Pediatric Bioscience Test To Predict Maternal Antibody Related Autism in 2012
Anne Dachel on HDNet's Vaccines and Autism: Mixed Signals

Vax UnVax Study Results

Vaccines Managing Editor's Note: From the Child Health Safety site:

A new survey of 7724 participants shows unvaccinated children are healthier and have vastly fewer chronic conditions than the vaccinated. The survey is published here The Health of Unvaccinated Children, Survey Results. The results are subdivided into different age groups. Information about country, gender, age, age distribution, breastfeeding, preferred treatment can be found here. The survey is conducted by and the English version

This is excellent work from an independent source. It is interesting neither the US National Institutes of Health [US$30.5 billion annual budget on medical research] nor the US Centers for Disease Control [US$11 billion budget annually] could find the time or money to fund this kind of research but instead waste US tax dollars on a great deal of pointless medical research and promotion of iatrogenic [man made] disease causing agents [modern drug company "treatments"]. Hardly surprising then that an extraordinary 115 page review was published in June 2007 by the US Senate on the US Centers for Disease Control:-

A review of how an agency tasked with fighting and preventing disease has spent hundreds of millions of tax dollars for failed prevention efforts, international junkets, and lavish facilities, but cannot demonstrate it is controlling disease.” “CDC OFF CENTER“- The United States Senate Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information and International Security, Minority Office , Under the Direction of Senator Tom Coburn, Ranking Minority Member, June 2007.

The Health of Unvaccinated Children Survey Results

The results of our survey with 7724 participants show that unvaccinated children are far less affected by common diseases. Due to the fact that the majority of children in the survey are between 0 and 2 years of age and some diseases generally do not appear in this age group, the results are subdivided into different age groups (click on the graphic). Information about country, gender, age, age distribution, breastfeeding, preferred treatment can be found here.

Read the full post HERE.



I think there are actual studies that are done in other countries for various reasons. In Japan they had to stop giving the MMR for a possible problem of contamination, and after they stopped giving it, they watched those children closely. Here is the graph.

There are other studies in other countries as well that have actually followed individual children.

cia parker

To Michael Lee:
I and many of the people who read and post on Age of Autism have vaccine-damaged children. There's no doubt of this. My baby was given the hep-B vaccine at birth without my knowledge or permission, and reacted with four days and nights of endless screaming (vaccine-induced encephalitis, see Merck Manual for definition). In no way would it be unethical to conduct a vax/unvax study: while Offit and his ilk may say it's unethical to deprive the unvaxed children of disease protection, we might by the same token say that it's even more unethical to damage the vaxed group by making them take vaccines at least for the purposes of the study. This kind of argument gets us nowhere. There are many thousands of both kinds of children in the U.S. whose parents have made the decision for them. My daughter got few (but devastating) vaccines, but unfortunately she would not qualify to be in the unvaxed group. She would still have a healthy, prosperous, happy, normal life ahead of her if she had been. Vaccines may prevent epiglottitis, I had never thought about it. But I KNOW they cause autism, ADHD, seizure disorders, asthma, allergies, bowel disease, and diabetes, paralysis and Alzheimer's, by activating an excessive inflammatory reaction beyond the moderate inflammatory reaction they are supposed to provoke, or by causing an abnormal Th2 auto-immune response. The stakes for millions are exceedingly high to coyly say we won't do a study on the millions of unvaxed because such would be to tacitly approve their choice to refuse vaccines.

Michael Lee

Firstly, this is a survey submitted anonymously over the internet, with no control group, and no attempt at impartiality. It can't at all be used to make the conclusions that you posted above. It's embarassingly poorly done. If I asked 900000 people who didn't vaccinate their children *BY PREFERENCE* if they thought it was the right decision, odds are I'd get the same results too. There's a HUGE bias here.

Most importantly, you can't ethically do a study of vaccinated vs unvaccinated children as a randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled trial. That's because not giving vaccines to children is simply unethical. Simply put, vaccination prevents diseases like epiglottitis that used to kill kids - and so if you did a proper study and didn't vaccinate them, you'd be putting them at risk of severe disability and death from Hemophilus influenzae, measles and polio among others - which no research ethics board would ever support.

It's the same reason why you would never do a study comparing kids with leukemia who received chemotherapy and those who didn't receive chemotherapy, because withholding chemotherapy can lead to serious disease and death.


The anti-vaccine-safety lobby not only will not carry out studies of the health of unvaccinated children but they just don’t want the studies done. Which should be a strange thing because they all insist the vaccines are safe and effective.

