The Fallacy of Thimerosal Removal & Autism Increase: A Failure of Science, A Bigger Failure to Children Worldwide
Readers of Age of Autism are aware of the term “the big hungry lie” coined by regular contributor J.B. Handley, used to describe the tactics of the CDC and the drug industry’s attempts to disassociate autism from vaccines in any way, shape, or form.
Perhaps the biggest lie of all is the one that has been repeated all too long, that after thimerosal was reduced or eliminated from vaccines, autism rates continued to go up. There have been multiple instances of this claim and each time it has been proven false, right up to the recent lie that after thimerosal was removed from vaccines in 2001, autism rates continue to increase. These two claims, the first that thimerosal was removed from vaccines, and the second that autism rates have not gone down as a result, continue to be used to justify the injection of thimerosal into pregnant women and children with flu shots. The claims have also been used to justify the immunization of children in developing countries with vaccines preserved with thimerosal. Sadly, neither claim is any more truthful than previous equally erroneous claims, the earliest of which originated from Scandinavia, then spread to Canada and most recently came out of California.
The paper by Stehr-Green et al., for example, purported to study autism rates in Sweden after thimerosal removal in 1993, but only hospitalizations in relation to autism were analyzed. Anyone remotely familiar with autism knows that it is not the kind of condition for which one would typically go to a hospital for treatment.
In the same study were also analyses of autism rates in Denmark, which were even more flawed. Many here remember the infamous Danish studies published in 2003, which served as the primary basis for the IOM’s predetermined conclusion in 2004, that autism rates shot up after thimerosal removal in 1992. In reality what happened was the Danish were worried there was a connection between thimerosal and autism, and right after thimerosal was eliminated from all their vaccines, they rapidly changed their registration program to include a lot more children. Such an interpretation of these studies -- designed by the CDC, and conducted by Statens Serum Institut, the largest vaccine-manufacturer in Denmark -- that autism rates skyrocketed after thimerosal removal, can be regarded as little more than propaganda.
When SafeMinds reanalyzed the data of the latest Denmark study, Hviid et al., by applying the same standards of higher case ascertainment to children born before 1992, they found a prevalence of 1 in 500, compared to a prevalence of 1 in 1,500 ten years later, a 66% drop. Unfortunately, this would not be the last time the CDC would design such self-contradicting studies.
In Canada, Eric Fombonne, a psychiatrist with ties to Sanofi-Pasteur, who is not even an epidemiologist, conducted his own combined thimerosal-MMR study on a school district in Montreal, and it was a total failure. His claim that autism rates went up after thimerosal was removed rested entirely on the Kindergarten cohort, for which enrollment was optional, so only about half the kids out of the total enrolled. However, all the children with autism enrolled because the school provides many services to autistic children. In fact, the school district Fombonne studied has an autism center for excellence, and even draws children with autism from other districts. Had enrollment been mandatory, the estimated prevalence would have dropped by one-half, indicating a decrease rather than an increase. According to biochemist Dr. Paul G. King, this is what is called “negative enrollment bias.” Furthermore, there was also thimerosal exposure during the years where exposure was labeled “nil.”
His MMR data were no more reliable. Instead of using local MMR immunization rates to compare to autism rates, he used immunization data from Quebec City, 145 miles away. Even though the Cochrane Collaboration had this to say about his previous MMR study from 2001, "The number and possible impact of biases was so high that interpretation of the results was difficult," and even though the collaboration included a person who also acted as a legal consultant to MMR manufacturers, such discrediting apparently has not stopped Fombonne from doing more completely flawed, post-marketing research.
But back to thimerosal, because just two years ago, Robert Schechter and Judith Grether of the California Department of Public Health accessed the records of the California Database for Evaluation and Research (CDER) of the California Department of Developmental Services in children ages 3-5. The purpose was to see if autism rates had declined after the supposed removal of thimerosal from vaccines. According to Schecter and Grether's analysis, they hadn’t. Using their interpretation, the two researchers determined that thimerosal must not be a primary cause of autism, in a study published in the Archives of General Psychiatry entitled “Continuing Increases in Autism Reported to California’s Developmental Services System: Mercury in Retrograde.” However, their own errors, it now appears, contradicted their conclusions.
