Dissecting the Autism Science Foundation’s Use of the “Hungry Lie"
Control Group (kən′trōl ′grüp) A sample in which a factor whose effect is being estimated is absent or is held constant, in order to provide a comparison.
Look, I’m sorry, O.K.? I know it’s early and I’m already getting all Science 101 on you, but this is terribly important stuff, and I’d feel terrible if I didn’t share all this with you. Right now.
For those of you who regularly read AoA, you know that this isn’t the first time I’ve written about the “Hungry Lie” about autism, this lie so many are saying recently that goes like this:
“It’s been asked and answered, vaccines don’t cause autism.”
This lie, it really drives me nuts. More, and I can say this and mean it, anyone who repeats this lie is immediately my enemy. I mean that, I really do, because there are just too many kids in the mix and this is just too important and if you are either intellectually too lazy or too dishonest to understand the science around vaccines and autism, then, well, you are my enemy. Sorry, it’s a hard knock life.
That said, this may be my last piece on the topic. Why, you ask? Well, three reasons, probably. First, I’m tired of writing about this. Someone, other than me, needs to pick up the slack. Perhaps a doctor? (Bernadine Healey already did, but the press seems to have lost her phone number.) Second, I’m going to give you all the information here, so I don’t need to say anything else.
And, finally, I’m going to use the Autism Science Foundation to make my point, so this is a great way to end. Why does this matter? Well, the ASF is Alison Singer’s basement-dwelling autism organization, the one she founded with Paul Offit, the one she founded after she got fired from Autism Speaks, and between the 2 of them, they are the most prolific spouters of the “Hungry Lie,” which makes them both, to put it politely, absolutely 100% full of hooey.
More Science 101: Do control groups matter?
We all get the basic concept: a double-blind placebo-controlled study is a gold standard for figuring out if something helps or harms someone. Give one group something, give another group nothing even though they think it’s something, don’t tell the researchers who is getting what, and see if there is a difference in outcomes. Simple enough.
We also understand a “control group.” The simplest example, the one I like to use because people get it, is smokers and non-smokers. If you are trying to figure out if smoking hurts, helps, or kills people, you need a group of people who didn’t smoke (nerds, please don’t lecture me on confounders--this is Science 101, not 501). And, here’s my first giant point:
Without a real control group, the conclusions of a study on the potential harm of a drug are 100% useless.
Can we all just agree on that? If you have a study, and everyone either gets a whole pill or a half a pill, do you have a control group to compare the outcome to? Of course you don’t.
Vaccine schedule in the real world
Let me ask you 2 simple questions, and, please, be honest with me, OK?
Question #1: Can vaccines harm some people?
You know the answer is “yes” and I’m sure some of you will want to qualify this answer by saying, “but it’s a really small number of people.” Whatever.
Question #2: If one vaccine can harm some people, do you think six vaccines given at the same time will do more or less harm?
OK, fine, I stacked the decks a bit on #2, but this is a point lost on many. It’s exceptionally likely that if one vaccine can cause some harm, six vaccines will cause more harm to more people, the question is if that harm is exponentially or geometrically greater, and it’s perhaps the most important question of all.
In fact, that question is so damn important, it’s now going to become the third question I ask:
Question #3: Do we know the health outcome of children who receive the US vaccine schedule compared to a group of children who don’t? Said differently, do we have unvaccinated controls anywhere?
Of course, we AoA readers all know the answer here: a blazing NO, which makes those who repeat the hungry lie, like Alison Singer and Paul Offit, blazing liars.
Feigned exasperation and the ugly truth
“Feigned exasperation” is the latest strategy from those feeding the hungry lie, and it goes something like this:
“This damn question has been asked and answered, vaccines don’t cause autism, these parents are causing us to waste our precious time and resources, we need to move on, and for God’s sake stop giving these crazy parents a forum—no more equal time!”
Or something like that. The truth about the science that has been done is so ugly, I just need to spell it out for you here so you can understand it for yourself::
- None of the studies compare anything but vaccinated children to other vaccinated children
- Of the 36 vaccines US children receive, only 2 of those shots (the MMR given twice) have ever been compared for their relationship to autism, and then only with otherwise vaccinated children.
It’s absurd, really, how little work has actually been done, despite the feigned exasperation that’s oft-repeated. But, really, please, do not take my word for it. I’m going to now waste my time, and plenty of yours, and go through every single study, in the order presented, that sits on the Autism Science Foundation’s site, and let you be the judge. Please, if you are a doctor or a scientist, please comment, feel free to argue and prove me wrong. Please, I mean it.
The Autism Science Foundation: Lying like a rug
Here’s the web page I’m pulling this info from, so you can see for yourself HERE.
The Autism Science Foundation lists 20 studies on both Thimerosal and the MMR and they state:
“We still don’t know what causes autism, but we have learned what doesn’t cause it. Numerous studies have failed to show a link between autism and vaccines.”
Much as it pains me, I’m going to comment on each of the 20 studies, in the order they are presented, bear with me if you possibly can, and decide for yourself if they prove that there is indeed no link between vaccines and autism.
Thimerosal and Autism Studies
1. Neuropsychological performance 10 years after immunization in infancy with thimerosal-containing vaccines. --Pediatrics, Tozzi AE, Bisiacchi P, Tarantino V, De Mei B, D'Elia L, Chariotti F, Salmaso S. (January 2009)
Headline: Every child in this study was vaccinated, and the only comparison is more and less mercury in their shots, and the sample size is so tiny they had an autism rate in their study of 1 in 1,700.
I’m not sure why the ASF picked the order they picked, but this may be the dumbest of all the studies cited, so it’s ironic it came first. First detail:
“Therefore, in the first 12 months of life, the cumulative intake of ethylmercury, the mercury metabolite of thimerosal, was 137.5 mcg for the children who were assigned randomly to receive the DTaP vaccine that contained thimerosal ("higher intake group") and 62.5 mcg for those who received the thimerosal-free DTaP vaccine ("lower intake group")."
What’s this mean? This study is only comparing kids who got 62.5mcgs of Thimerosal to kids who got 137.5mcgs of Thimerosal. They have all been vaccinated, and they've all been vaccinated with mercury-containing vaccines. And, here’s the sample size:
“We detected, through the telephone interviews with parents and reviews of medical charts, 1 case of autism among the 856 children in the lower thimerosal intake group and no cases among the 848 children in the higher thimerosal intake group."
So, in their sample, the rate of autism of the children analyzed was 1 in 1,704, 15-20 times lower than the US average. This study truly shows us nothing, it’s pathetic and embarrassing, and here’s a doctor who agrees, Dr. Vincenzo Miranda of Italy (where the study is from):
“This study is not methodologically correct. The study by Tozzi and others has many limitations. No comparison is done with children not exposed to thimerosal and neuropsychological disturbances are studied in recruiting voluntary all children even healthy ones, without assessing the sensitivity individual mercury. With this background this study can not lead to any conclusion. It is possible to evaluate the role of vaccines and thimerosal in neurodevelopmental disorders with the study of immune response. In my case I found a hyperimmune response to measles, polio with autoimmune reaction against myelin and glia. Moreover, the presence of antifibrillarin antibodies indicates an autoimmune response induced by mercury (HgIA). All this can not be a coincidence.”
This study was so frustrating, I wrote an article about it HERE, and criticized it ruthlessly on the 14studies website HERE. Oh, and it was funded by the CDC. Of course.
2. Continuing Increases in Autism Reported to California's Developmental Services System — Archives of General Psychiatry, Robert Schechter, MD, MSc and Judith K. Grether, PhD (January 2008)
Headline: Every child in this study was vaccinated, and conclusion are based on a false premise regarding mercury in vaccines.
Sigh. ASF, this is your proud #2? The entire study is based on the false premise that children's vaccines no longer contain mercury. Lead author is in charge of California's immunization program.