But in the CHS article linked to here we show they actively sabotage this kind of work for sport at the expense of vaccine injured children

"Unvaccinated Kids Healthier Study – Gorski & His Internet Bullies Admit Sabotage" /via

Bob Moffitt

Sorry .. my previous post should read:

"I think the failure of VAERS to "disclose" the overwhelming bias and impartiality of doctors and pediatricians more than likely makes their "voluntary compliance" monitoring system "worthless" as a system to monitor accurate adverse reactions to vaccines. Even more so when it is widely reported that 90% of doctors and pediatricians FAIL TO RESPOND as requested by VAERS."

Bob Moffitt

@ ChildHealthSafety

You are quite correct .. your "study-survey" has raised the hackles of those in full denial regarding vaccine safety.

While they have been quick to challenge your results .. they do so at the risk of raising public awareness that public health agencies have .. for decades .. failed to do similar studies or surveys on their own.

Consider this critical comment of your study:

"Due to the lack of disclosure and the overwhelming bias, this survey is worthless. All it does is ask a group of people who have no ability to be impartial about the subject to report on their personal feeligns. It doesn't even go so far as to prevent someone from making up a list of names and taking the survey time and time again. In short - there is no scientific basis for the survey and thus it is without worth."

If I did not know that he was criticizing your study .. I would have thought he was criticizing the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) .. which asks doctors and pediatricians (people) to report their own (biased) opinion if the vaccine they just administered (impartial?) caused the adverse reaction.

I think the failure of VAERS to "disclose" the overwhelming bias and impartiality of doctors and pediatricians more than likely makes their "voluntary compliance" monitoring system "worthless" as a system to monitor accurate adverse reactions to vaccines. Even more so when it is widely reported that 90% of doctors and pediatricians respond as requested by VAERS.

How can anyone say with scientific certainty the "benefits of vaccines far outweigh the risks" .. when the only public agency responsible for monitoring those risks lacks reliable statistical evidence to support the claim?

Your survey was greatly appreciated .. considering your statistics are as just as reliable as VAERS.


Putting to one side [with apologies] the very serious subtext of all of this, it is screamingly hilarious the fire-storm this survey has created with the anti-vaccine safety lobby.

And of course the reason is because formal well-funded professional studies are not being carried out despite the clamour for them over decades. So when this study comes out stating just what the anti-vaccine safety brigade do not want the public to hear they "go bananas".

Why? Because they know the studies are not being done so they are in difficulty arguing against this genuine attempt to cast light on a subject long overdue to be dealt with.

And why is it not dealt with? Because the anti-vaccine safety lobby just don't want the studies done. Which is a strange thing because they all insist the vaccines are safe and effective.

Bob Moffitt

@ Kevin .. you wrote:

"The bottom line is if you want to try to come to a conclusion that you believe to be true, the easiest way to "prove" it is to manipulate results."

I disagree .. the easiest way to "manipulate results" of any study is to deny critical data to those conducting the research .. and .. then level criticisms such as your own .. that the researchers data-denied "study" is "biased" based entirely upon "opinions".

It is a great life if you are a public health bureaucrat .. deny data to researchers and then claim their research is unreliable because it lacks that data.

Of course .. by denying the critical data .. it makes it easy to "muddy the waters" by quibbling whether the research qualifies as a "study or a survey".

In any event, I will be eagerly awaiting your valued comments on future AoA articles specifically about the lack of transparency throughout the public health bureaucracy on the issue of "vaccine safety".

Kevin Hubbs

@ChildHealthSafety: "The author of the survey made no attempt to hide his data or results. He went to great lengths to disclose it."

Disclosing results without offering input as to collection methods, basic methodology, or even the list of websites where they asked for users to complete the survey is not exactly full disclosure. Also, go ahead and count the number of responses for each question and then compare them to the total surveys. You will notice differences which remain unexplained in the survey.

Due to the lack of disclosure and the overwhelming bias, this survey is worthless. All it does is ask a group of people who have no ability to be impartial about the subject to report on their personal feeligns. It doesn't even go so far as to prevent someone from making up a list of names and taking the survey time and time again. In short - there is no scientific basis for the survey and thus it is without worth.

I have kept my comments in regards to this particular survey rather than a diatribe against the government or other agencies who haven't performed any such research because that is what this particular article is about. I simply feel we need to limit the discussion to the subject matter at hand which is why I didn't rail on against any other survey or study (or lack thereof).

