poling -- may affect about 1 in 50 children, exactly the most recently reported autism rate. If genetic mitochondrial variations are a risk for autism, this study would miss that factor completely.

The only good news is maybe we have reached the natural upward limit of autism. 

The craziest part of Autism Speaks' endorsement of this goofy study as definitive is that Bob Wright, head of AS, began his testimony at a Congressional Hearing last fall by saying that his daughter, Katie, believed vaccines triggered her son Christian's autism. Obviously, he thought it was worth making that part of the discussion; perhaps he detected the intense skepticism among the Congress members toward the CDC's explanations, a skepticism triggered by the parents who pushed for the hearing and sat incredulous in the audience listening to the CDC'S Coleen Boyle.

So among the people Geri Dawson thinks should get with the "it's not vaccines" program are the founder of Autism Speaks, to whom she presumably reports, and his daughter, whose child's vaccine injury led to the creation of the organization for whom she speaks when she says yes, the CDC is right, vaccines don't cause autism.


Not getting it. Not getting it at all.

--
Dan Olmsted is Editor of Age of Autism.

Comments

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

Dan;
I have thought on the statement you made in the article about mitochondria 1 out of 50.

"The only good news is maybe we have reached the natural upward limit of autism."

So this mitocondrial thing is a gentic thing - Hannah's mother had it and Hannah had it.
I think Hannah's mother a nurse had it alright- she got it from the vaccines she took in nursing school.

Remember 1 out of 38 in South Korea.

I know government seems to be clueless and slow but this is just beyond reason!

Susan Cluett:

Yes, there are children not allergic to peanuts-hence the analogy in terms of industrial scientists’ misuse of the definition of the word “control children." Look at the comment with the Sjostrom and Nilsson 1972 quote below. The fact that these children are not allergic “cannot be taken as evidence against a causal relation…[to children with an allergy to peanuts.]” And the tobacco analogy is relevant as well. History, especially in terms of deceit by industrial scientists, repeats itself.

According to the CDC website, they do not refuse a link btwn vaccines and autism. Under Risks and Causes...

http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/facts.html

•There is some evidence that the critical period for developing ASDs occurs before birth. However, concerns about vaccines and infections have led researchers to consider risk factors before and after birth.

Susan Clueless
John Stone's links says it all in a nut shell, but if you like the interesting reading of all (ALL) tobacco studies then you will really get a kick out of these two meetings word for word; held by the NIH, and the CDC with of course pharma reps there too.

www.autismhelpforyou.com/Simpsonwood_And_Puerto%20%20Rico.htm -

Your analogies are terrible. Firstly, peanuts are only harmful if you are allergic to them. And the severity of allergy varies. Some people just get a rash, others may have an anaphylactic shock. But it remains that peanuts are safe and healthy for most people. Secondly, it is not true that the tobacco industry found that smoking is safe. Their own scientists found the smoking-lung cancer link the same as everyone else worldwide, but they covered it up and were found to have lied. Their own private documents are now available to the public. There are hours of interesting reading. Here is a database dedicated to that subject: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/

The fact that this piece of junk got released on the afternoon of Good Friday speaks volumes. And who ever said that ASD kids got more shots than non-ASD kids?

Also, never have I heard anyone say "it's too many antigens" - Heavy metals, adjuvants, endocrine disruptors, MSG, human fetal DNA fragments, yes. but never "antigens"

I am embarrassed for the CDC and their lap dogs in the media.

Take fatal allergies to peanuts. There is no debate. Some kids die if they eat peanuts. Why not all kids? Therefore peanuts do not cause fatal allergies.

Greg, no one at Orac's blog has even mentioned it including Orac- I was wondering if he would be waxing on about what a great and proper study it is but nothing so far.

Enough of this already is for sure! We need to spend money on another full page ad like the one I think generation rescue did years ago- counter the BS of this new study, maybe mention the Hallmeyer one. Forget funding new studies- do another full page ad - I'd contribute.

I am also for a petition to fire Dawson!!

Autism Speaks' financial rating is a bleak one star out of four according to Charity Navigator.