3 Year Olds, A Reliable Age For The Final Cohort?
The very last cohort the study looks at are 3 years olds, which already is not a sufficient age group to base any conclusions from, as they would be hopelessly premature. This is especially relevant to point out because Schechter and Grether suggest that the first full thimerosal-free year was 2003, yet this was the final birth year fully studied, and children born during this year would have been diagnosed the earliest for reasons that will be explained later. Moreover, the claim that children received no more exposure to thimerosal after 2002 is not true either. Expiration dates on many of the vaccines that contained thimerosal were well after 2003. Furthermore, unpublished statistics show that there were sharp increases in thimerosal exposure from flu shots given to infants and pregnant women, while other sources of mercury exposure further confound the study’s conclusions.
Even if the premise for this study had been correct, that thimerosal was removed in 2002, it is still inherently flawed by the fact that its conclusions that thimerosal and autism are unrelated are based on one birth year of very young children (three year olds born in 2003), which is only the beginning of when autism cases start getting filed into the DDS CDER archives. Drawing any conclusions from this age group alone would be a false hope.
Perhaps recognizing this problem, the authors then proceed to combine cases designated as three years of age with those ages four and five, but this only adds to the problem, creating a simple ascertainment bias that would make the designated 3 year old age group, by virtue of having less time to enter the system, smaller than the group labeled as four years old, which would in turn be smaller than the age group labeled as 5 years of age. This is especially important because older kids would have been more likely to receive greater quantities of thimerosal than younger kids. Yet they are all combined into one whole age group from which to draw conclusions based on prevalence.
Mercury in Retrograde?
This relates primarily to the less quantifiable problems in relation to autism rates, which were issues with elemental mercury exposure from amalgam fillings, methylmercury exposure from coal-burning facilities, the remaining childhood vaccines preserved with thimerosal that were not taken off the shelves, and for that matter thimerosal exposure from the flu shot while exposure from other vaccines was being reduced.
Complicating this further is the fact that there seems to be no consensus on when the first year routinely recommended vaccines truly contained no thimerosal preservative. Schechter and Grether said the preservative was all gone from vaccines in the middle of 2002, citing the IOM Report. However, all the IOM said was that the ACIP gave an “expressed preference” that all thimerosal be removed by 2002, hardly reflective of actual thimerosal content in vaccines. The FDA said the last lots preserved in thimerosal expired at the beginning of 2003, but the Council of State Governments said it was early 2004, while parents have found vaccines on the shelves of doctor’s offices with expiration dates that surpass all these years. So no one really knows.
On top of all this, the parallel increase in uptake of flu shots, like those during pregnancy, may contribute to earlier onset autism, due to earlier exposure, and therefore contribute to the disorder being diagnosed earlier. Unfortunately, there is no available immunization data for prenatal flu shots.
What is available, however, is the immunization data for the rate of postnatal flu shots among children ages 6-23 months of age, as reflected among clients enrolled in the Northern California Kaiser HMO, which jumped from 5% during the 2001-2002 influenza season, to 45%, in the following season. By winter of 2004-2005, 57% of 6-23 month olds were getting flu shots, practically all of which were preserved with thimerosal. Data for pregnant women are not available, but they were also a target group for flu vaccines in the same period.
That is the final and main problem I found with this paper, which has been used to support the untrue claim that autism rates have continued to go up. First, the claim that prevalence of autism was counted in 3-5 year old children is misleading. Schecter and Grether’s estimates of age rely on subtracting the year of birth of the child from the year the child is currently enrolled as an active client, but that does not mean the child really is that age For example, I was born in 1988, so by Schechter and Grether’s counts I would be 22, but I’m actually 21. So many children are getting counted as older than they really were. Many children labeled as four years old are actually three and many children labeled as five years old are actually four, and roughly half the five year olds are not included but actually classified in with children six or older. Children in the studied age group could be as old as five, but that’s not the same as including the entire five year old age group.
So the Schecter and Grether study only fully accounts for 3 and 4 year olds; the only other study I can recall which looks at children that young is the infamous Verstraeten study. This is key, especially since during the years it looked at the rates after thimerosal "removal" (which is also dubious), the California Department of Developmental Services’ regional centers made changes that may artificially skew autism clients, especially those in the youngest age groups, towards an upward trend.
According to a CDDS report “Controlling Regional Center Costs:”
“Responding to this concern (increasing autism rates), the Legislature enacted a requirement for the Department to develop evaluation and diagnostic procedures for the diagnosis of ASD and to develop a training program for regional center clinical staff in the utilization of the diagnostic procedures. These procedures were published in 2002.”
