Online Portal Helps Children with Autism: WhizKidGames
Age of Autism Contest Winner: Dr. Mercola's Probiotic Packs

Olmsted on Autism: Fauci Follows Insel into History's Dustbin

Fauci By Dan Olmsted

I’ve written a couple of times about “Denialism,” the book by Michael Specter that devotes a badly mistaken chapter to brutally dismissing any link between vaccines and autism – along with anyone who disagrees with that conclusion. (See Specter Plagiarizes Offit Massacres Facts and Tell Jon Stewart the Truth About Michael Specter.)  But before letting the book pass into the obscurity for which it is destined, I wanted to call attention to something useful – the fact that Specter quotes a top NIH official spouting the same line.

“How many studies are enough?” Anthony Fauci, head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, asks rhetorically. “The Institute of Medicine did all it could do. But the real problem here is that no politician can afford to appear as if he or she is brushing off the agonizing concerns of a parent with an autistic child. So none would say what needed to be said.”

What needed to be said, Fauci makes clear, is, “Folks, come on. We’re going to put fifty million dollars into autism research and look at what the real causes might be.” That, of course, is what the IOM said – scarce research dollars should go to more promising research, not vaccines. Fauci does talk about “this rare event when a vaccine might precipitate an underlying genetic defect that might just as well have been set off by something else, like the flu.”

This, of course, is the mainstream’s response to the Hannah Poling ruling – that she already had an underlying mitochondrial disorder (an evidence-free assertion) that could just as easily have been provoked by a vaccine-preventable illness (ditto).

So clearly, Fauci is coming down on the vaccines-aren’t-related-to-the-autism-epidemic side of the debate, let’s all move along now, former NIH director Bernadine Healy and thousands of parents be damned. Politicians might be too cowardly to “brush off” the vaccine connections observed by parents with an autistic child, but Fauci is brave enough to step up and do exactly that – at least in a cozy chitchat with a sympathetic writer.

I may be wrong, but this is the first time I’ve seen Fauci quoted decisively on this issue. The most salient comment I can find is one he made some time back to U.S. News – “If we can show that individuals of a certain genetic profile have a greater propensity for developing adverse events, we might want to screen everyone prior to vaccination (for) undetectable diseases like a subclinical mitochondrial disorder.”

You can see how the worm has turned – from musing about testing everyone for an undetectable disorder that could prevent vaccine-induced autism without jeopardizing public health, to brushing off the whole thing as rare and unavoidable and not worth pursuing.

What is going on here? My hunch is that the vaccine court rulings this year – the three that found no link and brushed off parents as deluded and badly used by money-grubbing lawyers and quacks -- has emboldened fence-sitters like Fauci to climb down on what they think is the winning side. Fauci is a particularly disappointing case of this phenomenon. He’s been at NIH a long time and, as recounted by Randy Shilts in “And the Band Played On,” tried hard to save early AIDS patients with aggressive and novel treatments. So, give him that.

But perhaps there’s precedent in Fauci’s career. Shilts also notes Fauci was part of one of the more unfortunate moments in the history of AIDS in America. On May 6, 1983, the American Medjcal Association issued a news release headlined, “Evidence Suggests Household Contact May Transmit AIDS.” The story began: “Chicago – Evidence suggesting that Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) can be transmitted by routine household contact is presented in this week’s Journal of the American Medical Association.”

This was obviously terrifying, and the AP picked up on the release with a story headlined, “AIDS Disease Could Endanger General Population.” It began: “CHICAGO (AP) – A study showing children may catch the deadly immune deficiency disease AIDS from their families could mean the general population is at greater risk from the illness than previously believed, a medical journal reported today. If ‘routine’ personal contact among family members in a household is enough to spread the illness, ‘then AIDS takes on an entirely new dimension,’” said Dr. Anthony Fauci of the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland.”

Shilts quotes the author of another AIDS paper in the same journal issue as “astounded that Anthony Fauci could so much as imply that household contact might have anything to do with spreading AIDS.”

“What was Fauci’s problem?” asks Shilts. As it turned out, Fauci had read only the paper’s conclusions, not the entire text. “Fauci quickly cast blame on a hysterical media for taking is comments ‘out of context,’” Shilts writes. After all, he had said only that the POSSIBILITY of household transmission MIGHT raise all these scientific implications. The lay public did not understand the language of science, he pleaded. Science always dealt with hypotheticals; this did not mean he WAS saying that AIDS actually was spread the contact.” And, Fauci correctly noted, the AMA had sensationalized the entire article.