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=12720

At every single Autism Speaks walk, we should have members of our community who live in the area carrying signs that say in huge letters:

Autism Speaks
financial rating:
ONE star out of four.

[picture of a large star]

And in small letters at the bottom:
www.charitynavigator.org

I'm going to do a study. I have ten peanuts. I give five peanuts to Child A and five peanuts to Child B. Child A eats her five peanuts and is fine. Child B eats his five peanuts and has a severe allergic reaction. Conclusion: The two children ate the same number of peanuts so there is nothing wrong with the peanuts

let's get a petition/campaign going to get Dawson fired - enough of her already

Guys and Girls,

I have read and reread the study and they conspicuously left out reporting how many total does of vaccines the two groups received. Why??? They are comparing antigens, not doses! We are the ones saying the two groups received the same doses but nothing in the study explicitly states this. Could this study that is intended to shoot us down, simply support our claim that more vaccines do result in more autism?

Elizabeth,

Yes, they are indeed releasing this study to coincide with World Autism Awareness. Still, it was not done yesterday and they chose to have it sit for a while. Why? I am feeling that this study is extremely suspect on the grounds that I mentioned.

Greg

The release of this study is conveniently timed, especially when it is World Autism Awareness on the 2nd April!

They have to keep pushing that Vaccines are NOT involved, try telling that to my low functioning, non-verbal son who regressed into Autism after the MMR!

Elizabeth Gillespie

Ok Guys,

We all agree that this study leaves a lot to be desired. But, I think we can learn from what it does not say. They confirmed they counted antigens in vaccines. The CNN's report of the study also said that they counted the total number of vaccines, yet CBS's report downplayed this saying that number of vaccines are unimportant since individual vaccines contain different antigen amounts. The graphs in the actual study also did not specify how many total vaccines the different groups received. I don't know if I am understanding things incorrectly, or is it possible that the different groups overall received different amounts of total vaccines? Could someone please let me know? If this is the case then this is definitely a red herring. Less vaccines may not equal less antigens but it definitely correlates to less adjuvants.

Greg


Has anyone noticed who most of the authors are on the papers used to "determine" the study. They also thanked Dr. Paul Offit for giving them the numbers of antigens, etc.

This is Paul Offit's bought and paid for study. Someone needs to make sure every paper he has ever published has all his massive conflicts of interest on it. It is only fair for the families to know...whats good for the goose.....

Autism Speaks needs to fire Geraldine Dawson. As a child psychologist at the University of Washington, she was a warm and fuzzy type, then she jumped on the Autism band-wagon when she saw that where the money (because of the increased number of kids). She knows the truth!! Two UW microbiologist and/or doctors wrote an interest editorial in the Seattle Times about "lying"....including politicians, Lance Armstrong, etc...and autism. There was not any statement about autism, just included with the lying part. They know it was thimerosal in combination with the virus and damage to the biological systems of people. I knew when they hired Geraldine Dawson that she would be where the money was. She already was known for that in Seattle. She felt sorry for the school districts, not the kids with autism. She could have helped the school district start programs for autism.

Just another day in Pharma world we need to nail them guys ..somehow ...

Angus

FYI On Huff Po today.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/29/do-vaccines-cause-
autism_n_2979244.html


Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health: Study links vaccines--autism

Is this a professional journal? Are these findings from actual scientists? So where are CNN, Fox News, NBC, CBS and everyone else who couldn't wait to tell us about the latest "no link" study from the agency that runs the vaccine program?


NEWS-MEDICAL----

Mar 30, 2013:
Recent findings reveal correlations between autism prevalence, childhood vaccination
http://www.news-medical.net/news/20130330/Recent-findings-reveal-correlations-between-autism-prevalence-childhood-vaccination.aspx

Recent finds in two articles in the Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A indicate correlations between autism and vaccinations. With the rapid rise of autism in the United States that began in the 1990s, these articles titled "A Positive Association found between Autism Prevalence and Childhood Vaccination uptake across the U.S. Population" and "Hepatitis B Vaccination of Male Neonates and Autism Diagnosis" in Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A may answer some questions as to why there is an increase in cases of this disorder.
In "A Positive Association found between Autism Prevalence and Childhood Vaccination uptake across the U.S. Population," published in the May 2011 issue, pages 903-916 in the Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A, researchers suspect that one or more environmental triggers could be a cause in the development of autism. One of those triggers might be the battery of vaccinations that young children receive.