So, now the youngest possible autism age groups in the CDER archives of the CDDS, 3 and 4 year olds, the only ones Schechter and Grether fully account for, are heavily biased. Not only would developing procedures for diagnosis skew autism figures towards the youngest children, but also since they are done at reporting centers, children may now enter the DDS system as soon as they are diagnosed. This will mean the proportion of younger children to older children with autism will shoot way up, and that is exactly what we see in the Jaunuary 2009 Hertz-Picciotto study published in Epidemiology, where starting in 2002, new cases of autism in the CDDS of children ages 0-4 go up linearly but the rate for children ages 5-9 starts to flatline. It also means that, amidst all this, the increasing proportion of total numbers of new cases, assuming the autism rate were to continue to remain the same, must also balance out with the total number of cases leaving the system as well as the decreasing proportion of older children entering the system. So changes in the youngest clients would still be reflected indirectly in total new autism cases, as they are all part of the same system. As a result, looking solely at autism rates in the youngest children does not give the full picture.
What does, however, are the results obtained by Dr. Mark Geier, a fellow of the American College of Epidemiology, and his son David Geier, when they analyzed both the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System of autism-related adverse events and the California Department of Developmental Services data of total new autism cases and found a decrease in both, according to a study entitled “Early Downward Trends in Neurodevelopmental Disorders Following Removal of Thimerosal-Containing Vaccines,” published in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons.
Not only that, the CDDS graph of autism (page 12) from this study provides further evidence for early diagnosis bias in the Schechter and Grether paper. An increase in the proportion of younger children who enter the system, namely three, four and some five year olds who are the youngest clients enrolled in the CDDS CDER database, while it may positively affect the reporting system overall, would still mean that there would have to be a corresponding decrease of older children with autism being enrolled to the system; that would be offset by an acceleration of younger cases if rates were to remain stagnant, and as a result cause a stagnation in the number of new cases. New autism cases would also have to offset the increasing numbers of older cases reported from previous quarters leaving the system, if they do, then the autism rate has not gone down.
However, this is not the case based on the fact that the increase in prevalence among 3-5 year olds from 1995 to 2007 in Schechter and Grether is a straight line maintained at a constant rate, not an accelerating curve as would be expected with younger children entering the system, likely due to thimerosal removal. Further evidence for this can be seen from Figure 3 of Geier et al., showing the scatter plot of total new autism cases entered to the CDDS, which shows a downwards trend beginning in early 2002.
To be fair, however, the Geiers' study drew some criticism. Critics claimed the decrease was the result of state law that went into effect in mid 2003. However, the change in trend noted by the Geiers began in early 2002.
The role of changing methods in California
Those who use the California DDS data to exonerate thimerosal's role in autism will point to changes in the state law in 2003 that raised demands of those being served by CDDS, saying that clients must show “substantial disability” in three or more areas of life because the state was facing a budget crisis, and that therefore, the California database was if anything, taking fewer cases than it would have.
This, however, is unlikely to have made an impact on cases of full-blown autism admitted to the system, the only autism spectrum disorder for which this new law applied. Rick Rollins, autism parent and cofounder of the UC Davis MIND Institute, says “children with full syndrome autism generally fail in at least 3 and as many as 6 of the areas of 'major life activities' as defined above, therefore one would expect that autism would be the least impacted of all the categories by the new, additional requirements for eligibility.”
Furthermore, if one were to believe these changes have a significant impact on the reporting of full-blown autism at all, one would expect a disproportionately lower growth in full-blown autism as compared with Aspergers and PDD-NOS, since the “substantial disability” criteria only applies to classic autism between the years of 2002 and 2007. However, growth for autism compared with other ASDs for which “substantial disability” criteria does not apply increased at approximately the same rate during this period. (page 27): See HERE.
Then there are the changes that took place in the CDDS in 2002 that culminated in the emergence of early diagnosis and evaluation policies for ASDs that had not previously existed, that would positively skew the numbers of autism spectrum disorders enrolled in the database, especially in the youngest children. This is far more likely to bias the database in a positive direction than requiring extra proof of “substantial disability” in cases with classic autism, which is already a substantial disability.
While I have previously speculated that increased exposure to thimerosal from flu shots plays a role, the results are likely to be primarily due to drastic administrative changes as stated before in reference to the 2007 Report “Controlling Regional Center Costs.” The budget crisis that had been going on during this time period, if anything, caused the Department to divert more funds to early diagnosis and intervention programs for autism, given that autism has increased at a much higher rate than the other disabilities the system keeps track of. This change to the CDDS database came as a result of a state law passed the year before in 2001, the most widely cited year for alleged thimerosal removal.