The study assumes that thimerosal was no longer in California’s vaccines for kids after 2002, which is simply a false assumption. However, the study does make the point that autism continues to grow, which calls into question the entire vaccine schedule, rather than just one ingredient. They wrote:
"In the absence of exposure data for individuals or the population, we adjusted published estimates of maximum thimerosal exposure for infants and toddlers6 to reflect subsequent recommendations for influenza vaccine and the fact that the third doses of DTP, DTaP, Hib, and hepatitis B virus vaccines usually have not been recommended before 6 months of age. Based on these estimates, children aged 3 to 5 years (Figure 3) reported to the DDS since the first quarter of 2004 are assumed to have reduced exposure compared with children aged 3 to 5 years reported from 1995 through 2003."
Meaning: We don’t have actual thimerosal exposure data by child, and we also did not consider if any of the mom’s received mercury-based vaccines while pregnant, a practice that was recommended starting in 2002 (for the flu shot).
Here’s the Deirdre Imus foundation commenting: “We do not believe this conclusion is supported by the methodology and results presented in the article. The study’s authors incorrectly cite how long mercury-containing vaccines remained in circulation in California and failed to account for the impact of the reintroduction of the mercury-containing influenza vaccine. The study also failed to provide evidence that thimerosal did not cause autism in a significant subset of children”
Read a full critique at 14studies HERE. Anybody tired yet? We’re 10% of the way through these…
3. "Early Thimerosal Exposure and Neuropsychological Outcomes at 7 to 10 Years" — New England Journal of Medicine, Thompson WW, Price C, Goodson B, et al. (September, 2007)
Headline: Every child in this study was vaccinated. They didn’t even consider AUTISM as an outcome, so why is it here?
Wins award for most conflicts with seven different vaccine companies mentioned. But, study doesn't even look at autism as an outcome, so doesn't apply to this debate at all. Had a panel member dissent from study conclusions, a bad sign. May be interesting to some, but not anyone studying autism.
Just for fun, here’s the conflicts section:
"Dr. Thompson reports being a former employee of Merck; Dr. Marcy, receiving consulting fees from Merck, Sanofi Pasteur, GlaxoSmithKline, and MedImmune; Dr. Jackson, receiving grant support from Wyeth, Sanofi Pasteur, GlaxoSmithKline, and Novartis, lecture fees from Sanofi Pasteur, and consulting fees from Wyeth and Abbott and serving as a consultant to the FDA Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee; Dr. Lieu, serving as a consultant to the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices; Dr. Black, receiving consulting fees from MedImmune, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Merck and grant support from MedImmune, GlaxoSmithKline, Aventis, Merck, and Novartis; and Dr. Davis receiving consulting fees from Merck and grant support from Merck and GlaxoSmith- Kline. No other potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported."
Just for fun, here’s a commentary on the study from Autism Speaks, a place Alison Singer was running when this commentary was published: “While the study does not specifically examine the link between thimerosal and autism spectrum disorders, it does explore neuropsychological functioning, such as language development, attention, and fine motor coordination, that are affected in some individuals with autism.”
To put this on a website, as the third example of studies showing no link between autism and vaccines is fraudulent, and I think Alison Singer and Paul Offit should go on CNN so Anderson Cooper can yell at them, too. Full critique HERE.
4. “Lack of Association Between Rh Status, Rh Immune Globulin in Pregnancy and Autism” — American Journal of Medical Genetics, Judith H. Miles and T. Nicole Takahashi (May 2007)
Headline: Looks at a single vaccine some moms get during pregnancy, doesn’t even consider the vaccination status of the kids.
This study only considers one vaccine (RhoGam) given during pregnancy and its possible relationship with autism. Far too narrow an approach to consider if vaccines cause autism. And, in one of the more blatant conflicts, this study is funded by the vaccine's manufacturer, Johnson & Johnson.
Safeminds wrote an 18-page critique of the work, here’s a snippet: “The review found deficiencies in sample quality, including small and unmatched controls and inadequate methods for determining mercury exposure from RhIg brands. Poor sample recruitment design likely produced under-representation of mothers receiving RhIg, the key exposure variable. Alterations in sample composition during implementation, contravening accepted research standards, were detected, as were factual errors on vaccines, RhIg, and mercury. The lead author has many undisclosed conflicts of interest. These problems may underlie the negative finding on association between RhIg and autism. Additional calculations of the data, not done by Miles & Takahshi, show a 71% higher rate of Rh immune globulin exposure in children with autism relative to unaffected siblings, in contradiction to the original findings but consistent with other studies.”
Since the study doesn’t even consider what happens to the child after they’re born, it’s absurd and useless to put it on a list. Anderson, are you reading this?
5. "Comparison of Blood and Brain Mercury Levels in Infant Monkeys Exposed to Methylmercury or Vaccines Containing Thimerosal" – Environmental Health Perspectives, Thomas M. Burbacher, PhD (April 2005)
Headline: I must be on Mars, that’s all I can say. The Autism Science foundation put one of the most damning studies ever done on the toxicity of thimerosal in a list of studies that are supposed to refute the link between autism and vaccines.
Only one of two things can be true: ASF believes people are too lazy to read these studies, or ASF is too stupid to realize what they did.
This study demonstrates clearly and unequivocally that ethyl mercury, the kind of mercury found in vaccines, not only ends up in the brain, but leaves double the amount of inorganic mercury as methyl mercury, the kind of mercury found in fish. This work is groundbreaking because little is known about ethyl mercury, and many health authorities have asserted that the mercury found in vaccines is the "safe kind." This study also delivers a strong rebuke of the Institute of Medicine's recommendation in 2004 to no longer pursue the mercury-autism connection. Excerpt:
"A recently published IOM review (IOM 2004) appears to have abandoned the earlier recommendation [of studying mercury and autism] as well as back away from the American Academy of Pediatrics goal [of removing mercury from vaccines]. This approach is difficult to understand, given our current limited knowledge of the toxicokinetics and developmental neurotoxicity of thimerosal, a compound that has been (and will continue to be) injected in millions of newborns and infants."
Thank you, Paul Offit and Alison Singer, for making my week. I think you should discuss this important study with Anderson Cooper.
6. "Thimerosal Exposure in Infants and Developmental Disorders: A Prospective Cohort Study in the United Kingdom Does Not Support a Causal Association" – Pediatrics, John Heron and Nick Andrews, PhD and Jean Golding, DSc (September 2004)
Headline: I lied, I said #1 was the worst study ever, this one is actually worse. Every kid in the study got the same vaccines, so the study only considered timing differences (when someone got their DTP shot, was it 2 months, 3 months, or 4 months old?). Wins award for most dishonest title, too.
Choice Excerpt from the Study: "The age at which doses of thimerosal-containing vaccines were administered was recorded, and measures of mercury exposure by 3, 4, and 6 months of age were calculated and compared with a number of measures of childhood cognitive and behavioral development covering the period from 6 to 91 months of age."
Meaning: Every kid in our study got the same vaccines, and we only considered the difference WHEN they got them.
7. "Neurotoxic Effects of Postnatal Thimerosal Are Mouse Strain Dependent" – Molecular Psychiatry, M Hornig, MD (June 2004)
Headline: Umm. Are you there, God, it’s me Margaret…has this really happened twice? I guess ASF just wanted a long list, so they put ANOTHER study on here that clearly implicates thimerosal as a very BAD thing.
Here’s an excerpt: “Using thimerosal dosages and timing that approximated the childhood immunization schedule, our model of postnatal thimerosal neurotoxicity demonstrated that the genes in mice that predict mercury-related immunotoxicity also predicted nuerodevelopmental damage. Features reminiscent of those observed in autism occurred in the mice of the genetically sensitive strain."
This is really amazing. Remember, the lead in to this page on ASF’s website is very clear: “Numerous studies have failed to show a link between autism and vaccines.”
Pinch me, I’m dreaming!
8. "Safety of Thimerosal-Containing Vaccines: A Two-Phased Study of Computerized Health Maintance Organization Database" - Pediatrics, Thomas Verstraeten, MD (November 2003)
Headline: The big dog, and also the worst. Only looked at vaccinated kids. Only looked at more or less thimerosal exposure. Worst of all, study produced a NEUTRAL outcome, meaning couldn’t prove or disprove anything. Yet, cited as proof? (also, ASF spelled “maintenance” wrong see above)
A disaster. The most widely quoted study, and the only study ever done with American data on American children, reached a neutral conclusion, asked the wrong question, and the author left to join a vaccine company before its publication. And, the world's most incriminating and public "secret meeting" calls the entire study into question (see: Simpsonwood). If this is the CDC's best work, we're all in trouble. The former CDC Director called this study "unhelpful and potentially misleading."