The relationship between the proportion of children who received the recommended vaccines by age 2 years and the prevalence of autism (AUT) or speech or language impairment (SLI) in each U.S. state from 2001 and 2007 was determined. A positive and statistically significant relationship was found: The higher the proportion of children receiving recommended vaccinations, the higher the prevalence of AUT or SLI. These results suggest that there may be a link of vaccines to autism.

In "Hepatitis B Vaccination of Male Neonates and Autism Diagnosis," published in the November 2010 issue, pages 1665-1677 in the Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A, researchers have found an association between hepatitis B vaccination of male neonates and parental reports of autism.

This research included a study among boys age 3-17 years, born before 1999, who were vaccinated for hepatitis B as neonates. Boys vaccinated as neonates had threefold greater odds for autism diagnosis compared to boys never vaccinated or vaccinated after the first month of life.

To illustrate the stupidity of even conducting this study, say we change the study's subject matter but nothing else...

Imagine reading this news release...

-- Phillip Morris released a new study today debunking the belief that cigarettes cause lung cancer. The study selected 1000 people who have smoked a pack of Marlboro a day for 40 years. They lived in the same area of the country and had similar low risk employment. Of these 1,000 participants, 250 had developed some form of lung cancer, but 750 had not.

Phillip Morris says that this is "obviously and conclusive proof that cigarette smoking does not - and never has - caused lung cancer."

Anyone want to guess the press reaction to that equally ignorant study?

I can only see this as comparing vaccinated kids with vaccinated kids and concluding that since only some got autism, it couldn't be the vaccines.

With this kind of science they could prove that smoking doesn't cause lung cancer.

Anne Dachel, Media

I think it's also important to highlight the whopper of a lie, told by Geraldine Dawson, about the study conclusion.

STUDY CONCLUSION: "It can be argued that ASD with regression, in which children usually lose developmental skills during the second year of life, could be related to exposures in infancy, including vaccines; however, we found no association between exposure to antigens from vaccines during infancy and the development of ASD with regression."

Geraldine Dawson's conclusion: "This study shows definitively that there is no connection between the number of vaccines that children receive in childhood, or the number of vaccines that children receive in one day, and autism.”

You can go to the actual study (screen shot it, everyone, please, I'm sure that they will change it as soon as they see that we actually read their studies!) here: http://www.jpeds.com/webfiles/images/journals/ympd/JPEDSDeStefano.pdf

And even beyond that horrible, horrible lie, there are serious flaws.

There is the issue of their "control group;" you know, the one they picked to have the same number of reported autism SYMPTOMS as their test group, even if they didn't have the same number of official autism DIAGNOSES.

There's the usual garbage we have come to expect from Offit's disciples, about how they were testing whether all ANTIGENS in the vaccines were what caused autism. Oh, and they even made a point of thanking Offit, so he was clearly involved in this study.

But then, there are a couple of surprising admissions.

"How evidence of early neurodevelopmental delays would have affected our results is not clear; it might have resulted in lower vaccination levels if parents were concerned about vaccinating their children, or possibly higher vaccination levels through more frequent contact with the healthcare system." Too bad it didn't occur to them to look at the nonvaxed population; then they could have seen that the rate of early neurodevelopmental delays is lower in unvaxed populations.

But they ADMITTED in the conclusion that regressive autism could be related to vaccines:
"It can be argued that ASD with regression, in which children usually lose developmental skills during the second year of life, could be related to exposures in infancy, including vaccines."

Funny how Dawson translates that to: "definitively no connection."

Got that?

Study conclusion: "ASD with regression...could be related to exposures in infancy, INCLUDING VACCINES." (caps mine)

Dawson conclusion (referring directly to the above study): "this study shows that...there is no connection."