Even slight fluctuations in the average age of diagnosis alone can have a major impact on autism rates in young ages. In Denmark, for example, in a study published in the Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine entitled “Autism Prevalence Trends Over Time in Denmark: Changes in Prevalence and Age at Diagnosis,” a drop in the average age of autism diagnosis from 5.1 to 4.7 was attributable to a 37% autism increase in 3 year olds while the drop in the average age of ASD diagnosis from 5.9 to 5.3 as attributable to a growth of 66% in 3 year olds. Even modest shifts in the average age of diagnosis can have a huge impact on autism in the youngest age groups. So the change in age of diagnosis definitely would have impacted the studied age groups of 3, 4 and some 5 year olds. (19047542[PMID]) See HERE.
However, it should be noted that one of the study’s authors, Poul Thorsen, had a hand in one of the previous studies from Denmark “exempting” thimerosal, and another equally flawed study attempting to do the same with the MMR vaccine. He is currently under criminal investigation, facing possible charges of fraud and forgery.
Erasing the trail on the California autism data
Just as egregious was when the CDDS changed its reporting mechanisms in 2008 in a big way, which would include many more cases, one week before the Schecter and Grether study was published. This meant that the database from there on out would be unusable to track the autism rates to determine if there would be a decline any time soon. This had a profound impact on the monitoring of autism cohort systems in California, ultimately leading up to their closure for autism surveillance, This occurred one week before the publication of this premature and totally biased study looking at the autism rates in the CDDS. Such a sequence of events raises considerable doubt about the integrity of the research.
This was not unlike when the CDC blocked off all access to the Vaccine Safety Datalink Project after December 2000, after which, presumably, the thimerosal-phase out began. A fact worth noting is that these results are also consistent with the words of an anonymous CDC monitor who was quoted in “Evidence of Harm” by David Kirby as saying that the autism rate in the Vaccine Safety Datalink was going down during thimerosal reduction.
Even before this study, however, the California Department of Health has proven it is not credible, especially its immunization branch. The CDC funds it, and when this study in California was being done, Robert Davis was head of the Immunization Safety Office; he also helped Epidemic Intelligence Surveillance officer Thomas Verstraeten eliminate the relative risks with each draft of his study.
Robert Schechter, the lead author, is merely the successor of Loring Dales who did the glaringly flawed study from 2001 that tried to clear the MMR vaccine in a similar fashion. This study was later criticized for not having sufficient power to detect an association if one were to exist, according to a later study in 2002 by Madsen et al. which also attempted to exonerate the MMR, but omitted many children who received the MMR vaccine and developed autism because they were too young to be diagnosed. The 2001 California study also included Natalie Smith, then head of immunization in California, in its list of coauthors, as well as an attendee to the illegal Simpsonwood Meeting in June 2000 where officials discussed bringing down statistical connections between thimerosal and neurodevelopmental disorders while hiding data from the public.
The second author of the California thimerosal study, Judith Grether, prior to joining the California Department of Public Health was an epidemiologist for the March of Dimes, a charity founded on the premise of developing an effective polio vaccine. She coauthored a paper in 2002 with Lisa Croen of the Health Management Organization, Kaiser Permanente, to argue against a real rise in autism. Croen and Grether later retracted their findings after having their errors were pointed out to them by a research team led by Mark Blaxill, along with fellow autism father and professor of neurosurgery Dr. David Baskin of the Baylor College of Medicine and McGill epidemiologist Professor Walter Spitzer.
Ultimately, affiliations and prior discrediting on autism research makes it not surprising that the coauthors, Schechter and Grether, ignored a major artificial bias that would turn a decrease, especially in the youngest cases, post-reduction of thimerosal into an increase, not unlike the Denmark studies, the Swedish data, or Eric Fombonne’s “study.” The public’s knowledge of the thimerosal-autism link has been greatly skewed ever since.
The Media and the CDC’s Disinformation Campaign
Purveyors of spreading this misinformation include Eric Fombonne, who wrote a complementary article to this study entitled “Thimerosal Disappears But Autism Remains.”
Another familiar misinformant is Arthur Allen, author of “Vaccine: The Controversial Story of Medicine’s Greatest Lifesaver,” having written on his blog, "The most convincing evidence comes from California, where the number of 3-to-5 year old children diagnosed with autism has doubled over the last five years, although children now being diagnosed with autism received little or no thimerosal-containing vaccines."
In The Los Angeles Times, Michael Fumento, a freelance writer noted for his strong industry connections, just wrote in a February 5, 2010 piece, “Anti-vaccinationists initially claimed California autism cases dropped. False. The ‘data do not show any recent decrease in autism in California’ despite the discontinuation of thimerosal use, the state's Department of Developmental Services found in 2008.”
