CDC Tries to Run the Table (Again)
Jenny McCarthy Missile Sinks USS Gerberding

Olmsted on Autism: The CDC gets Jukt

WASHINGTON, Sept. 27 -- One of the best journalism movies ever is called "Shattered Glass." It's about the serial fabrications that a young, ambitious New Republic writer named Stephen Glass foisted off on his editors, and subsequently his readers. One too-good-to-be-true story after another made him into a minor celebrity in the DC-media-darling world until a reporter at Forbes Digital started making inquiries about a software startup Glass wrote about called Jukt Micronics. The Forbes reporter, chewed out by his boss for being scooped on his own beat, tried to do a follow-up story but couldn't find any evidence that Jukt even existed.

Glass dissembled, deflected and denied when his bosses tried to get the truth, but ultimately his little empire of evasions came tumbling down -- no Jukt. In fact, there was no basis to many, many of his best stories. All that remains of the Stephen Glass legend now is a new definition of journalistic deceit and the embarrassment of some top-flight editors who, star-struck and unable to believe they'd been had, and had again, failed to catch him until Forbes asked a devastatingly simple question.

I thought of Jukt yesterday after getting off a conference call with CDC officials about their latest dubious study on thimerosal and the agency's transparently desperate efforts to spin it into something close to a mercury-is-good-for-kids report. More on Jukt in a minute, but first, the basics of the CDC report and its spin cycle.
Shortly after 1 p.m., journalists dialing in to a conference call got a briefing from CDC officials. According to the CDC's transcript, the briefing began this way:

DR. ANNE SCHUCHAT, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL CENTER FOR IMMUNIZATION AND RESPIRATORY DISEASES, CDC: "Hi. Today we′re going to talk about the results of a study that looked at early thimerosal exposure and outcomes in children seven to 10 years of age. The findings of this study are reassuring about the safety of vaccines. We already have great information about the incredible effectiveness of vaccines in the routine childhood program."

As the King of Siam would say, "Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera." In fact, the strangest thing to me is why the CDC continues to study thimerosal at all, having spent taxpayer money for the famous Institute of Medicine study in 2004 that said no more taxpayer money should be spent to study the thimerosal issue. You'd think they'd quit spending taxpayer money while they're ahead.

The briefers then took questions from reporters. Here is how the first question began: "Thank you for the press conference and for taking questions."

Now, why would a reporter for a major metropolitan daily, as this person was, thank a public agency for holding a press conference and taking questions? I'm all for civility, but must we prostrate ourselves before the authorities before we dare speak?
Second question: "Hello, thanks for having the conference."


My turn came. From the transcript:

DAN OLMSTED, RESCUEPOST.COM: "Hi. I saw that you had a few never vaccinated kids in there, I think, 16, and my question is why didn′t you just compare a cohort of never vaccinated kids with those with high thimerosal exposure? I mean it seems to me that that′s the question that parents keep asking and the CDC keeps not answering. "

The answer:

DR. ANNE SCHUCHAT: "You know, I′ll begin the answer, and then I′m going to let our lead scientist continue. You know, the way this study was done tried to overcome biases that can be introduced through enrollment of children. So this study took several managed care organizations' entire enrolled populations and did not seek one kid but not another kid, but instead used a systematic computer way to identify children as eligible for the study.

"This actually helps you control for potential biases in why a person might be getting into the study. It was also very important to have the same kind of time period in terms of the exposures because we were looking at children seven to 10 years of age. And we needed to be able to find them, bring them in and do all of this testing. And if you do something like a historical control period and take kids who were born in a different time period there are many, many factors that change over time. So it was important to enroll children born around the same time and then evaluated around the same time as development at the seven to 10 year of age.

"So imagine if there was some kind of problem with cell phones or some kind of problem with computers, things that have changed quite a bit over time, there could be big problems with looking – enrolling children from an earlier time period and comparing them with children from a later time period."

DR. WILLIAM THOMPSON: "Yes, and so I′ll just add – this is Bill Thompson, in addition to that, there were very few lower exposure or no exposure kids to sample from. So the study couldn′t be easily designed to have a low exposure group. We essentially sampled all of the low exposure kids that were available in the study."

DR. ANNE SCHUCHAT: "Yes, and then the other issue is, for example, if you try to look at a group like a group of Amish children or a group of children who are living in a very different way, only one of the factors being that they don′t have their children vaccinated, you could lead to misleading conclusions. So the idea here was to have a very systematic way of identifying eligible children without knowing what kind of vaccines they got. And then very carefully quantify how much they were exposed to and you saw in the paper this range from zero to higher amounts. And then very systematically measure their performance on these standardized tests where the performance and the observations was scored without knowledge of how much thimerosal they had been exposed to."

At that point I began to say, "I guess what I just don't understand is ..." But  they'd cut off my mike.

CDC MODERATOR: "Next question, please."