Choice Excerpt from the Study: "The biological plausibility of the small doses of ethylmercury present in vaccines leading to increased risks of neurodevelopmental disorders is uncertain."
An article said: "CDC Director Dr. Julie Gerberding has delivered a potentially explosive report to the powerful House Appropriations Committee, in which she admits to a startling string of errors in the design and methods used in the CDC's landmark 2003 study that found no link between mercury in vaccines and autism, ADHD, speech delay or tics."
- CDC: Vaccine Study Design "Uninformative and Potentially Misleading" By David Kirby, The Huffington Post.
9. "Association Between Thimerosal-Containing Vaccine and Autism" – Journal of the American Medical Association, Anders Hviid, MSc (October 2003)
Headline: The second “Danish” study, rife with errors and problems. Every child in this study was vaccinated.
From SafeMinds: "A large percentage of diagnosed autism cases are lost from the Danish registry each year. In the ten years preceding 2000, 815 cases were lost, more than the 710 remaining in the registry in 2000. The vast majority of those lost cases would represent older children in the 2000 registry. Since the relative risk of the Hviid study is based on finding fewer older thimerosal-exposed children than younger unexposed children, the validity of their conclusion exonerating thimerosal in autism is questionable. More likely, the finding is a result of missing records rather than true lower incidence rates among the exposed group."
And, from the study itself: "As shown in Figure 2, the incidence of autism diagnosed among Swedish inpatients aged 2 to 10 years old began to increase in the mid to late 1980s, rising from a rate of 5 to 6 inpatient-diagnosed cases per 100,000 person-years before 1985 to a peak rate of 9.2/100,000 in 1993."
Meaning: The authors are saying that Sweden has an autism rate of 1 in 10,000, which is ONE HUNDRED times lower than the U.S. rate of 1 in 100, which the authors don’t appear to consider or discuss. Isn’t anyone curious why Sweden’s autism rate is ONE HUNDRED times lower than ours?
10. "Thimerosal and the Occurrence of Autism: Negative Ecological Evidence from Danish Population-Based Data" – Pediatrics, Kreesten M. Madsen, MD (September 2003)
Headline: The first “Danish” study, reached a conclusion based largely on one statistical trick. Every child in this study was vaccinated. Oh, and one of the lead authors is wanted by the Feds for embezzling several million dollars from the CDC, but why should that be news?
Written by a Danish vaccine company, the study made a mockery of the data, a problem the authors themselves warned of. And, the CDC engineered the entire study. This one goes beyond useless, it was fraudulent to run the numbers this way, and they knew it.
The study only considered 956 children with autism. Worse, a material change in how autism data is obtained happened right around the time the numbers of autism cases seemed to grow, rendering the data meaningless. From http://putchildrenfirst.org/:
“The study looked at data between 1970-2000. In 1995, the Danish registry added "Outpatient Clinics" to their count of autism cases. It turns out that Outpatient Clinics are where 93% of Danish children are diagnosed with autism, so the number of autism cases before 1995 did not include the clinics. More surprising, the authors even note this in the study: "since 1995 outpatient activities were registered as well...the proportion of outpatient to inpatient activities was about 4 to 6 times as many outpatients as inpatients...this may exaggerate the incidence rates. Exaggerate the incidence rates? It is the equivalent of doing a study on "Divorce Rates in North America" and counting Mexico and Canada only for the first few years, then adding in the United States, and noting that divorce rates went up.”
SafeMinds noted, "Therefore, their purported increase after 1994 can be explained entirely by the registration of an existing autism population that did not require hospitalization. To compound the problem, Denmark also changed the diagnostic code they used, to the more universal ICD10 code, beginning in 1993, which would have further raised the rates.”
Choice Excerpt from the Study: "Also, outpatient activities were included in the Danish Psychiatric Central Research Register in 1995 and because many patients with autism in former years have been treated as outpatients this may exaggerate the incidence rates, simply because a number of patients attending the child psychiatric treatment system before 1995 were recorded for the first time, and thereby counted as new cases in the incidence rates."
Meaning: we didn’t count 93% of the kids diagnosed with autism in Denmark during the time mercury was in vaccines, then we did once it was removed.
11. "Autism and Thimerosal-Containing Vaccines: Lack of Consistent Evidence for an Association" – American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Paul Stehr-Green, DrPh, MPH (August 2003)
Headline: It’s a summary paper, basically transposing the work from #10 above, shouldn’t even be on the list as it’s no new information, no primary work. But, every child in the data they refer to was vaccinated.
Sometimes called the "Swedish Study." A summary paper that used the same methodologically flawed approach used in the original Danish study published in Pediatrics. Shockingly, once again Sweden's autism rate is noted to be 1 in 10,000, which is 100 times lower than the U.S. rate, but the authors don't address this discrepancy. They also mis-interpreted some work done by SafeMinds.
Here’s Mark Blaxill: “Based on these flawed trend assumptions, the authors use the shift in Sweden and Denmark from comparatively low thimerosal exposures to thimerosal-free vaccines in an attempt to falsify the autism-mercury hypothesis. Absent a clear increase in autism rates in Denmark and Sweden, this attempt at falsification fails. The autism-mercury hypothesis I tested was that increases in mercury exposure are associated with increases in autism rates. Reductions in comparatively low thimerosal exposures need not produce decreasing autism rates in stable, low-prevalence populations for the autism-mercury hypothesis to hold.”
12. "Thimerosal and Autism?" – Pediatrics, Karen Nelson, MD (March 2003)
Headline: This isn't a study at all, but rather a review of other studies and some opinions rendered from two scientists. It is helpful, however, in explaining how neurotoxic mercury really is.
Choice Excerpt from the Study: "Mercury in sufficient dose is neurotoxic, and probably more toxic in the immature brain. It is reasonable to ask whether thimerosal in childhood vaccine increases risk of chronic childhood neurologic disability and specifically of autism. The available data with which to address the question are very limited and largely inferential."
Why is this on a list? Once again, it’s just someone’s summary and opinion, there is no data here that’s new.
13. "Mercury concentrations and metabolism in infants receiving vaccines containing thiomersal: A descriptive study" – The Lancet, Michael Pichichero, MD (November 2002)
Headline: One of the sillier studies ever performed, and the lead author is a vaccine patent-holder, no less. Absurd that this study appears on lists of studies exploring the relationship of vaccines to autism, as it doesn't even address the topic. More absurd is the author's complete misunderstanding of how mercury is excreted from the body. A laughable study written by an author as conflicted as the Joe Camel would be studying cigarettes.
The only question raised in the study is this: Do Thimerosal containing vaccines administered to children raise mercury blood levels above safe standards?
From the lead author's website: "Dr. Pichichero was a member of the discovery team at the University of Rochester that invented, tested and licensed a Haemophilus influenzae b (Hib) conjugate vaccine (HibTITER®) now universally given to children in the U.S. [he makes vaccines, but didn't report as a conflict]…The author has received research grants and/or honoraria from the following pharmaceutical companies: Abbott Laboratories, Inc.; Bristol Myers Squibb Company; Eli Lilly & Company; Merck and Co.; Pasteur Merieux Connaught; Pfizer Labs; Roach Laboratories; Roussel-Uclaf; Schering Corporation; SmithKlineBeecham Pharmaceuticals; Upjohn Company; Wyeth-Lederle.”
Choice Excerpt from the Study: "Most of the toxic effects of organic mercury compounds take place in the central nervous system, although the kidneys and immune system can also be affected. Organic mercury readily crosses the blood-brain barrier, and fetuses are more sensitive to mercury exposure than are children or adults...No toxic effects of low-dose exposure to thiomersal in children have been reported. The effect of the small amounts of mercury contained in vaccines on concentrations of mercury in infants' blood has not been extensively assessed, and the metabolism of ethylmercury in infants is unknown."
Meaning: "It's really hard to write a study that somehow implies injecting mercury in infants is safe, but I'm going to try by arguing that 'small' amounts are safe, even though I know its never been studied."