Still, Fauci spoke without judging the actual science himself -- the besetting sin of the “experts” who are now piling on what they believe to be proven conclusions that vaccines have been exonerated as a cause of the autism epidemic. Partly, this is sheer arrogance – the belief that an MD entitles one to weigh in with impunity based on the reassurances of other MD’s that “those people” – people like autism parents – can’t possibly know what they’re talking about. A comment by writer Evelyn Pringle on one of my Specter posts makes this point eloquently. She’s talking about Specter but her words, I’m afraid, could apply to Anthony Fauci, Tom Insel, Amy Wallace and all the others who seem to be jumping so gleefully into the dustbin of history, just before the door snaps shut:

“I readily knew that the topic was extremely complex and it would take forever to get enough understanding to write about it accurately – there could be no scanning of a few publications. I realized I would make a fool of myself if I tried to take short cuts and started writing before I knew what I was writing about.”

You know the saying: Government public health experts and high-profile writers – I’m sorry, I mean fools -- rush in where angels fear to tread.
Dan Olmsted is Editor of Age of Autism



Angela Warner

Dan... Nice... might I add (although I should be getting a post ready for Kim that I'm now going to have to do tomorrow which will cut in to my football time - fine with me :D)

" There is a difference between one and another hour of life in their authority and subsequent effect. Our faith comes in moments: our vice is habitual. Yet there is a depth in those brief moments which constrains us to ascribe more reality to them than to all other experiences. For this reason the argument which is always forthcoming to silence those who conceive extraordinary hopes of man, namely the appeal to experience, is for ever invalid and vain. A mightier hope abolishes despair. We give up the past to the objector, and yet we hope. He must explain this hope. [sic !!!] We grant that human life is mean, but how did we find out that it was mean? What is the ground of this uneasiness of ours; of this old discontent? What is the universal sense of want and ignorance, but the fine innuendo by which the great soul makes its enormous claim? Why do men feel that the natural history of man has never been written, but always he is leaving behind what you have said of him, and it becomes old, and books of metaphysics worthless? The philosophy of six thousand years has not searched the chambers and magazines of the soul. In its experiments there has always remained, in the last analysis, a residuum it could not resolve. Man is a stream whose source is hidden. Always our being is descending into us from we know not whence. The most exact calculator has no prescience that somewhat incalculable may not baulk the very next moment. I am constrained every moment to acknowledge a higher origin for events than the will I call my own.”

Ralph Waldo Emerson – my great great great Uncle.

You don’t want me to cite the last paragraph on the page before – the heroism essay… it is so true for ALL of today.

Ahhh… shit. I’ll never be able to kiss another kid with autism. I guess including my own. SHIT – what’s a mum to do?

“I readily knew that the topic was extremely complex and it would take forever to get enough understanding to write about it accurately – there could be no scanning of a few publications. I realized I would make a fool of myself if I tried to take short cuts and started writing before I knew what I was writing about.”
WTF FFF and believe me I’d love to spell it out, but I have respect… What do you think parents have been doing for years? We’ve not been scanning a few articles, that is, for damn sure! Seriously, you should read a few!!!!!!!

Evelyn Pringle

An important point mentioned above that the general public does not realize is:

"The CDC's own new numbers of 1 in 91 children is based on children who were born in 1996 - that info can be found in their own data."

I was reading an article the other day and wondered why this point was not included. If omitted, it gives the impression that the autism numbers rose after the mercury was removed from many vaccines.

Whenever I read an article that refers to "all the studies" disproving the link between vaccines and autism, I think what happened to all the studies I found when I was investigating the matter that showed the link was plausible and definitely could not be ruled out?

After reading such papers, studies and articles for months, the big question in my mind was why would all these medical professionals and scientists lie?

What motive would they have for making this story up and spending years to produce bogus studies and writing reports that obviously ended up being detrimental to their careers?

I concluded that nobody in their right mind would do this.

The MSM always makes it sound like the vaccine-autism link is a figment of the imagination coming from parents with kids who have autism.

That is simply not true. Granted parents were the first ones to contact me which eventually led to my investigation, but I relied very little on their reports, frankly, because I found their theory so implausible.

I scoured every source I could find and reached my own conclusions, which pretty much corresponded with what the parents told me to begin with.

I had no reason to lie or make up stories. I had absolutely no emotional connection to the issue. I knew no one with autism, other than Dustin Hoffman.

So I guess when I read stories in the MSM about the fringe element here, I consider myself in that grouping and I resent it.

I agree that the vaccinated verses unvaccinated study is the only way to settle this issue once and for all.

The fact that our government refuses to conduct such a study tells me that they know what the outcome will be and it's not the line they've been trying to feed the public for the last decade.