I'll say it again:

if any Autism Speaks parents are reading this, I hope you take your Chief Scientific Officer to task for telling such a horrible, horrible lie. If any parent vaccinates their child on schedule because of that lie, both Geraldine Dawson and Autism Speaks are responsible for any adverse vaccine reaction suffered by that child, AND SO IS ANY AUTISM SPEAKS PARENT, FOR STANDING AROUND AND LETTING THE LIE CONTINUE.

This is the point, isn't it? In 2009 - if I remember correctly just after the Singer affair - Geraldine Dawson spelt out on behalf of Autism Speaks just how the government had failed over the vaccine issue. Nothing has changed four years later but now Dawson and Autism Speaks have dropped it without explanation. Nothing has happened to re-assure anybody, and certainly not the latest pathetic little paper. But if Autism Speaks is to be trusted it must surely answer. How can it take money from ordinary citizens when it behaves in such a capricious and unaccountable way? Indeed, why should it take money from ordinary citizens when it is in partnership with at least five industrial behemoths eager for exploitation rights?

What is Katie Wright doing these days? Is she still part of Autism Speaks? Why isn't she in charge of an organization that EFFECTIVELY advocates for our kids?

Autism Speaks has joined the ranks of "branding for a cause" the way that the Susan G. Komen breast cancer industry does. They give people seemingly easy ways to contribute to the cause. Problem is, as with breast cancer, the money goes back to corporate expenses (like those top-heavy exec. salaries) and very little goes to research and helping people with autism. The corporations that affiliate themselves with these causes also see more benefit to themselves than to the targeted cause.

Another potential skew--those of us who stopped vaccinating due to noticing symptoms would have children with fewer antigens but more autistic symptoms than non-reactors whose parents kept vaccinating.

Here, the industrial scientists misuse the definition of the word “control children.” Normally a “control” group is the group not exposed to the potential cause of an effect under investigation. In this case the “control children” are the children reported with no effects by the industrial scientists after exposure to the potential cause(s). See http://www.jpeds.com/webfiles/images/journals/ympd/JPEDSDeStefano.pdf

So the study compared exposure groups of children to exposure groups of children. But it did not compare zero exposure groups of children to exposure groups of children.

Thalidomide was defended by industrial scientists with this approach using an absence of real control children. This is what Sjostrom and Nilsson wrote over 40 years ago about the deceit in that approach:

“Every biologist knows that within a group of living organisms there is always an individual variation in the sensitivity towards, for example, a poison or a drug. Because of natural biological variation some individuals are affected more than others and some are perhaps not affected at all. If about 0.5 milligrams of strychnine is given by intraperitoneal injection to a certain strain of rats, approximately 50 per cent of the animals will die. The fact that the other 50 per cent survive cannot, of course, be taken as evidence against a causal relation between the intake of strychnine and death in rats.” Sjostrom and Nilsson, “Thalidomide and the Power of the Drug Companies,” (1972) p.162.

As Sarah quoted below the CDC acknowledges that not biological systems are alike. So where is the study with real control children? Autism Speaks, where are the millions of dollars in research being spent?

I think the study told us that you have a 1 in 3 chance of developing autism if you are vaccinated.

First do no harm. Here you are - Dawson's letter to NVAC:

1. “In the past several years, the prevalence of ASD has increased dramatically, underscoring the potential role of environmental factors in its etiology.”

2. “Recent studies point to a key role of the immune system in the biology of ASD, raising questions about the effects of the significant immune challenges associated with vaccinations, particularly when delivered in combination and early in life.”

3. “We believe that the question of whether immunization is associated with an increased risk for ASD is of extremely high priority.”

4. “Still other studies point toward subgroups of children with ASD with genetic vulnerabilities than can amplify the adverse effects of environmental exposures, including vaccinations, on brain development and function”

5. “There is a need to describe the nature and prevalence of vaccine adverse events in children with metabolic disorders and assess risk factors for these events.”