Here’s Thomas Burbacher, lead author of study #5 (a good study) above: "Just because it came out of the blood doesn't mean it is excreted from the body. It could have gone to the brain," Burbacher tells WebMD. "Although total mercury levels in the blood are lower following thimerosal exposure [than following methyl mercury exposure], mercury in the blood from thimerosal has an easier time getting to the brain than methyl mercury."
* * *
I don’t know about you, but I need a smoke break! (And, I don’t even smoke.) Here’s what I want to know, from those of you who have actually read this far:
Can you see why I am so frustrated by the Hungry Lie?
We’re already 13 of the way through the 20 studies the ASF site provides as “proof” that vaccines don’t cause autism. We’ve seen no unvaccinated kids, and almost half of the studies have absolutely nothing to do with autism or are just opinion pieces, yet ASF proudly displays these as their compelling evidence. And, two of their published studies—thank you God—are highly damaging to the position that mercury in vaccines is safe.
About that mercury, before we move on
Mercury and babies do not mix. There was a lot of mercury in shots through about 2004, there’s now about half that level if you include flu shots, which were added to our vaccine schedule in 2003. Said differently, children are STILL getting plenty of mercury from their shots, and this is criminal. And, the media always misses this.
Mercury is one of many vaccine components, you could argue it’s the most neurotoxic, but I have no idea how you compare the damage mercury could do to a child’s brain versus the damage from the measles antigen, and no one else does, either. None of the work above remotely proves mercury in vaccines is safe, but moreover none of the 13 studies above even remotely consider if “vaccines cause autism” because not one of them has a control group that received no vaccines. This is the hungry lie!
OK, the next list of studies specifically addresses one of my other points: Of 36 vaccines given to American children, only one, the MMR, has ever been looked at for its relationship to autism. How many studies does the ASF cite that deal with vaccines other than MMR?
How many of the studies below look at unvaccinated kids or kids who got the MMR versus kids who got no vaccines?
ZERO. The hungry lie lives. Onward:
Measles-Mumps-Rubella (MMR) Vaccine and Autism Studies
14. "Lack of Association Between Measles Virus Vaccine and Autism with Enteropathy: A Case-Control Study" -PLoS One, Hornig M, Briese T, Buie T, Bauman ML, Lauwers G, et al. (September 2008)
Headline: This study is intended to refute Wakefield’s work. However, it made one critical distinction from Wakefield’s (and many other scientists) approach: it didn’t seek a subset of children with autism who regressed after MMR vaccination. That, combined with a very small sample size, renders the results nearly meaningless. (At least the study concedes that children with autism suffer from gastrointestinal issues.)
The study asks this question: Do children with autism have a persistent measles virus RNA in their gastrointestinal tract [which they got from their MMR vaccine]?
From SafeMinds: “The study design precluded assessment of a role for acute measles infection from MMR in a subset of children with autism and did not examine the role of other vaccines, vaccine components such as thimerosal, or other environmental exposures which can trigger gastrointestinal and immunological problems. The topic is of public health interest due to the increasing autism epidemic and parent and scientific reports connecting mercury and vaccines, including MMR, with autism onset.”
More analysis at 14Studies HERE.
15. "Measles Vaccination and Antibody Response in Autism Spectrum Disorders" -Archives of Disease in Childhood, Gillian Baird, F.R.C.Paed. (February 2008)
Headline: Study tries to find an antibody response to measles amongst children with autism. Absurd inclusion criteria in the study, small sample size, and nothing about unvaccinated children.
From the Thoughtful House: “As a general observation, this paper contributes nothing to the issue of causation, one way or another. Case definition alone is likely to have obscured the relevant group of autistic children. The study tells us nothing about what actually happened to the children at the time of exposure. We are increasingly persuaded that measuring things in blood many years down the line tells us very little about the initiating events in what is, in effect, a static (non-progressive) encephalopathy unlike, for example, subacute sclerosing panencephalitis, which is a progressive measles encephalopathy. The gut is a different matter, and analysis of mucosal tissues has been very informative, since here, in the relevant children, active ongoing, possibly progressive4, inflammation has been identified.” More HERE.
16. "Pervasive Developmental Disorders in Montreal, Quebec, Canada: Prevalence and Links With Immunizations" -Pediatrics, Eric Fombonne, MD (Volume 118, Number 1, July 2006)
Headline: The worst MMR study ever done. Used a statistical trick by using MMR uptake data from one city (Quebec City) and comparing it to autism rates in a different city (Montreal). No surprise that it was published in Pediatrics. Study author, Fombonne, is one of the most conflicted researchers of all time. No unvaccinated controls, of course.
Eric Fombonne conflict: "In the United Kingdom, Dr Fombonne has provided advice on the epidemiology and clinical aspects of autism to scientists advising parents, to vaccine manufacturers, and to several government committees between 1998 and 2001. Since June 2004, Dr Fombonne has been an expert witness for vaccine manufacturers in US thimerosal litigation."
A critique from Dr. Edward Yazbak: “Fombonne et al reported that in a group of English-speaking Montreal children born from 1987 to 1998, the prevalence of pervasive developmental disorders (PDD) was high and increasing. They also claimed that during the same period, Measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccination coverage had decreased…La Capitale Nationale refers to Quebec City, located 265 kilometers from Montreal. Ms. Bouliane confirmed that the MMR vaccination rates were indeed from the Quebec City area but refused to release them to me because they were administrative internal information only intended for research. There are several published vaccine uptake surveys of Montreal. MMR vaccination rates of children 24 to 30 month-old in the Montreal area increased from 85.1% in 1983 (Baumgarten) (2) to 88.8% in 1996-97 (Valiquette) (3) to 96% in 2003-04 (Health Department Survey) (4) The above suggests that in Montreal PDD prevalence and MMR vaccination rates were in fact increasing in tandem during the study period. The readers deserve to know why the authors compared developmental data from a specific group of children in Montreal with MMR vaccination data from the city of Quebec, some distance away.”
17. "MMR Vaccination and Pervasive Developmental Disorders: A Case-Control Study" – The Lancet, Liam Smeeth, MRCGP (September 11, 2004)
Headline: Very few cases used, and it did not focus on children who had regressed after MMR. May also win the award for most conflicts. All children in the study were vaccinated.
Conflict statement: "E Fombonne has provided advice on the epidemiology and clinical aspects of autism to scientists advising parents, to vaccine manufacturers (for a fee), and to several government committees. A J Hall received a financial contribution from Merck towards research on hepatitis B vaccination in 1998. He is also a member of the Joint Committee on Vaccines and Immunisation (2002 - present)."
Design flaw: "We were not able to separately identify the subgroup of cases with regressive symptoms to investigate the hypothesis that only some children are vulnerable to MMR- induced disease and that this is always regressive.”
From Thoughtful House: "Even if they had studied the correct group - regressive autism - the study would need to have included at least 3,500-7,000 children with autism - 3 to 6 times the actual number examined - in order for the study to have any validity at all."
18. "Association of Autistic Spectrum Disorder and the Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccine" – Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, Kumanan Wilson, MD, MSc, FRCP (July 2003)
Headline: This is thoroughly redundant, as it is just a review of other people’s work, provides no new data. It just helps ASF put together a longer list.
19. "Neurologic Disorders After Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccination" – Pediatrics, Annamari Makela, MD (Volume 110, Number 5, November 2002)
Headline: This "Finnish Study" is unhelpful. It used "hospitalizations" as a criteria for finding children with autism. A critique HERE.
From the study: “Of the vaccinees, 309 were hospitalized for autism after vaccination. When the shortest possible intervals between MMR vaccination and the day of hospitalization were assessed, these ranged from 3 days to 12 years and 5 months. No distinguishable clustering was detected in the intervals from vaccination to the hospitalization.”