Mr. T

Tommy V convinced me. He didn't like what he
was finding so he emailed all of his buddies
to fix his problem. Tony is just another pharma fraudster and our kids are the ones who suffer.

Michael B Schachter MD, CNS

Dr. Fauci's comments about vaccines and autism reinforce many questions about his previous work and his motivations. Here is an article posted in the archives of Dr. Mercola's website ( in which Dr. Fauci's own work contradicts his position on HIV being the cause of AIDS. ( With the virus HIV being the cause of AIDS, a multibillion dollar business of producing antivirals for the treatment of AIDS has emerged over the past few decades. Is there a relationship between the growth of the vaccine industry (and autism) and the growth of the antiviral industry and AIDS? Could the health care officials who push vaccines and antiviral drugs be motivated by the money received in various forms from the pharmaceutical industry? A new award winning documentary again raises the issue as to whether or not HIV is the real cause of AIDS. See:

Janet Sheehan


It would've been so nice to have the mercury COMPLETELY out of the vaccine schedule in 1999, instead of a "soft" recommendation to phase it out over time, and use up existing vaccines w/ Thimerosal...but I think everyone damn well knew the drop in rates of autism and other neurological disorders would have been SO clear-cut and statistically revealing.

So, the damage had to seems the main reason the mercury remained in the flu shot (and then all of a sudden recommended for pregnant women and children instead of just the elderly population!) was to ensure that a number of infants and children would continue to be damaged.

It is so sick. Don't you feel that the CDC speaks with almost a sense of satisfaction when they say that they are continuing to see autism in children?

All according to their plan...

Anyone responsible for harming any child in any way has blood on their hands. What does the bible say, it is better a millstone be hung around their neck and they be dropped into the sea?



now why would he say otherwise?

He's one of the ones who did not do their job in public health and should face criminal charges for his neglectful and now self-serving actions.

Proverbs 18:5


"How many studies will it take".

Well, the genetics camp keeps spending and studying. There are definitely more than 19 studies related to autism genetics. To the best of my knowledge, they have not one useable therapy to show for it. Does anyone have an estimate for $ spent on genetic research in autism? Seems to me, autism-genetic studies get all the research dollars and have become "science welfare".

Jake Crosby

Fauci was featured in a PBS puff piece for the NIH entirely sponsored by pharma, the one that edited out the interview where vaccine-inventor Maurice Hilleman admitted to importing AIDS virus to the country.

The whole gist of the piece was the portrayal of Fauci as the future historical counterpart to Salk for his work on trying to develop an AIDS vaccine, ironic.

Meanwhile, Fauci's agency, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease was among those represented at the illegal Simpsonwood Meeting 9 years ago.


Kristina-- my source for the 2006 date was David Kirby and Dr. Richard Deth at the Northeastern university presentation in 2008. They discussed the dates when the last traces of the "old", high mercury shots were still being found on shelves.

Apparently Rhogam could still have mercury until 2003 and the regular shots (those which contained thimerosal in high amounts in the 90's) could still contain high hg as late as 2006. My impression was that an infant born in 2006 could get high exposure from some shots and lower exposure from others-- random and unpredictable.

The fact is, with the addition of the flu shot for 6 month old infants, children can still get 71 mcg of mercury (or was it thimerosal? I think it's hg itself) by age two. If you add the flu shot in pregnancy, the actual impact of mercury may be on par with children of Rh- women who got the old hg-laden Rhogam shot in pregnancy (and after birth: significant for breast fed children)-- whose risk of having children who developed autism was 50% higher than the norm according to a study by the Geiers.


I have a question:

Why the H*** is it so hard to come to an agreement on when the last full-mercury pediatric vaccines were used?

I've now heard everything from 1999 to 2006.

It was my understanding that the manufacturers stopped making mercury vaccines in 2001, but that the old ones remained on the shelves until they expired in 2003. Then I heard 2004. Now I am hearing 2006.

This will be extremely important information to have, once the autism numbers are released for children born after 2003. Of course, the recommendation for pregnant women to be injected with 25 mcg mercury starting in the early part of this decade (when was that, exactly?) will certainly throw off the data. And this year 50 mcg mercury from both flu shots. It makes me so, so sad for this brand new generation.

Robin Nemeth


The thimerosal STILL hasn't been removed from vaccines. It is in the flu vaccines, at the same old quite probably toxic levels of 25 mcg per dose, and these are now being administered routinely to pregnant women and babies, which wasn't the case fifteen years ago when my old children were babies.

Check a package insert, or check the FDA's website, and you will see.