@ Bob Moffit: "My friend, your criticism of this particular study is badly misplaced"

I disagree Bob. I was commenting on this SURVEY (once again it is NOT a study) because the survey is what was posted here. Had this been a story about public health agencies failing to do a true study then by all means I'd offer my criticism of them... but it wasn't about them, it was about this silly unscientific survey which the AgeofAutism article tries to classify as "excellent work" when in reality it is worthless.

Anyone can put together a survey and post it to a facebook page, but when you have zero restrictions on fraudulent submissions, and where no effort is given to eliminate bias or gather data based upon anything other than personal opinion... it is NOT scientific. This is no better than posting a survey on Fox News asking them to rate President Obama's performance and then reporting on it as if it was a non-biased scientific study.

The bottom line is if you want to try to come to a conclusion that you believe to be true, the easiest way to "prove" it is to manipulate results. If I wanted a survey to show that Chevy's last longer than Ford's, I could post my survey to several Chevy websites and forums... so when the results came back and said "Chevy lasts on average 8 years longer than Fords" would I consider that to be a valid survey with any statistical significance? Obviously not, so why is it considered ok to stack a survey so that 99.69% of the survey respondents claim they are happy they didn't vaccinate their children? We know that figure is way outside of the mainstream as most children today are vaccinated, so how can we expect the results of such a survey to be anything short of biased?

If people want to find value in this type of junk science then so be it. I'm guessing I won't change any minds because people like to read inforamtion that confirms their opinions. However, in my view this does nothing to further scientific research nor does it do anything to educate the public. All this does is muddy the waters by posing as a legitimate study when in effect it is nothing other than a collection of biased personal opinions and statements that have done nothing to clear up the mass confusion that surrounds vaccine usage or the root causes of autism.


Maybe it is the Food and Drug Administration that is suppose to have protocols for testing of drugs?

Does the FDA have the same or similiar Protocols as the EPA???

Because this immunity problem is going to show up more and more on later generations, I am sure of it! Where is the generation studies? Which government agency is responsible in seeing such studies are done?


Does not the Protocols that EPA has in place for every Chemical company in the United States not apply to vaccines?


No matter what such a study would show,
No matter how the study was done,
No matter who does the study,
the NIH and the CDC will continue what they are doing, docs will continue not to have clue, the world will go on.

I want to seeeeeee any studies done on the mice up to at least the fifth generation of these vaccines.


Bob Moffitt

@ Kevin .. you say:

"I do think there should be study in this area, but to push this survey out there and pretend it is in any way valuable or scientific in nature is dishonest"

My friend, your criticism of this particular study is badly misplaced .. after all .. your criticism should be directed towards our "scientifically dishonest" public health bureaucracies that have .. for decades .. refused to do the vaccinated v. unvaccinated study.

Surely you are as perplexed as I am by their refusal to do this study .. being that it would be in their own best interest .. doing much to prove vaccines are as safe and harmless as public health agencies insist they are.

And .. so my friend, we are long past the time when you .. or for that matter .. anyone .. should be just "thinking a study in this area should be done".

After all .. decades of "thinking about a study in this area" is more than enough evidence to suggest the study remains "undone" because public health officials are terrified of what the results may prove to be.


What can be learnt from this train crash of a survey? Well firstly design any survey properly upfront, eg why oh why was there no control arm asking for responses from parents who had vaccinated their children, such an obvious action to ensure comparable results.
That said they authors have taken a lot of time doing and analysing the survey so what conclusions can be drawn?

1 In c. 7700 responses there were 44 cases of autism self- reported, a significant incidence in a non-vaccinated population, somewhat contradictory to the "Amish don't vaccinate & don't have autism" story.

2 There were no reports in the 0-2 year olds, and only 0.37% in the 3-4 year olds, by the age of 5+ the incidence was between 1.3 and 2.4%, comparable to what is reported in surveys of the general population.

3 Excluding the under 2's gives an incidence of 0.95%, excluding the under 5's gives an incidence of 1.26%, with sample sizes of 4632 and 3016 responses respectively, large enough to still have meaning.

4 The number of responses in the 13 - 18 age group is much smaller so trying to draw conclusions on a lower incidence in this age group, as some have done here, is potentially misleading

5 The timeline of recognition/diagnosis in the unvaccinated children with autism is also very similar to that seen in the general population.

The results from this admittedly flawed survey should not be ignored in trying to understand the causes of autism, there is clearly a significant incidence in unvaccinated children, as contributors to this web site have validated from their own experience.

This should beg the question of someone conducting a properly controlled and larger survey to get more reliable data so we can all move forward.