6. “As mentioned in the draft scientific agenda, many key questions have not yet been adequately addressed. Many of the studies to date have relied on data from the Vaccine Adverse Effects Reporting System (VAERS). While this system has clear strengths such as its broad coverage, it nevertheless has substantial limitations (Ellenberg and Braun, Drug Safety, 2002). Because the system relies on passive self‐report, a major limitation is under‐ reporting such that only a small fraction of adverse events are reported. Furthermore, events that occur weeks following vaccination are less likely to be reported than those that are proximal to the vaccination.”

7. “Many fundamental questions have not been addressed, such as whether the use of combination vaccines confers increased risk for adverse events and whether there are subgroups in the general population that are more vulnerable to serious adverse effects of vaccines, including ASD.”

8. “Research has shown that children with metabolic disorders, including mitochondrial disorders, may experience neurological decline when physiologically challenged. There have been reports of metabolic crisis after receiving vaccinations”

9. “As noted in the draft agenda, preliminary results from a VSD study underway found that children aged 12‐23 months who received MMRV vaccine were about 2 times more likely to have febrile seizures during the 7‐10 days after vaccination than children who received separate MMR and varicella vaccines at the same visit (CDC MMWR, 2008). In a population‐based study, there has been a report of an increased risk for ASD after infantile seizures during the first year of life”

10. “Studies that can address the current questions raised by parents are feasible. Clinical studies of individuals with ASD can address whether certain metabolic conditions associated with ASD are correlated with increased risk for serious adverse effects. Case‐control studies and randomized clinical trials can be conducted to address whether there are differences in adverse effects associated with a combination vaccine versus individually administered components”

11. “Fever after vaccination is common and can induce seizures in vulnerable children”

12. “For example, a recent study identified mutation in a sodium channel gene in children who developed encephalopathy after pertussis vaccines, suggesting that genetic factors may influence the risk for neurological deterioration after vaccination” 13. “Children with metabolic diseases are at higher risk of health complications from diseases that are prevented by immunizations”

14. “Such research could have wide‐ranging effects on clinical practice/vaccination policy. For example, it could allow pediatricians to identify subgroups of children who may benefit from a different vaccine schedule or for whom careful monitoring of adverse effects is warranted.”

15. “Over the past decade, parental concerns, both in the general population and the autism community, over the possible link between immunization and increased risk for autism spectrum disorders (ASD) have only increased despite concerted and persistent efforts by the medical community to reassure the public about the safety of vaccines.”

16. “It is Autism Speaks’ position that the best way to ensure that parents are confident in the safety of our vaccine program and, at the same time, protect the minority of children who may be at increased risk for serious adverse effects of vaccinations, is to foster collaborative, trusting relationships among the general public, the medical and scientific communities, and the federal government whose mandate it is to conduct research on the safety of vaccines.”

17. “Establishing and maintaining a trusting relationship and providing answers to parents’ questions cannot be achieved by one set of studies addressing one set of questions, but rather it will require an on‐going process of scientific discovery as medical science continues to uncover individual differences that predict differential responses to vaccines and other medical interventions. We need to embrace our obligation to address new questions with an open mind, adequate resources, and renewed commitment.”

http://www.ageofautism.com/2010/01/parents-vs-the-science-ask-geraldine-dawson-and-autism-speaks.html

The idea that any - let alone all - of these issues have been satisfactorily addressed by US government agencies in the interim is preposterous.

If each generation that is vaccinated - compounds the problems in each following generation ---
are there pockets in the United States that were not only less vaccinated in the early and mid 1900s but populations that were more exposed?

As in my parents had a typhoid shot every year growing up - because it was a rural community without the assurance of clean drinking water.

If we took surveys of my community what would we find?

Or what about around areas that were more civilized and health care was more accessbile in the early and mid 1900s -- was it just too easy to give them more vaccines -- as in New Jersey or Southern California.

There are records aren't there.
Who would not have received many vaccines way back in the day?