A couple of questions later, though, another reporter did something amazing -- he pestered the big shots about the same question I raised: "So I was just wondering in a follow up question about why not compare to unvaccinated kids. And you – if I understand right, you included all children from several managed care organizations in order to enroll?"

DR. ANNE SCHUCHAT: "(INAUDIBLE) totally unvaccinated they would be in this, and in fact, there were some that were not vaccinated. So yes, so this was – we didn′t enroll all. We basically identified a time period and did a sample and then offered enrollment. I think, it′s also important to say not everyone who was offered enrollment accepted to participate in the study. So the study did not reach a high enrollment proportion. There were many who didn′t want to be part of the study, primarily because of time."

DR. WILLIAM THOMPSON: "And I would follow up with that, that among the HMO populations it′s very unusual to have children that aren′t vaccinated."

DR. ANNE SCHUCHAT: "And I guess, I′ll just follow up with, in the United States we′re very fortunate to have immunization coverage and (in) our national surveys of two year olds, 0.3 percent of children have no vaccines – have received no vaccines at all. So one of the reasons that we have such low rates of vaccine-preventable diseases in this country is because we have high acceptance of vaccines and usage by parents and providers.

"So basically there are not a lot of unvaccinated children out there."

CDC MODERATOR: "Next question, please."

This is the indecipherable palaver I've been hearing for more than two years from the CDC whenever I ask this question -- what it comes down to is they didn't, can't and won't look at never-vaccinated kids because there weren't, aren't and won't be enough, and if there were, they'd be too weird. Next question, please.

This despite the fact that ten thousand or so are part of one medical practice in Chicago that says it has virtually no autism or asthma among its never-vaccinated, home-birthed children. Despite the fact that homeschooled kids have a significantly lower vaccination rate and, according to one doctor who treats them, almost no autism. Despite the fact that the Amish ... oh, never mind.

By now I'm used to this answer and the fact that almost none of my colleagues seem to think it's a big deal. But as I looked through the transcript, I realized that the follow-up questioner, the one who pestered them for a real answer rather than indecipherable palaver, was a guy named Matthew Herper (according to the transcript). And he's from -- of all places -- Forbes.

That's when I started thinking about "Shattered Glass" and Jukt and how if you keep asking the right question the whole thing can come tumbling down.

So thank you for asking the question, Matthew (and thanks for not thanking them for the privilege). I hope more and more journalists will snap out of their hero-worship of the public health authorities and take a more critical approach to the most basic questions that their readers and viewers want answered. Meanwhile, I consider the CDC Jukt.

Dan Olmsted wrote The Age of Autism series for UPI. You can reach him at


Paul Shapiro

For just too many years. I been following the poisoning and damaging of our children with the poisons in vaccines. The failure to test for harmful synergistic effects caused by the chemicals in the vaccines and/or between vaccines in the protocol, and the “one size fits all” dosing, the failure to put in place a system of mandatory long data collection reporting to determine damage from the vaccines manifesting itself many years later. If it weren’t harming our children it would be laughable that this testing and data collection hasn’t been done.

When I hear or read the clearing of vaccines from doing any harm by the genius' at the alphabet soup government agencies of which the CDC/FDA/IOM. are a part, the movie NUTS starring Barbara Streisand comes to mind. In the movie it is shown that the psychiatrists running the insane asylum testified to commit a normal person; for without patients, sane or insane they had no job. I feel the more controversy over vaccines, the more secure the people working for these government agencies feel!

Albert E. Potts

Thanks, Dan, for having asked the question, and for your "heavy lifting" in the "autism wars". Most all of us parents in the trenches of the autism wars "know" that vaccines are involved with our children's autism-- since so many of them have "fallen off the edge of the earth" upon receiving the MMR. Here, for the little that it's worth, is my "scientific" model of ASD causation: it IS the mercury, and if the mercury doesn't get 'em then the live virus in the MMR will get in their lamina propropria and CSF to cause havoc there, and/or if the mercury and the live virus don't get 'em, then the multiple vaccines will, by way of "excessive immune stimulation". And while the June 2000 CDC study by Thomas Verstratten, MD, PhD, demonstrates a thimerosal dose relationship to complaints of neurodegenerative disorders in young children, I believe that HELL WILL FREEZE OVER before alphabet agencies (like the CDC) will sponsor any study of any nature that COULD "tell the truth" about the link between the CDC-mandated vaccine schedule and autism spectum disorders.

In the meantime, the "only" thing that we parents who are on the receiving end of our children's "safe and effective" vaccines can do is to continue to biomedically treat them for heavy metal toxicity and for the measles genomic RNA virus (as in the MMR). When we treat them for what is "ACTUALLY" going on in them, biologically, we continue to see them "remediate" from the worst effects of mercury toxicity and from the worst effects of measles [vaccine] virus in their GI tracts and in the CSF batheing their brains.

The "truth" is "out there" for any and all parents who will go after it. Thanks to you for your part in providing it.