Meanwhile, Gardiner Harris writes in The New York Times, “Because of concerns over the preservative, vaccine makers in 2001 largely eliminated thimerosal from routinely administered childhood vaccines.
But this change has had no apparent impact on childhood autism rates.”
USA Today also repeats this inaccuracy, claiming “autism rates continued to rise after thimerosl was removed from virtually all child vaccines in 2001,” even linking to Schechter and Grether’s completely flawed study.
This myth has even trickled down to academia and is currently being taught in universities. According to my own textbook, “Human Genetics” by Ricki Lewis, “Scientific evidence does not support a link to the mercury compound once used in vaccines-autism has increased since that ingredient has been removed.”
Even worse, the California Department of Public Health study is widely cited to claim that thimerosal is safe, and therefore fine to leave at preservative levels in seasonal flu shots routinely recommended for pregnant woman and children, despite the fact that the thimerosal exceeds EPA safety limits.
In fact, last January the CDC launched a press release to encourage pregnant women and children to get the multi-dose H1N1 vaccine that also contains the preservative. The last section is titled, “Research Shows No Link Between Thimerosal and Autism.” The last sentence of this reads, “In fact, sadly, autism rates have actually gone up since thimerosal was taken out of childhood vaccines in 2001, providing further evidence that thimerosal-containing vaccines are not related to autism.”
What is truly sad is that this big hungry lie continues to be repeated in order to justify the population-wide poisoning of countless infants and fetuses.
Jake Crosby is a college student at Brandeis University who is double-majoring in History and Health: Science, Society and Social Policy, and a contributing editor to Age of Autism.
All these lies really wear me out.
Thanks Jake for an excellent article.
Posted by: Joan Campbell1@ntlworld.com | March 28, 2010 at 03:06 PM
Hats off to you! Good thinking. Your article is explaining it better than anything I have seen. I have read all the studies. I totally agree. What you say was also confirmed by a San Andreas case worker who was certain that the increase in autism during the years you describe was not real. He said that more children were labeled autistic who had previously not been put in that category.
Posted by: Birgit Calhoun | March 24, 2010 at 04:06 PM
Oh and I LOVE Muse!!!
Posted by: rileysmom | March 16, 2010 at 01:06 AM
Jake, as always, your words penetrate deep into the wound. So what is the antithesis of the "hungry lie"? What is called when you write and nourish the truth?
Posted by: michael framson | March 16, 2010 at 12:55 AM
Thanks for this detailed walk through.
I am a Danish citizen journalist currently investigating the questionable role of Statens Serum Institut (SSI) in the case. I will be filing a Freedom of Information request at SSI as well as Århus University during this week in an attempt to learn more about their documentation of the research. If anyone have specific questions to either of the institutions I would be glad to add them on to the FOI-request and share when I get the info. Feel free to get in touch: anderspeders at gmail dot com
Posted by: Anders Pedersen | March 15, 2010 at 10:19 PM
If I am interpreting your extremely confusing comment correctly, it appears you've tried desperately to find something wrong with my piece, but can't, like everyone else who has tried and inevitably failed.
Posted by: Jake Crosby | March 15, 2010 at 09:27 PM
Thank you all who have left supportive comments, for which I am very appreciative. It took a lot of time and effort to write this, time and effort well spent.
Posted by: Jake Crosby | March 15, 2010 at 09:16 PM
I am sorry to say as good as this story is , it is not comprehensive. there are errors and omissions that the author misses. For instance when there is a voluntary recall wherein not all the investment will be returned, many offices will keep and use the original shipment. Check with the janitors that empty the red buckets.marv
Posted by: Marvin Lewis | March 15, 2010 at 06:36 PM
Mr. Crosby, Thank You! I knew someone at AoA would write this for all the families that want to know what's really going on. I'd rather hear the ugly truth than a hungry lie. You're doing a great job kicking butt&taking names on HuffPost as well. Sheldon101 and MNMommy must be running out of material if they're picking on you for your article being too long. Keep fighting the good fight.
This is my favorite "warrior parent" fight song: "Uprising" by Muse
The paranoia is in bloom,
the PR transmissions will resume.
They’ll try to push drugs to
Keep us all dumbed down and hope that
We will never see the truth around
(So come on!)
Another promise, another scene, another
package to keep us trapped in greed
With all the green belts wrapped around our minds
And endless red tape to keep the truth confined
(So come on!)