Thanks for pointing out my previous comment John. I'm going to link to it here, so readers can see where Gerri Dawson stood on vaccines and autism before she completely sold out children's health.

http://www.ageofautism.com/2013/03/geraldines-land-of-opportunity-as-1-in-38-became-autism-speaks-new-normal.html?cid=6a00d8357f3f2969e2017d4263ef69970c#comment-6a00d8357f3f2969e2017d4263ef69970c

Perhaps we need to look at a SIDS study in relation to the child's last vaccine visit.

There is no "spectrum" with SIDS and it would be VERY SIMPLE TO PROVE if there are SIDS SPIKES that follow multiple vaccines.

I would say THERE sure as HELL ARE... and the impact to the vaccine industry would be devastating and much faster than proving the Autism link.

"As Dr. Bob Sears said, it's "another waste of money in another attempt to pretend to do research on vaccines and autism .... pretty much all children in any given span of years receive the exact same number of shot ANTIGENS" (CAPS MINE)

I am presently reading "Make an INFORMED vaccine decision .. for the health of your child" written by Dr. Mayer Eisenstein .. wherein the ingredients of EACH vaccine is published. Consider the following information .. on just ONE vaccine .. and how it differs from their competitors:

"The CDC and vaccine manufacturers recommend 5 doses of DTaP for infants and children prior to 7 years of age. Today, DTaP is available in three different brands:

Daptacel -- contains 330mcg of aluminum, formaldehyde, 2-phenoxyethanol and glutaradehyde.

Infarix -- contains 625mcg of aluminum, formaldehyde, bovine casein, polysorbate 80, and gluteraldehyde.

Tripedia -- contains 170mcg of aluminum, formaldehyde, gelatin, bovine extract, polysorbate 80, sodium chloride, sodium phosphate, and "trace amount of thimerosal".

Some brands of DTaP include polio, Hib and hepatitis B as well -- "4-in-one" and "5-in-one" combination shots.

It is probably just me .. but .. wouldn't the number of "antigens" each child was exposed be meaningless .. unless we know "which" vaccine each child was exposed to? Surely the CDC identified WHICH vaccines the control group used?

After all .. I suspect all DTaP vaccines have comparable amounts of "antigent" .. (though we don't even know that for a fact) .. we also KNOW that some DTaP vaccines contain different adjuvents, solvents, stabilizers, etc. etc.

Even the difference in aluminum amounts would be enough to require ALL the control group receive the same vaccines .. no?

It must be ME .. but ........

All this study did was say the kids both with autism and without got the same number of antigens. It did not examine the effect of the total load on each child's immune system. Individual immune response varies. The CDC even ackowledges that.

From the CDC web site, in their own words:

"Vaccines are developed with the highest standards of safety. However, as with any medical procedure, vaccination has some risks. Individuals react differently to vaccines, and there is no way to predict how individuals will react to a particular vaccine."

Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS)

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/Activities/vaers.html


having the CDC sponsor a safety study on their own vaccination schedule has about as much value as letting a chronic tax cheat do their own IRS audit and then giving themselve an A+ rating.

Hi Dan,

Of course, the Autism Speaks/Geri solution as I was pointing out last night (after you penned this piece) seems to be another wave of sickening industrial exploitation.

http://www.ageofautism.com/2013/03/geraldines-land-of-opportunity-as-1-in-38-became-autism-speaks-new-normal.html

Heaven knows where our community will be at the end of all this. I am not without sympathy for the predicament of Bob and Suzanne Wright (sometimes resignation is the easy option), but when our children become further prey to the pharmaceutical industry (a partnership which apparently includes Pfizer, Lily, Roche, Novartis and Janssen) you really wonder whether that is where we all need to be.

John

PS Also, I note the comment under my piece by 'First do no harm' which shows how Dawson has reneged on the Autism Speaks position of 4 years ago (this was around the time Alison Singer was forced to resign), with no good reason. Was this policy change ever discussed by board members?

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.

@AgeofAutism Tweets

follow me on Twitter

SPONSORS

  • HC Logo 2014
  • Canary final logo
  • VOR logo sidebar
  • Safeminds 2014 Logo
Age of Autism's Facebook Page