To Kevin Hubbs | August 31, 2011 at 10:45 PM who says:-

"to push this survey out there and pretend it is in any way valuable or scientific in nature is dishonest"

Not true Kevin. The author of the survey made no attempt to hide his data or results. He went to great lengths to disclose it. If he did not you would not be able to make the comments you do here.

So you should withdraw that remark.

The main point of course you ignore. Is that honest of you? It is plain and prominently placed on the CHS website.

These kinds of studies are not being carried out by those who get tax dollars to do them. The CDC and NIH fund studies that favour their drug industry buddies.

Who knows what kinds of kickbacks and favours are going on behind the scenes [Except we all know former CDC Director Julie Gerberding knew where her next job was, yep, as Merck's Director of Vaccine Division, after she was sacked by Obama from her job as CDC Director].

When the CDC does get data it does not like it dishonestly tries to hide it, like De Stefano paper which supports the findings in the online survey your criticise.

DeStefano F, Bhasin TK, Thompson WW, Yeargin-Allsopp M, Boyle C. Age at first measles-mumps-rubella vaccination in children with autism and school-matched control subjects: a population-based study in metropolitan Atlanta. Pediatrics. 2004 Feb;113(2):259-66. PMID: 14754936

The DeStefano paper backs up the online survey and another two like it. De Stefano shows that children with autistic conditions are more likely to have been vaccinated earlier than children without. An odds ratio of 1.49 and the association was strongest in the 3 to 5 year age group.

Are there any independent impartial objective studies that are not falsified with junk conclusions in drug industry funded journals like Pediatrics. So many papers have junk conclusions dismissing without valid reason clear results or papers designed to come to a predetermined conclusion despite the facts like the Tozzi Italian vaccine/mercury study - which we wrote about here US Research Fraud, Tax Dollars And Italian Vaccine Mercury Study.

Another example is:-
Demicheli V, Jefferson T, Rivetti A, Price D. Vaccines for measles, mumps and rubella in children. Cochrane Database of Systematic 2005;4:CD0044007.

The Cochrane paper was subject to valid criticism which has never been answered: So much for scientific peer review. If they cannot answer their critics and valid criticism then what they say cannot be relied on in science:-

"The conclusions of the Cochrane review on the safety and effectiveness of MMR vaccine violate the standards of evidence based medicine and are not supported by the body of the review." "The conclusions of the Cochrane MMR review are not supported by, and contradict, the evidence presented in the review. Having found inadequate evidence of safety in the papers studied, the review's conclusion that the millions of doses of MMR vaccine administered worldwide are safe is not science based. It is based on the circular assertion without cited evidence that the vaccine is safe because millions of doses are administered." and "There are material concerns that the conclusions were influenced by efforts of the British government to avoid liability in claims brought on behalf of allegedly vaccine-injured children."

Questions on the Independence and Reliability of Cochrane Reviews, with a Focus on Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccine Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons 11: 4 2006

The Cochrane review conveniently also completely ignored the debacle of the Pluserix/Immravax/Trivirix and Japanese MMR Urabe mumps strain containing MMR vaccine which resulted in all those MMR vaccines being withdrawn worldwide because they like many other vaccines are not properly tested and kill and injure children as in Japan, UK, Canada, Brazil and elsewhere and adverse reactions are routinely being buried with their victims and not being recorded or investigated.

So Kevin, when you start honestly and openly criticizing professional government funded studies like those in the way you attempt to with this online survey, and calling for proper studies to be done, then and only then might your views have credibility.

Until that time, surveys like this one and others are the data which exist. You will have to live with it. Others have to, those who are not dead or injured.

Kevin Hubbs

I'm not factoring in show many kids are in each age range - merely taking the average percentage of all age ranges. Looking at the low figure in the 0-2 range isn't all that telling since we know many autism diagnosis don't occur until later in life.


Total = 8.78

8.78 / 7 = 1.25

Thus the average is 1.25%

Perhaps those percentages labeled on the chart don't relate to the rate of autism reported for the respective age ranges, but that is the type of data a true study would disclose and explain. Here we are left to just figure it out. If this were reputable data, you should be able to extrapolate those figures no matter if there were 100 children or 10,000 since it is based upon percentages. Considering many of those ranges are higher than what is typically considered the rate of autism in the general population it just doesn't make sense. Some explanation is needed.

It is still junk science though. You can't obtain valuable data from biased surveys posted on facebook pages or random websites. There wasn't even any methodology to prevent a single person from responding to the survey multiple times and there is no validation of any statements provided nor is there analysis of medical records.