They will not force us
They will stop degrading us
They will not control us
We will be victorious
Interchanging mind control
Come let the revolution take its toll
If you could Flick the switch and open your third eye, you’d see that
We should never be afraid to die
(So come on!)
Rise up and take the power back,
it’s time that
The fat cats had a heart attack, you know that
Their time is coming to an end
We have to unify and watch our flag ascend.
Posted by: LisaA | March 15, 2010 at 11:20 AM
Another lie in Stehr-Green et al. paper (figure 2, Graphical ecologic analisys (...) Sweden): the peak-rate corresponded to 1993 and to a '0' ethylmercury dose received from vaccine; this is fake, because in '93 tens of thousands infants was exposed to ethylmercury in a large vaccine clinical trial (it was a consistent part of the eligible cohort)
"Randomised controlled trial of two-component, three-component, and five-component acellular pertussis vaccines compared with whole-cell pertussis vaccine."
Olin P, Rasmussen F, Gustafsson L, Hallander HO, Heijbel H.
Lancet. 1997 Nov 29;350(9091):1564-5
Posted by: Francesco (from Italy) | March 15, 2010 at 07:02 AM
You are completely awesome! I have a presentation to do in a class I'm taking during the evenings. It has to be about a fallacy...I can use articles to cement my argument and I will be quoting you. You are just too cool! Last week, the class was discussing words that are not socially acceptable, of course there were the usual suspects but when they came to me and asked which word I found socially unacceptable...I said Retard. Oh yes, they all agreed that that was a terrible word, blah blah blah. But I then asked them, "How many of you use this word everyday and don't even realize it?" Ex: Oh man, he's so retarded. Or Something goes wrong and you spit out, That's so retarded. How many of you use this to make yourself feel superior to the person you are talking about or better than the situation? How many of you refer to the "retard" you know as a window licker? I then stated that I know my child is misdiagnosed with autism when what he is is vaccine injured. This opened a whole new can of worms.
My instructor then started asking me questions, bringing up the Wakefield verdict and that vaccines no longer contain mercury. I stated the he NEVER said that MMR causes autism, that what he said was children with autism that received MMR have a novel gut disorder (this includes my son) and that the media is misreporting the entire case series. That vaccines still have mercury but in "trace" amounts but if they call in the hazmat team to clean up a thermometer break why in the hell would you knowing inject even a "trace" into your child? I countered with Thorsen disappearing. I also came back with Sebelius telling the major media outlets not to give parents with vaccine injured children a platform to speak or be heard. No one said anything in front of the class, all except one and she waited until almost everyone had walked out of the room to go on a break...what she said,
"I realize something happened to your kid with vaccines but I'm pro vaccine. My kids are fine and they save more lives than they hurt." She preceded to throw her purse over her shoulder, apparently assuming she put me in my place for speaking out about my vaccine injured child. Yes, in case you are wondering, I'm still enrolled in the class and she still has all of her teeth.
I went outside and walked up to where she was smoking and smiled at her. I said "I'm so very glad you clarified that your children are more important than my son. I'm so very glad that you have the kind of compassion that floors me. Would you afford that same comment to a mother that had a child with cancer? Oh and you are so very welcome for the sacrifice my child made for your children and I wanted to remind you that you forgot to say thank you. One more thing dear, YOU are a heartless and cold bitch. Now, you have a nice evening sweetheart."
This week my instructor asked me to do a Power Point presentation on the Fallacies of Vaccines. This should be interesting to say the least. The problem will be, not having enough time to cover them all.
If any of you guys have anything of any importance that I can use in my presentation please feel free to let me know. I know what I want to say and show but I would love to hear from you guys too.
Thanks Jake. Again, you are freaking awesome. You have given me the lift I needed today. To Kim, sorry I wrote a book!
Posted by: rileysmom | March 14, 2010 at 03:02 PM
Re:"What is truly sad is that this big hungry lie continues to be repeated in order to justify the population-wide poisoning of countless infants and fetuses."
This is the saddest story of them all.
Although my grandson's heavy metal testing did not show Mercury, but instead extremely high levels of Aluminum, the evidence for the neurotoxic damages of both is huge. This scientific evidence existed prior to the autism epidemic and goes as far back as the Victorian era for God's sake. And since Mercury and Aluminum has been in all of the vaccines prior to the epidemic, what happened is obvious. The vaccine schedule dramatically increased "coincidentally" after the vaccine industy got the law passed in 1986 exempting them from any liability for vaccines. Once they got that hunting license with no limit, it was "open season on our deer children".