People keep saying with such reassurance that the mercury has been removed, but I've no reason to believe that levels of exposure via vaccines are any less now than they were before the thimerosal was supposedly removed.

Teresa Conrick

That must be the dustbin for those without morals, ethics....or a soul.

How much dirty money is enough for these degenerates?

To add on to the IL-2 Patent thread:

Anne Dachel

This doesn't bother me. What else could we expect high profile health experts to say? (Dr. Healy being the exception.)
They can't even consider the possibility that vaccines are behind the autism numbers. They're paralyzed with fear
when this idea is brought up. They have no choice but absolute denial. (Here's one for your book Mr. Specter.)
Vaccines can't cause autism and the rate can't be a real increase.

Meanwhile, the damage only gets worse. Vaccinating pregnant women for two flu strains will
ensure that the epidemic continues on to another generation of children. In the end, it'll be the crushing numbers that will
expose the truth. We can't keep making kids like this.

Anne Dachel


AnaB-- according to some reports, old thimerosal-laden vaccine stocks were still on the shelves as late as 2006.


Thank you, Dan. It seems the band plays on for us too, though always in a different tune depending on which way the wind blows.

Fauci with Jim Lehrer in 2001, discussing vaccine risks, choice and informed consent re the anthrax vaccine after the anthrax attacks:

JIM LEHRER: But to use your numbers, if all 9,000 of these people want the vaccine, they can have it, right?

DR. ANTHONY FAUCI: Yes, that's true. It's extraordinarily unlikely that that's going to be the case.

JIM LEHRER: But if none of them want it that's okay too?

DR. ANTHONY FAUCI: That's okay too, that's exactly the point, Jim, that's exactly the point; that's okay too.

JIM LEHRER: That's a point but it's kind of a strange point, isn't it, Doctor? I mean to offer these things and not care if anybody gets it?

DR. ANTHONY FAUCI: I don't want to use the word uncare, because that seems insensitive to the feelings of people. What we do care about – and this is important -- that people are given the free and open choice to make a decision based on what they feel is the level of risk that they are willing to take -- one risk of the vaccine itself, as well as the perceived hypothetical and theoretical consideration that maybe the vaccine might help you out, and since there are toxicities associated with the vaccine, and importantly the vaccine has never been used in a context like this, that's the reason why you need informed consent and you need a decision on the part of the individual themselves.

JIM LEHRER: Now, what constitutes informed consent? What is it that these people should know about this vaccine in terms of its risks et cetera before they agree to do it?

DR. ANTHONY FAUCI: In essence it's a little bit more detailed than what I just told you over the past minute or so. What are the data that indicate or not that this would be helpful, what is the vaccine being used for, pointing out that it has never been used in this situation before, what are the toxicities of the vaccines, what are the pros and cons, you read it, you ask questions, I'm sure they're going to have questions. You try as best you can to answer the questions. And then you take it or not.

JIM LEHRER: So what's the number one potential risk of taking this vaccine?

DR. ANTHONY FAUCI: The number one potential risk is the risk associated with taking any vaccine -- namely toxic side effects.

JIM LEHRER: Like what?

DR. ANTHONY FAUCI: Systemic reactions, there's fevers and malaise and muscle aches. There's rather frequent local involvement of swelling and redness.

JIM LEHRER: It's given just like any vaccine, right, with a needle in the arm?

DR. ANTHONY FAUCI: Yes, correct. So that's the risk. Now as you know, there have been perceptions, the history of this vaccine, of people feeling that they got the vaccine and that there were side effects associated with that, when people examined them over a large number of people, there's some, quote, controversy about that, but there's the general feeling that it's a reasonably safe vaccine.

But there are toxicities. And whenever you give anyone a drug or a vaccine, there is a finite risk there, which is the reason why since you're not sure that there is going to be any benefit from it, that's a very important ethical consideration that if there's a risk to what you're going to do, and there's not a definite potential benefit of it that has been proven as a benefit, you've got to be very careful that you don't strongly urge something as opposed to making it available with the informed consent of the individual.


I'm sorry, correction: The 1 in 150 numbers were from children born in 1996. The new numbers were 98.


What gets me is that people who know better constantly saying Autism rates continued to go up after Thimerosal was removed from vaccines. We cannot possibly know that yet. The CDC's own new numbers of 1 in 91 children is based on children who were born in 1996 - that info can be found in their own data. Yet Thimerosal wasn't removed from vaccines until 2000. So, until they start using data based on kids born after 2000 we cannot possibly know if Autism rates continued to go up after Thimerosal was removed. Yet, people from govt. who know better continue to spout that lie.

david burd

Dan, It is no surprise that Fauci is the ultimate champion of allopathic medicines and standing shoulder to shoulder with Insel.