So, the analysis focuses solely on hospitalization after vaccination, and if any clustering occurs (of autism or anything else). Here’s Dr. Yazbak, providing a critique: “The whole Makela study is based on ONE comparison: For encephalitis and aseptic meningitis, the numbers of events observed within a 3-month risk interval after vaccination were compared with the expected numbers estimated on the basis of occurrence of encephalitis and aseptic meningitis during thesubsequent 3-month intervals”. If the children in the first group developed symptoms of encephalitis and meningitis within two weeks of vaccination, then causation is implied (medically and medico-legally). In this case, a comparison with the control group is meaningless and the author’s conclusion is unwarranted.”
20. "No Evidence for a New Variant of Measles-Mumps-Rubella-Induced Autism" – Pediatrics, Eric Fombonne, FRCPsych (Volume 108, Number 4, October 2001)
Headline: What is it with Eric Fombonne and Pediatrics? This is an older study (2001). From the The Cochrane Collaboration (an independent body looking at studies of the MMR vaccine): "The number and possible impact of biases was so high that interpretation of the results was difficult."
Here’s a helpful critique: "What this study set out to do was not to investigate the cause(s) of damage to specific children, but to clear MMR of any complicity. At first sight, it succeeds in the latter, but at closer analysis, it makes numerous unfounded assumptions that considerably weaken the strength of its conclusions. At worst, it demonstrates the central flaw of designing a study hoping to achieve a desired outcome, rather than to investigate a problem. Overall verdict: this study fails to provide any convincing evidence against an MMR/autism link." Complete critique HERE.
I’d like to thank the AoA readers who made it this far, all three of you. What you know for sure, having gone through this:
- When the Autism Science Foundation says, “it’s been asked and answered, vaccine don’t cause autism,” they are full of hooey
- When other experts say, “it’s been asked and answered, vaccine don’t cause autism,” they are full of hooey, too
- No studies exist with a control group of children who haven’t received vaccines
- We have no idea what happens when a child gets six vaccines at one time
- If six vaccines are more damaging than one, we don’t yet know it, because no one has looked
- Of the 36 shots on the US schedule, exactly 2 have been studied for their relationship to autism, leaving 34 shots where we have absolutely no idea whatsoever
It’s tiring to write this stuff, I’m sure it’s tiring to read, too. Haters, feel free to chime in. Tell me where I’m wrong, defend any of these studies as proving, “vaccines do not cause autism.” The hungry lie, as usual is starving, and its getting harder to feed it, as more people pay attention to the details.
J.B. Handley is the father of a child with autism, the co-founder of Generation Rescue, and a contributing writer for AoA.
One point JB. Sadly, Bernadine Healy died at a young age (72?) which is so sad as she was speaking up and she said that the NIH had deliberately avoided doing studies on autism and vaccines. They didn't want to know. This can be seen on YouTube.
Posted by: Carolyn c Mcd | November 14, 2016 at 09:35 PM
It's been over two and a half years since this article was published. As the lie is repeated all day long and the campaign to confuse is as active as ever, it would help if this article debunking the "proof" was more visible. Maybe you could put it on the front page again every once in a while, or even better, a link to this article that lives on the AOA front page would help a lot of people find it.
Posted by: Linda | September 15, 2013 at 04:38 PM
Oh my gosh! There are simply not enough "thank yous" in the world to show my gratitude. When I ran across the ASF I thought I smelled something fishy. Especially being it was linked to the AAP site. In one of their videos they declared "no conflicts of interest" what they FAILED to,disclose that they take money from the AAP. And now thanks to you I learned about the Offit connection. AND I have some rely good ammunition if my child's doctor starts parroting this crap again.
Thanks again so much!
Posted by: InformedMommie02 | September 15, 2013 at 07:30 AM
Thank you J.B. I got to the very end. It took me a couple of Saturdays - a couple hours at a time, but I got through it. I appreciate all of the work you tirelessly do for all of us. This article will travel in my purse and briefcase at all times. I will be making several copies, too. How do you feel about us sending this to the media?
Many, many thanks...
Posted by: Leslie R. | February 22, 2011 at 10:09 PM
Hello J.B ! Well done with this article!
I must tell everyone reading this. J.B. Is the only source of truth in regards of vaccines ever since the illuminated took over the media and their dominance made every body believe that vaccines are safe. These people are criminals that think that measles is worse than autism, whereas we all know autism is a lot more horrible than measles. They keep all lying. All doctors. All scientists all everyone lie and lie, while J.B is always the only one saying the truth! It is horrible. Horrible! I sometimes hear their voices inside my head, LYING AND LYING, it makes me anrgy.
I think it is the universities that are behind this. Clearly, it is not necessary to spend all the years people spend in medschool. Because google solves all the problems in that regards. Instead, universities are a huge waste of time in which doctors are taught to give drugs to children! If they just wanted to learn medicine, they could use the internet. I am using the internet to learn homeopathy and it is VERY easy and very profittable, much better than medicine. Universties are frauds.
J.B. I consider you to be a prophet and the only source of light in a world of dark, You were there. I was going to have children, but after you helped me understand the risks of vaccines, I decided to stop having sex with my girlfriend so that she won't get pregnant, because I don't want my children to be forced to take vaccines.
Posted by: John DeGlazy | February 02, 2011 at 07:00 PM
Don't know where to put this, so I'm hoping you're still reading the comments,JB. A couple of months ago I posted about an article I had read in the Nov issue of the ATLANTIC about a Greek physician, Dr. John Ionnides, who is making a name for himself debunking most of the medical studies that the medical profession uses for treatment protocols. I think it is called LIES, DAMNED LIES AND MEDICINE or something very close to that. Another article just appeared in the Jan.24 issue of Newsweek about the same man. He is now at Stanford U as head of their Prevention Research Center. Basically, he believes that most studies are worthless because of design flaws, etc. etc. I'm wondering if you might be interested in contacting him about those 14 studies. It would certainly help to get a real expert to report on the worthlessness of autism studies. Apparently he is very well respected in spite of his message. You can Google both of those articles. Just a thought.
Posted by: CT teacher | January 28, 2011 at 01:00 PM
I would like to comment on the lack of controls in showing a link between smoking and cancer (or between autism and vaccines). No controls were ever used to test the hypothesis that smoking causes cancer because it would not have been practical or ethical to observe a group of smokers over decades and compare them to non-smokers. However, the link could be demonstrated statistically because there was a strong association between smoking and lung cancer, the association was consistent across studies, the alleged cause was plausible, and the alleged cause preceded the effect in time. The U.S. Surgeon General accepted that smoking causes lung cancer without ever experimenting on human subjects. All of these limits and statistical criteria could be applied to autism (for example, virtually no parent has reported a child regressing two weeks BEFORE a vaccine). So, J.B., controls aren't needed in order to demonstrate the link between autism and vaccines - all that's needed is an honest look at the problem, and therein lies the problem because too many people don't want to look.
Posted by: Catherine Tamaro | January 27, 2011 at 08:24 PM
prov[e] “vaccines do not cause autism.” The way science works is you must prove that vaccines cause autism. Science cannot prove a negative. This article actually shows very well that science is incapable of proving the negative. It cannot even disprove the existance of unicorns. So the question is: can you prove they do exist?
Posted by: Big bad science guy | January 27, 2011 at 08:08 PM
Are you serious? You are accusing people who say vaccines don't cause autism of being intellectually lazy or dishonest? Is that a joke? Maybe you are not intellectually lazy or dishonest, maybe you are just plain stupid.
Posted by: Brian | January 27, 2011 at 04:54 PM
JB, this is an excellent article. Thank you for all of your hard work! You should submit this to the FDA. The FDA is responsible for drug product safety.
Posted by: Autism is an epidemic | January 27, 2011 at 02:41 PM
A very interesting article! Personally, I've questioned people who have said that vaccines caused autism, only because vaccines have been given to kids for decades, with no signs of autism. I do wonder though, if it is an environmental thing going on, and maybe vaccines are part of the "trigger". We are so surrounded by chemicals nowadays in our lives, we really don't have any idea what is going on anymore (corporate coverups?). There are lots of parents not getting their kids vaccines, because of the "autism scare", if scientists were interested, they should try and look up these parents for a study. Anyway, I just found your e-zine, and look forward to reading more on the subject of autism! Thank you!
Posted by: Karen Truempy | January 26, 2011 at 09:20 PM
Alison Singer and Paul Offit, that's a Bad Romance! lol.