As far as aluminum goes, when my grandson had a heavy metals test with a challenge dose of DMSA, the progress we had made with him returned to ground zero, including diarrhea returning and severe liver damage. Since the DMSA pulls the aluminum out of the cells, if there are large amounts recirculating which the liver cannot detoxify sufficiently, basically he was re-exposed to the Aluminum. I was already convinced by the research evidence that Aluminum played a primary role in my grandson's autism, but this issue with the testing and regression verified it to his doctors.
However, since the last batch of vaccines included MMR, I also believe that the measles issue was primary to his intestinal damages. I have also learned that once the detoxification pathways collapse from the depletion of Methyl B12, Glutathione and Magnesium, this is where the game of Russian Roulette comes into play. Although he survived his previous vaccines, due to the depletion of these crucial nutrients, these detox pathways no longer had access to the major detox nutrients required, so he was totally whammed by not only the Aluminum, but all of the other toxic ingredients in the vaccines which his body no longer had the ability to detoxify. Additionally, heavy metals are known to accumulate, so the previous doses of vaccines had already produced levels of Aluminum that when further increased created massive damages. (Gradual accumulation of Mercury and Aluminum is THE primary cause of Alzheimers) Adding insult to injury was his first MMR in this toxic concoction that sent him over the cliff into IMMEDIATE autism.
By gradually restoring his Methyl B12, Glutathione and Magnesium levels he has had dramatic improvements, along with many other nutrients, and natural therapies including Homeopathy and Essential Oils. (I don't sell Young Living products, but I would not risk any other essential oils with him other than these tested therapeutic grade)
Jake Crosby, you are a genius to be able to dissect and evaluate all of this complicated information in these "studies"!!! I am just a grandmother who doesn't have the ability to accomplish what you have, and I am exceedingly grateful for all of the dedicated researchers and people like you who have educated me with answers from sources that can be trusted as factual.
I am just a grandmother, but I know what I witnessed with my own eyes when my grandson lost his ability to walk and talk and many other horrific results that were the direct cause of vaccines.
All of the parents and family members who have witnessed thier beloved children disappear into the lost world of autism in direct relation to vaccines know what we saw, and we don't have to be rocket scientists to figure out that it was the VACCINES.
Posted by: Autism Grandma | March 14, 2010 at 01:54 PM
Truth is they will not know statistically whether Autism rates continued to go up after thimerosal was mostly removed until CDC starts using data from after the year 2000 for their annual prevalence projections. These most recent 1 in 100 children having autism projections were based on data from 1998, when Thimerosal use was still in full swing.
Posted by: AnaB | March 14, 2010 at 08:28 AM
Wow. I don't know if it was the morning caffeine or the information in this piece, but I was shaking when reading this earlier. It's not the fact that industry and capitulating/equally-guilty government entities manipulate and lie-- but the extents to which they go to complicate and obfuscate the data that's shocking. These obfuscations take lots of time and planning and time and planning cost money-- taxpayer money-- to engineer. We pay for them to sicken and kill our children.
This lie isn't merely hungry: it's a vampire lie. It can't live in the light of day and has to constantly claim more victims and feed on life to survive.
Thank you as always Jake, for wading through this steaming pile of bull so that others don't have to spend as much time breathing the fumes to understand.
Posted by: Gatogorra | March 13, 2010 at 05:01 PM
Thank you, Jake, for your fine analysis. Your concise explanation should be required reading for mainstream media. Perhaps you could inspire college journalism professors nationwide to use the Danish study disinformation campaign as a curriculum assignment for student teams.
Along with copies of CDC/Denmark e-mails like this:
"Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 5:33 AM
"Dear Poul, Kreesten and Diane Schendel
"Attached I send you the short and long manuscript about Thimerosal and autism in Denmark. [sentences redacted]
"I need to tell you that the figures in the manuscript do not include the latest data from 2001. I only have these figures as a paper version and they are at work [words redacted]. But the incidence and prevalence are still decreasing in 2001. [sentence redacted]
"I look forward to hear from you again.
Posted by: nhokkanen | March 13, 2010 at 02:19 PM
A thorough and well-written post. Thimerosal has never truly disappeared. Given the Pessah study of a few years back, showing the harmful impact of even tiny amounts on dendritic cells, it is logical that even "trace" amounts can do great harm. Add to that the annual clamor for infants and pregnant women to get in line for flu shots, and we can see how the damage is still being done.