I'm sorry to disillusion everybody, but Fauci has personally directed over $100 billion for the lethally-toxic drugs given even more today in the U.S. as regards AIDS.

As you noted (Shilts' AIDS book) Fauci 25 years ago was championing toxic drugs, and his thirst for medical-political power brought him long ago to his NIAID throne.

Today, the U.S., and because of Fauci, has 30-50 times an AIDS death rate (per-capita) compared to all other Western countries. Canada right next door is an excellent example of but 28 annual AIDS deaths compared to a constant U.S. toll of 15,000 to 17,000. This is because they cautiously (or not at all) employ anti-Hiv drugs.

Enough about AIDS! I brought it up for two reasons:

First, because the likes of Anthony Fauci and Tom Insel and Offit will never change their minds on what they have stood for, and promoted, and been enriched, during their blinkered, power-hungry careers. Therefor, they must be fought tooth and nail.

Second, The autism spectrum discussed as being caused/associated with vaccinations (also causing autoimmune, allergies, asthma, etc.) are censored by the Great American Press, as are the never-ending iatrogenic U.S. AIDS deaths (unlike other countries) - two very different peas but in the same pod.

There must be a brave newspaper owner somewhere that will take on Insel and Fauci. Thank you Dan, for all your efforts.

Judy Brasher

How many studies are enough? Maybe these for starters would give us the answer to how many more we need.

· Vax vs. unvaxed. How simple can you make it? The kids are already here at Homefirst, in the Amish, in states with vaccine waivers, and in the home schooled.
· How about specifically studying a group of children who were developing neurotypically then regressed into autism? Is it not absolutely absurd that this has not already been done?
· Our children in MS get 250 micrograms of aluminum, a known neurotoxin, at birth in a vaccine for Hepatitis B, a disease transmitted primarily by illicit sex and intravenous drug use. At 2 and 4 months the infants get another 1200 micrograms of aluminum in vaccines. Some of these children born prematurely were limited to 5 micg. a day until they reached 5 lbs. then magically they were able to go from 50 micg. to a 250 micg, in one day! Where are the safety studies on giving aluminum to “term” infants? There are none. At least one would be nice.
· The majority of flu shots still contain ethyl mercury in the form of thimerosal as a preservative. Several vaccines still contain a trace of thimerosal. There have been no true safety studies done on ethyl mercury. Those done so far on animal models have show thimerosal contributes to neurological deficits. This kind of findings should immediately command a further investigation into what it does to humans. Thimerosal has only been studied in large-scale epidemiological studies. How about a double-blinded specific study following a group of children who got thimerosal and a group of children who have never had any thimerosal.
· How about a study of children who had both aluminum and thimerosal vs. a group of children who had neither. We know there is a synergistic effect with aluminum and mercury. We know that they are both neurotoxins. Shouldn’t we study what this combo does to children neurologically?

Bob Moffitt

Fauci asks: How many studies are enough?

Well, that would depend on the question being asked.

For many studies have been done that have disproven Dr. Charles Richet's Nobel Prize award winning theory on "anaphylaxis"? As I understand it..Dr. Richet pretty much established the implausibility of science creating a "one size fits all" vaccine..because..just like individual DNA and fingerprints...each indivual inherits a genetically unique immune system.

Does anyone know of studies that have disproven Richet's theory on "anaphylaxis"?

Wade Rankin

Fauci's failing is the same that we see in so many pediatricians who spout off the party line. They skim through the first and last paragraph of the summaries provided by the AAP, and don't take the time to critically read any of the actual studies.

Craig Willoughby

"“How many studies are enough?” Anthony Fauci, head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, asks rhetorically"

There doesn't need to be that many studies...seriously. Just do the right ones, for f$%*'s sake! Don't keep investigating one vaccine over and over and over again. Don't keep studying one ingredient over and over and over again. And then use these studies on one vaccine and one ingredient to say that all vaccines are off the hook? That's just a load of Orac!

Neurological health outcomes in an unvaccinated population. That's all that needs to be done, really. If the autism rates in unvaccinated children are considerably lower than those in vaccinated children, then there will be a LOT of trouble (which, I'm sure, is the true reason they are reluctant to do this). If it's the same, then I know I, for one, will start looking at other avenues.

Fauci can't be trusted

Fauci is listed as an inventor for IL-2 Patent # 5696079. IL -2 is for gene therapies and vaccines. He's as corrupt as Offit.

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.)