Posted by: S. Perrin | January 26, 2011 at 07:55 PM
It’s not just placebo fraud that condemns pharma, although that’s certainly bad enough. IRB fraud is apparently widespread, too. There has never been a shortage of pharma whores, who have made Faustian bargains, to implement the frauds. Don’t forget the CROs who act as outsourced clinical research wings of Pharma. This further buffers and indemnifies Pharma from fraudulent clinical research.
The drug and biological approval process has been thoroughly corrupted for quite a long time. The public trust has been completely betrayed. Whistle-blowers end up road kill. The pharma cartel deals in fear. They are masters of creating and perpetuating myths. So-called “Vaccine-preventable diseases”, “Torches of Liberty”, and “Fluoride is safe and good”, are just marketing taglines for big business. It is about time that the public woke up. We are just fodder for corporate greed by pharma. It’s time to “just say no” to pharma. Our law makers need to hear our voices on this subject.
Posted by: patrons99 | January 26, 2011 at 02:37 PM
Pharma can get any new biological approved that it wants to, because placebo fraud is rampant. The FDA approval of the HPV vaccines is a case in point.
FDA permitted pharma to “poison the placebo” by allowing hepatitis B vaccine and aluminum salts to be used in the “placebo” arms of several of the pivotal NDA studies upon which expedited market approval was granted under PDUFA timelines. They knew exactly what they were doing and why they did it. To say this was an innocent “mistake” is seriously delusional. Hep B vaccine used VLPs. There is a tacit assumption that VLP technology, polysorbate 80, and aluminum are “safe”. Without a true placebo controlled study, this assumption has quite simply NEVER BEEN PROVEN.”
“Placebo fraud rocks the very foundation of modern medical science; thousands of clinical trials invalidated” by Mike Adams on October 28, 2010.
“Placebos were seldom described in randomized, controlled trials of pills or capsules. Because the nature of the placebo can influence trial outcomes, placebo formulation should be disclosed in reports of placebo-controlled trials.”
Most new biologicals, including new vaccines, are approved on the non-inferiority margin method whereby all that pharma need show is that the new agent is no more acutely toxic than a particular marketed biological of the same class. Hence, all that is now really required for expedited market approvals by FDA under the PDUFA (“Prescription Drug User Fee Act”) timelines is a showing of political expediency. Drug and biological safety and efficacy are now irrelevant. FDA Advisory Committee meetings are nothing more than kabuki theatre. FDA has become an operational arm of pharma. COIs? Who are they kidding?
Posted by: patrons99 | January 26, 2011 at 01:30 PM
JB, besides "control group issues" Orac and the science bloggers ( that sounds like a band) don't seem to be defending my points about sample bias (Tozzi) or methodological errors (Madsen), never mind Fombonne's bullshit. Control getups seems to be it. I totally agree with you and Ginger that they need to be policing themselves better. It's pathetic.
Posted by: Jen | January 26, 2011 at 10:35 AM
DON"T YOU DARE STOP. YOU KEEP SAYING IT! God gave you the talent, the brain the heart to keep saying it, writing it and a computer that has instant copy/paste to help you.
Don't you be like Senator Dan Burton that said plenty in 2003, and often but in the end he too said this is all I have to say on this, I am tired. He quit!
Besides what they did is not going away. Senator Dan Burton it is not going away even for your grandson. New things develop every day.
THis past week my husband developed myclonic jerks. Hell; I know what they are - I watched his son develop them at 9 and progress to out right full blown epilepsy by 12 that was not dignosed untill age 17.
My gosh, ALL I WANT IS JUST ONE WHOLE YEAR OF IT ALL STAYING THE SAME.
Do you know what it is like to try to convince three grown adults to stick to a low carb diet. THey are all like children, ane they get mad at me. I am sick of it but I am not giving up as long as their is breath in my body.
Tomorrow I made an appointment for my husband to the neurologist. What book am I going to donate to the waiting rooom???
"Callous Disregard" "Mercury Manmade epidemic" "Vaccine A" "THe virus and the Vaccine" "A Shot in the Dark"? Which one?
Keep at it JB Handley and I will will run this off and put your article in the waiting room.
Posted by: Benedetta | January 26, 2011 at 10:34 AM
It occurs to me that we may be missing a major mechanism of vaccine toxicity. Why are polysorbate 80 and Triton 100 present in many of the vaccines on the schedules? These molecules are ionophores. They facilitate the transfer of metal ions across biomembranes such as the blood brain barrier.
Personally, IMHO, I don't believe that germs or genes are responsible for the epidemic of diseases. All age groups are adversely impacted. The epidemic is iatrogenic. The epidemic is directly related to vaccines, the vaccine schedules, and mandated vaccinations. Mercury amalgam dentistry, fluoridated water, and dietary sulfur and fat deficiency, compound the problem. It's getting worse. It will not stop unless some major changes take place.
“Injected detergents trespass on an immune process that holds life and death control over cells...”
“According to GlaxoSmithKline a 0.5 ml dose of Fluarix may contain up to 0.085 mg of Triton X-100.”
“That's 200 thousand trillion molecules of Triton X-100 injected in a dose. That's an opportunity for trillions of self-cells to be injured or killed by the detergent, resulting in symptoms and diseases in line with what is described above. Exposure is likely to be similar with other vaccines containing detergents.”
I believe that we a nearing the "tipping point". We need to carefully track all-cause mortality and disease-free survival in both fully vaccinated and completely unvaccinated populations.
Posted by: patrons99 | January 26, 2011 at 09:25 AM
Somebody buy this man a beer!
Posted by: Donna L. | January 26, 2011 at 09:19 AM
What about this? The evidence for environmental causation of autism is growing rapidly and coming into the mainstream. Environment would include vaccines, hence the revving up of the hysterical denial engine and the attacks on "the anti-vaccine movement."
Posted by: MinorityView | January 26, 2011 at 08:52 AM
Thanks so much -- this will really come in handy!
Posted by: Twyla | January 26, 2011 at 03:34 AM
Thanks from me also. Read every word and will probably be coming back for referencing...
I'm beginning to think the scientific community, the vaccine "researchers" anyway, are not used to this level of layperson scrutiny. Perhaps they are not used to much professional scrutiny either?
Posted by: JenB | January 26, 2011 at 02:38 AM
Loved it JB! Sharing it on FB and everywhere else! If only the media would take the time to read this! Hell, they can't even read the Wakefield paper, so how can you expect them to read this one???
Keep up the great work!
Posted by: Judith | January 25, 2011 at 11:16 PM
Thanks Mr Handley.
Exactly what I've been looking for.
Posted by: Adam M | January 25, 2011 at 09:36 PM
Jb, I think I may be the 555th person so far! :) I read almost every single word of this piece, excellent work!!! Picking apart the vaccines-do-not-cause-autism mantra is extremely useful, and could help journalists focus in on where these "facts" originate. These fallacies must be reported, and thanks to your dissection, people can see for themselves where the truth lies, instead of continuing to be patted on the shoulder at the pediatrician's office, "Don't worry, its been dis-proven, there's no link."
Posted by: Megan Allen | January 25, 2011 at 08:51 PM
Thought you might all be interested in this. We have a big pHARMA stooge here in Australia criticising Dr Wakefield since the BMJ nonsense was published.
Her name is Dr Rachel Dunlop.
I have never heard of her before - sounds like an ill informed pharma stooge trying to push her own profile and protect her paymasters.
See her recent TV 'performance' at the following youtube link:
Posted by: Elizabeth Gillespie | January 25, 2011 at 07:44 PM
As for California, Dr.Ron Huff, the psychologist who had been surveying the rates of autism in that state, told The Sunday Times in 2003:
“There’s enough attention being given to Thimerosal that I think we’ll get a definite answer within five years.”
In other words, he said we should have known by 2008, but instead the entire database was overhauled by 2008, suggesting that the authors used premature data to support their conclusion. In fact, they basically admit just that much:
"Continuing evaluation of the trends in the prevalence of autism for children born in recent years is warranted to confirm our findings."
That was in their revised manuscript accepted for publication in May 2007. The data was overhauled by the time it was published in January 2008. Without availability of the data for use of follow-up as the authors say would be required to confirm their findings, this preliminary report is useless on its own and should therefore be retracted.