Posted by: Wade Rankin | March 13, 2010 at 02:19 PM
My son, born in 1999, is now 11. When he was young, I spent a lot of time at the playground and always saw many children acting very autistically, Ya' know, walking the perimeter of the playground, stimming on sand, ignoring other children, falling down the stairs, no language, standing at the bottom of the slide and not knowing to move, parents lurking close by to teach the children what SHOULD come naturally, staring at the sun, etc... Now, I spent time at the playground with my younger children and it's a whole differnt scene. I NEVER see any kids acting so obviously autistic as my son did or any of the kids born during the height of thimerosal. It's very bittersweet to see so many active, friendly healthy boys running around the playground.
I horrified the mother of a 6 year old with autism when I talked about what my son was like at that age - staring at handrails and running, unable to run with his arms, hands shook like he had parkinsons, total echolalia. For God's sakes, my son couldn't sit in a chair at 2 because he was so weak. Her son has mild social and language issues - NOT the same autism. She had no idea how the boys of the 1990's have suffered. They can lie all they want, those on the ground can see the diffence less or no thimerosal makes.
Posted by: mary | March 13, 2010 at 02:07 PM
Excellent summary Jake.
Just this morning I was attending our primary caucus (In Minnesota we "caucus" before our primary elections to determine final Party candidates) and was showing our graphs and data to candidates to explain the same thing you have so eloquently elaborated on above. But I go in a different direction - that it is not just young children adding to the new cases of ASD. Read the article below and look at the yellow shaded area in the second graph -nearly two thirds of ASD cases diagnosed after 2003 in Minnesota are kids born before 2003.
July 07, 2009
Thimerosal and Autism Rates: A Minnesota Perspective
Posted by: Tim Kasemodel | March 13, 2010 at 12:43 PM
Great article, Jake! I love that you are so mature, articulate and your analysis of these studies is so thorough!
Whether thimerasol or the MMR vaccine "cause" autism or not, all of the research should be examined by those that know how to read and interpret research.
I'm very impressed!
Posted by: Christina | March 13, 2010 at 12:37 PM
This is a GREAT story. Thank You!
This is not just a great story to read, but something that should be required reading for everyone.
I think that it should be turned into a college course.
Posted by: Jeff Ransom | March 13, 2010 at 12:23 PM
"From the 2003 Denmark study, it would seem that Thimerosal helps to "prevent" Autism & lower Autism rates....
Which would seem to be a bit of a "damn stretch" for anyone to believe.
or OMG they have found the cure....."
OMG they have found the cure, and it is thimerosal! Exactly! And hilarious!
And Jake, excellent article! I HATE HATE HATE the lie that kids haven't been getting mercury in vaccines since 1999, 2001, 2009...
Posted by: Kristina | March 13, 2010 at 10:49 AM
Jake, I love the phrase "Big Hungry Lie". It would make a great book title.
Posted by: Deb O. | March 13, 2010 at 10:40 AM
FanBloodyTastic, Jake. An amazing even keel piece. Who taught you to think independently?
"Trickled down to academia" - yep, it is in my books, too. Just when I had given up hope that students question academia....
Thanks so much for that enlightenment.
We do not act rightly because we have virtue or excellence, but rather we have those because we have acted rightly. We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act but a habit.”
MAKE AUTISM STOP
Posted by: MAKE AUTISM STOP | March 13, 2010 at 10:11 AM
From the 2003 Denmark study, it would seem that Thimerosal helps to "prevent" Autism & lower Autism rates....
Which would seem to be a bit of a "damn stretch" for anyone to believe.
or OMG they have found the cure.....
If we could just find those darn missing Denmark scientists.
Posted by: cmo | March 13, 2010 at 09:55 AM
Excellent in-depth coverage. Thank you!
Posted by: Mary | March 13, 2010 at 08:46 AM
Thank you, Jake! I appreciate you for all the effort you put forth, all the bad info that you corrected on Huff Po this week, and for keeping your finger on the pulse of vaccine injury. You are so very appreciated!
I also like that you quote Dr.Paul King, a person worth far more quotes than I normally see.
Posted by: kathleen | March 13, 2010 at 08:15 AM
Just to mention that the Cochrane review of MMR (2005) said that interpretation of Fombonne 2001 was "difficult" in the main text but "impossible" in the notes! And this was one of the 31 best MMR studies, sifted for review...
Posted by: John Stone | March 13, 2010 at 07:09 AM
Excellent piece. Loved the last sentence.
Posted by: mary | March 13, 2010 at 06:36 AM