Elizabeth Ouren

From the statements from the CDC it is clear that they are in the business of promoting vaccines. They are very biased and only want results that will support the good of vaccines.

"For parents it′s really important to know that CDC believes vaccines are safe and effective and we have quantified the value that they are providing. Every year′s worth of children that′s immunized in America prevents 33,000 deaths, 14 million infections and saves the country $43 billion." DR. ANNE SCHUCHAT, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL CENTER FOR IMMUNIZATION AND RESPIRATORY DISEASES, CDC

I can't imagine that they would ever create a study that would take an honest look at adverse reactions in some children - like ADD, PDD, autism, etc. You aren't going to look hard to find something that you don't want to find.

One of the theories is that some children have a genetic predisopisiton to having trouble ridding their body of heavy metals (like mercury). On top of that (as Stan pointed out) studies have shown that testosterone makes it harder for the body to detox heavy metals. So the thimerisol could have little effect on the majority of children but devastating effects on a smaller number of children with this predisposition and/or boys. This correlation may be harder to prove and easy to cover up or dismiss as an abnormal result due to chance.

"When you do a very large number of statistical comparisons, the chance of finding things that are abnormal, that are higher or lower in a high thimerosal group is pretty high. So we would predict by chance alone that 19 of the first 378 individual statistical tests that we ran would be abnormal just because of this chance situation." DR. ANNE SCHUCHAT, CDC

The CDC said it used large HMO populations to help control for biases in why people might enroll in this study. However, I also wonder if children from age 7-10 that have had more issues and complications have moved from an HMO to a PPO or other insurance in order to have more options for services and coverage. So it is possible that there may be fewer children with issues in the HMO populations used for the study because the families left over frustratioin with seeking the apporpriate care and therapies for their children.

"So this study took several managed care organizations entire enrolled populations and did not seek one kid but not another kid, but instead used a systematic computer way to identify children as eligible for the study. This actually helps you control for potential biases in why a person might be getting into the study. " Dr. Anne Schuchat, CDC

I'm glad that there are journalist that continue to ask the hard questions on behalf of all the frustrated parents out there (like me!). Keep up the good fight in search of the truth and may God bless you for doing so!

Carolyn Weissberg

Thanks Dan. Just, thanks. It's people like you who fight for the truth who help us cope with the fact that there are others who don't care who gets harmed by their disregard for the truth. Your Age of Autism series has made a huge difference too!

Kelli Ann Davis

Okay...I'm dying laughing. Thanks for that Dan...especially after today.

Did you notice this:

Hi. Today we′re going to talk about the results of a study that looked at early THIMEROSAL EXPOSURE and outcomes in children seven to 10 years of age. The findings of this study are reassuring about the safety of VACCINES.

Whaaattttt? I thought they were looking at THIMEROSAL. Where is the statement about the SAFETY OF THIMEROSAL???


john fryer



1 If you are looking at problems with mercury, it would be kind of sensible to know the amount of mercury in the child. I can't see any direct measurements for mercury in the infants body either as of now or in the past or after challenge.

2 If you suspect mercury it would affect badly infants exposed early, unwell or underweight. I believe they discounted underweight, unwell and early vaccinated infants.

3 And sadly if they got zapped with mercury they might not ever get to be 10 years of age. How many dead children were measured and what was there mercury levels like.

No Dan, I think we've been Nuked, sorry Juked, no Jukt.

John Fryer MSc BSc Chemist

Evelyn Pringle

Good for you Dan! I wish I had more time so I could stay on this story but being no media outlets are willing to publish stories on this topic, I'm not - so I'm sure glad you can.


Evelyn Pringle

Stan Stanfield

AUTHOR: Stan Stanfield
DATE: 09/27/2007 04:30:04 PM
AUTHOR: Stan Stanfield
DATE: 09/27/2007 04:30:04 PM

Stan Stanfield

(1) Thanks for keeping in there with this subject, Dan.
(2) With this trotting out of their big guns to shoot down the adverse role of thimerosal in autism, wouldn't it be a good strategy to start raising the question of why boys are more involved in ASD and ADD/ADHD/dyslexia/dyspraxia etc, and get the establishment experts to (have to) respond to that telling question? Telling, because - as I understand it - testosterone is involved in the difficulty of the body clearing mercury (AND how aluminum is synergistic with testosterone; thus the role of heavy metals in general as well).
If the latter is indeed the case, it is imperative to get that clue out there. I bellieve the Geirs are particularly strong in their investigation in this area. Shouldn't we be trotting out our big guns too, to shoot down their obfuscation attempts?

Wendy Fournier

Thanks for another great post, Dan. I was also on that conference call. Thank goodness I was on a listen-only line. I screamed the word "Bullsh*t" more times than Dr. Schuchat said this study is very "reassuring"...and that was a LOT!

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

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

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.


Post a comment

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

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)