More likely, the study was used as mere justification for the journal to publish the complementary review article by Eric Fombonne, misrepresenting this as conclusive data in contradiction to the authors' admission, while citing the Scandinavian tobacco science. Although I think it can more accurately be referred to as the Danish tobacco, since the whole point of the Swedish tobacco science - although relying solely on in-patient data which is useless for evaluating autism prevalence - seems to be merely to back up the Danish junk science. Along with all that, Fombonne cited his own handiwork, as well.
Speaking of which, the Quebec study you mention also examined thimerosal, the evaluation of which is just as bad. It relies on one school year - Kindergarten - to support its conclusion when according to biochemist Paul King of CoMed, Kindergarten enrollment is optional so only about half the total kids will enroll, while all of the children with autism will enroll because of the school supports - fudging the prevalence by about double what it actually is in that school year.
Fombonne also came out with a more recent follow-up study just last year, which apparently not even the gullible media fell for. The study stuck solely to thimerosal and completely avoided MMR altogether by comparing the total prevalence of children born after 1996 when thimerosal reduction started (incorrectly labeled like in the first study as "nil" exposure) to children born before it and noted it was higher in the former than in the latter.
The reason why that is, as their graph shows, is because autism rates exploded in 1999 and were twice as high in 2000 as they were in 1998.
Well, in 1999, the Infectious Disease and Immunization Committee of Canada said:
"Many changes in immunization programs have recently occurred, including the introduction of hepatitis B vaccine programs in all jurisdictions, the introduction of a two-dose measles vaccine schedule, a switch from the live oral polio vaccine to the inactivated polio vaccine and the replacement of whole-cell pertussis vaccine with the acellular vaccine."
Note "the introduction of a two-dose measles vaccine schedule."
"A second dose of MMR vaccine is recommended by the National Advisory Committee on Immunization. The recommended dose can be given any time more than one month after the first dose but is routinely given either at 18 months or at four to six years of age. In British Columbia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, Quebec, Saskatchewan, Northwest Territories and Yukon, the dose is given at 18 months of age, and at four to six years of age in Alberta, Manitoba, Nova Scotia and Ontario."
So, in Quebec, children receive a second dose of the MMR vaccine at 18 months - a mere six months after their first MMR at the age of a year. Perhaps this was the reason for the doubling in autism from 1998-2000 in stark contrast to the autism rates from 1996-1998 during the thimerosal reduction period, when autism actually decreased by 10%, also shown in Fombonne's graph.
Posted by: Jake Crosby | January 25, 2011 at 07:03 PM
JB good work. You know its amazing on the lenghts the media and the vaccine industry are going to to keep this cover up going? Its just a matter of time before this all blows up in their face. Its hard to beleive that these flawed vaccine studies are able to make it into the media without some doctors being able to tell how bad they are, they just dont get the media time. Its also amazing how are kids doctors dont take the time to read the studies but rely on these fools opinions and then pass the flaws information on the the parents to make them think vaccines are safe????its unbelievable
Posted by: tony | January 25, 2011 at 06:54 PM
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR DOING THE LEGWORK FOR US!!!!!!!!!!!
Yes, I am lazy, but I am also a mom of three children with different disorders, a husband that travels for work, and a part time job on top of that.
You single moms out there are my heroes. Hugs to each of you!!
JB Handley has done a tremendous service to us. Thank you so much for posting this, repeatedly. It underscores my convictions that my children would be so much better off had they not been vaccinated.
Take a bow, Mr. Handley. You deserve the applause.
Posted by: JHouston | January 25, 2011 at 06:14 PM
Elisabeth Kübler-Ross noted five stages of grief: Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression, and Acceptance. Dare we hope that vaccine promoters' Anger stage ends with "feigned exasperation" and proceeds directly to Acceptance?
Posted by: nhokkanen | January 25, 2011 at 06:14 PM
I am third (well, by the time I finished reading there were only two comments)! An excellent posting... And I'll be putting this on Facebook as well... And sending it to my mother (who isn't on board -- yet), my congressman, and George Step-on-us-alot.
Posted by: ObjectiveAutismDad | January 25, 2011 at 05:55 PM
The so-called gold standard RCT is a piece of unqualified rubbish, in which 2 unmanipulable unknown variables and 1 known manipulable variable can skew the outcome in either unknown direction, making the data virtually useless. Testing on the sick with an unknown medicine as to action and side effects, which are both skewed by the influence of the disease, is a piece of folly of great antiquity in the annals of medicine. The outcomes are always uncertain and thus medication becomes guesswork. “We shall try this”, and if it does not work, “we shall try that”.
So how scientific is that, really?
Posted by: Kaviraj | January 25, 2011 at 05:44 PM
As you may know, Sir Isaac Newton invented calculus because he needed it.
You have created a whole new branch of science called "ologyology" ....the study of studies.
Posted by: cmo | January 25, 2011 at 05:15 PM
Thanks for taking the time to wade through all that data and post the truth. If we can now get this article into someone's hands who is powerful, brave and gives a shit. You would think that would be easy to find, it is all the chldren in the US we are talking about.
Posted by: Alpo67 | January 25, 2011 at 04:37 PM
It's like this: For 23 years I worked as an investigative newspaper reporter bent on rooting out the evils of corporate crime and fraud. I won some awards for my stories, many of them going viral. What is disturbing to me is that in the last years before I left the Dark Side (mainstream press) to join The Force (people like you JB), I had begun to notice a terrible slide of sloppy journalism by the largest, most influential press members in the world, including those from Associated Press.
It was so obvious that they weren't bothering to do true investigative stories anymore -- where they searched for possible conflicts of interest or a hidden agenda -- and instead were simply taking at face value quotes from people like Paul Offit. And it's only gotten worse. I cannot believe that no one -- no one -- in the mainstream press has bothered to question Brian Deer's motives, finances and, most of all, his so-called "research." It's not impossible. It CAN be done -- and years ago in real journalism it would have been done.
But apparently that's not how journalism works these days.
How journalism got this way is beyond me. But even more mind-boggling is the idea that those idiots who are spreading the lies actually believe they're going to get away with it.
Personally, I've done the research, followed your links even before you suggested them or printed them, and have come away wondering what's with these so-called journalists? Don't they have brains of their own to see that they're being made fools of, and used as pawns?
I could go on but I think you get the picture. Thanks for all you. Keep spreading the word. This is a Pandora's Box and the box is open. They'll never be able to contain the truth now, no matter how hard they try. And I'm thinking that even though it's frustrating right now, it just might not take as long as you think for the truth to win out.
Posted by: Cindy | January 25, 2011 at 03:39 PM
This article by propagandist Rahul Parikh is scary and infuriating. Can anyone comment ?
Posted by: Silentlyscared | January 25, 2011 at 02:27 PM
There may not be any studies with unvax control groups, but plenty of us "autism moms" have control groups right in our homes: younger full-blood siblings of our autistic children that have never been vaccinated and are perfectly normal. This would be a pretty easy group to study -- and show that autism is not genetic at the same time showing vax damage in our kids.
Why are the scientist not knocking at my door to see the difference in my two children -- one vaccinated and one not? Because they already know the truth and do not want to prove it because it will cost them money -- the one thing they truly care about.
Posted by: mka | January 25, 2011 at 01:39 PM
JB, I love you. I'm proud of your representation of us in the press. Thank you for making things crystal clear in your writing.
Posted by: Nicole | January 25, 2011 at 01:01 PM
JB, You are AWESOME, thank you sooooooo MUCH!!!!!!!!
Posted by: ChrisS | January 25, 2011 at 12:38 PM
I am proud to be "one of the three". I will be sharing this on Facebook. I will be emailing this to my best friend(who borrowed my copies of "The Age of Autism" and "All I Can Handle"). I will be printing this out to give to my father-in-law and mother-in-law(who really want to believe "the hungry lie" every time they hear it on CNN). I will be saving it to send to every "neurodiversity/autism is evolution/vaccine damage denialist" who emails me to say: "You really should read Paul Offit's book 'Autism's False Profits' and educate yourself on the subject of autism." (yeah. That happened to me after I made more comments online than usual and attracted some attention.)
Thank You, JB Handley. Thank you.
Posted by: LisaA | January 25, 2011 at 12:26 PM
Eli Lilly Thimerosal MSDS June 13, 1991
"Exposure to mercury in utero and in children can cause mild to severe mental retardation and mild to severe motor coordination impairment."
PAGE 89 Day 6 - June 18, 2007, Cedillo hearing
Q: And you mentioned retardation. If I'm understanding your slide correctly,
70 percent of people with autistic disorder also have mental retardation of some form?
Dr. Fombonne (Federal Witness)
A: Yes. Mental retardation is a correlate of autism which is significant. This figure
is for autistic disorder. For PDD and the rest, it's not very well known, probably less
than that. But for autistic disorder, it's about 70 percent."
Posted by: G | January 25, 2011 at 12:19 PM
Thank you Mr Handley for this brilliant post.
I agree with what CT teacher said, with one exception. I don't think we are "pissing in the wind" despite the Pharma-media propaganda push. Word is getting out. I know many parents who are refusing to follow the schedule. The hospital where I work tried to mandate flu shots, but quietly dropped it when they saw how many nurses and other employees refused. The times are changing and the hungry lie is feeling starvation pangs.
The sad thing is if the media were free and not a Pharma propaganda tool this epidemic may never have become so devastating in the first place.
Posted by: julie | January 25, 2011 at 12:03 PM
Thank you JB!!!! You always spell out the details so clearly!!!
Age of Autism Editors: Please have a "print" button!!! I know we can email links and post on Facebook, but sometimes printing articles out and handing them to someone is even better. It forces them to read it because you took the time to print it for them. And I can hand it out to doctors too if I dare! ;)
Posted by: Catherine | January 25, 2011 at 12:01 PM
Thank you JB, and please don't ever stop! I have spread this far and wide.. although a lot of people simply don't want to know the truth. It's unfortunate that many parents will be forced to see the truth from a toxic damaged child.
Posted by: casey | January 25, 2011 at 11:59 AM
This is a keeper. I really hope Orac and Brian Deer , Alison Singer et al have a look at it. I would seriously be interested in what they have to say about it. Thankyou so much for this! I would also really like to know if Fombonne has been disciplined at McGill university for fraudulent research. It is considered to be one of our top institutions, so I hope so.
Posted by: Jen | January 25, 2011 at 11:55 AM
AFLURIA & Fluzone
This dose of .5 mL of swine flu vaccine contains 24.5 micrograms of mercury.. According to the EPA guidelines, in order for this amount of mercury to be safe, the individual getting the vaccine would need to weigh 539 pounds.Children 3yrs - 9 yrs.--2 doses, 4 wks apart. Total 50 mcg.A six month old infant's .25 mL dose would then contain 12.5 micrograms of mercury, which is a safe dose for someone weighing 275 pounds.(6 mos. through 35 mos--2 doses, 4 wks apart. Total 25 mcg)
Even if mercury were out, more aluminum wouuld be added, and more MSG or 2-pe, the outcome? Still more autism. Anything that provokes a fever could. Anything that tips the balance of immune function could.
It's time we admit that mercury free vaccines won't save us from autism exploding further. It may REDUCE it in some cases, but not all.
Before mercury was fashionable, we were talking about the actual viruses doing damage. Sigh....
Posted by: kathy blanco | January 25, 2011 at 11:51 AM
THANK YOU for taking the time to write this out so clearly. I can't wait to share it, post it, and use it often. You've given us all another terrific tool. And while it may have been tedious to write, reading it was more like getting someone's awesome summary notes when you are reviewing for a test...but in this case you have to take the same silly test every single day of your life so having the summary notes to help is enormously valuable!
Posted by: Josie | January 25, 2011 at 11:28 AM
JB, we need you desperately. Please do not go anywhere. We need this reprinted every new news wave the hungry lie fronts. If that saves time - just run it again. This is a fight we'll be fighting forever.
Posted by: KHW | January 25, 2011 at 11:09 AM
J.B. says in his article: "We have no idea what happens when a child gets six vaccines at one time
- If six vaccines are more damaging than one, we don’t yet know it, because no one has looked"
Well, J.B., I know the answer to the question: "What happens when a child gets six vaccines at one time?" My two children developed autism. As they are twins, and received exactly the same vaccines on exactly the same dates, I'd say that's one heck of a coincidence.
Thanks for taking the time to write this amazing piece. I am making a copy of it and sending it to many people I know. I find the information contained within quite valuable. I am proud to be "one of three" AOA readers who have made it to the end of your article.
Posted by: Not an MD | January 25, 2011 at 11:02 AM
The last "official CDC release" of Autism rates are for children born in 1998. They are a bit "too busy" to try to keep up with this simple matter...
Most of America assumes the same vaccines are given all over the developed world and that they are needed to save the rest of the world...
Given Denmark banned Thimerosal in 1992, and most might agree with their 12 vaccines by age 5 program... do they provide an official record of their current Autism rates??? Any recent statements from their officials on Autism issues ?
As always, Dr. Nancy and Dr. Offit understand very, very well... that Americans do not know the difference "between epidemeolgy and real science."
If Dr. Nancy stated that "two cans of pop, a candy bar & not wearing a hat" caused higher rates of "what thehell ever" ... America would believe...
Posted by: cmo | January 25, 2011 at 10:48 AM
I read it ALL with a bag of M&M's at my side. I don't get tired of what you write, but I am part of the choir. Eveery day I am looking for an answer-God, it's me,, Maurine(I love her books BTW) Thanks. Your work is incredibly appreciated. Maurine
Posted by: Maurine meleck | January 25, 2011 at 10:30 AM
Thank you ,JB, for another extremely detailed expose of the HUNGRY LIE. It is a painstaking process to gather this info and to summarize it so all can easily understand the deception that has taken place over many decades, perhaps even centuries. The readers at AoA get it and get angered by it. The problem, however, is the press. Since the press is controlled by the large media corporations there seems to be no way our side gets the opportunity to explain it. If someone does, they get shouted down by those whose livelihoods depend on those powerful corporations. It is a sad commentary on the freedoms of speech and press that are so necessary to a healthy democracy. Also, the foundation of modern, mainstream medicine was built on the belief of the miracle of vaccines. The powers that be in the medical and scientific establishment know that if the public belief in the vaccine miracle is destroyed, the entire system will come crashing down. There is so much at stake that they willingly put children at risk and lie about it in order to protect the vaccine program. Until someone actually does a study of the vaccinated vs unvaccinated , all of our side's efforts are like " pissing in the wind". We need a very powerful advocate to get the message out where it can be heard. That said, I want to thank you and all of the folks who put forth so much effort to get the truth on record and out to the general public. As a last minute thought, I wonder if the person who suggested going after Brian Deer might be onto something. Perhaps one of the AoA detectives could really look into that, particularly someone from across the pond. The press would be forced to report on a bombshell on that subject.
Posted by: CT teacher | January 25, 2011 at 10:29 AM
Thank you, JB, once again. After spending a good part of the past 2 days beating my head against some (typically uninformed) bloggers, it is actually a pleasure to read this instead. (especially the 'headline'sections) My call-to-action was for the links to ANY double-blind placebo-controlled studies, ANY studies investigating administration of multiple vaccines simultaneously, and ANY long-term outcome studies of the health parameters of fully-vaccinated children. Of course, none were forthcoming, largely because these people truly believe the hungry lie. So when I was challenged to produce even ONE ("decent", their words) study that showed a link between vaccines and autism, I cited Ginger Taylor's list of 34. I just wish I could have linked this article, as well, because a couple of these are even more compelling proof.
Of course, you won't be surprised that so far...silence. And one person even said she was checking out, because it was useless talking to 'cultists.'
Thanks for all you do. I will use this summation proudly and generously.
Posted by: Zed | January 25, 2011 at 09:43 AM
Read the whole thing, posted on facebook. If people read this, and still believe the hungry lie, they are either completely lacking in critical thinking skills, or they don't want to know the truth.
Posted by: Julia C. | January 25, 2011 at 09:31 AM