I do think there should be study in this area, but to push this survey out there and pretend it is in any way valuable or scientific in nature is dishonest. Using the term study at all is dishonest, because this is NOT a study and instead is a survey which according to the number of unvaccinated children reported was obviously taken from anti-vaccination websites where you could never expect to see unbiased results.

When people are discussing such an important subject, I expect better. Much, much better. We don't need more fear being pushed out there and presented as if it is scientific which this so clearly is not.


Sorry, I looked at the wrong numbers. The rate is not calculated for 0-2 it starts with 3-4 and it is 0.37%. When you calculate total percentages, you have to include ALL age groups that is how you get the overall 0.56%


Here is the link to the Gorski blog on this survey to which our comment below [August 31, 2011 at 02:31 PM] relates:-

"A survey administered by a German anti-vaccine homeopath backfires spectacularly""


@Kevin, How did you get those numbers? Almost half the kids are in the 0-2 age group where the rate is 0.1% if you average ALL age groups it is 0.57%. Now, I am not saying either that this is scientific but you are calculating this the wrong way.

Bob Moffitt

@ Kevin

From your comments .. it appears you don't think this study is reliably well-done.

In any event .. would you agree the study of "vaccinated vs. unvaccinated" should have been done decades ago? Do you have any reasonable explanation for why this common sense study has never been done?

After all .. Dr. Julie Gerberding .. former Director of the CDC .. now employed overseeing Merck's global vaccine enterprise .. has stated such a study not only "could" be done .. it "should" be done.

Hey .. if this study does not meet your standards .. how about urging your elected representatives to support .. the long overdue .. pending federal legislation that seeks to fund such a study.


[Ha. It is not every day we can rip into the science free zone of Orac's brain [aka pharma's very own Homer Simpson of the blogosphere, Dr David Gorski - David Gorski’s Financial Pharma Ties: What He Didn’t Tell You] [But that is only because we don't usually have the time - no other reason - aside from the difficulty locating it].

Either Gorski's has opened a new Blog in South Africa or someone has pasted his latest rant on the one this pingback on CHS is from.

Gorski is apoplectic as usual. So not a reliable source to start with but it gets worse. Wot a nutter.

His near 2500 words we can encapsulate in a few quotes.

First the abusive rhetoric and derision which is the main basis for all his arguments.

"a study that's just so mind-numbingly, brain-meltingly awful"

"the sheer intensity of its burning stupid"

"a starving cheetah ripping into its prey look downright restrained"

"anti-vaccine loons" "anti-vaxers"

".... they've been clamoring for what they like to call a "vaxed-unvaxed study."

"Now they're at it again"

"anti-vaccine propaganda"

"now this "study" will no doubt join the Generation Rescue "study" in the annals of crap vaccine/autism science, to circulate around (where it belongs) and be dredged up as "evidence" periodically."

Then we get the "scientific" criticisms [Ha] buried in Gorskidrivel:-

"the whole survey was so ridiculously badly designed that you really couldn't tell anything from it at all"

"an anonymous Internet survey that anyone can fill out? Let's ... have an actual control group, namely vaccinated children."

"Generation Rescue did a crappy and arbitrary job of it"

"a poorly designed phone survey"

"entirely unvaccinated children."

"Less than 10% said they preferred conventional medicine."

"the parents who filled it out were a self-selected, biased sample, the vast majority of whom favor alternative medicine"

"99.69% of the respondents report being happy that they did not vaccinate their children"

So wee Davy Gorski, if you don't like it its about time we had a well funded independent objective and impartial study done. Stop complaining when independents take a crack at it. Its their taxes which are being spent wasted on the vast amount of useless medical research [genetics is a prime candidate along with cancer and psychiatry - the latter being the least successful branch of medicine in history].

And don't fob the public off with the usual unscientic junk studies put out in drug industry funded medical journals to claim everything apart from Gorski's brand of medicine is valid - people are voting with their feet - GorskiCare kills people and injures them in droves in the USA with adverse drug reactions and botched procedures

Then Gorski spews out in a rant the usual complete tosh to justify the nonsensical claim that:

".... such a study is neither feasible nor ethical"

But this is the real hoot. These children might really have asthma but because they don't have any symptoms their parents don't know. Ha ha ha ha ha ha .....:-

"a lot of these children could have subclinical or mildly clinical disease that goes undiagnosed because they never take their children to a real doctor"

"One of the most common presentations of asthma is cough alone" .... "milder cases of asthma can be difficult to diagnose in children".

"what the parents report probably doesn't tell us much. Neither does the claim that far fewer of these children had allergies."

What the Mighty Officials of GorskiCare did not tell you is that asthma and allergy have increased so dramatically in the 25 or so years since the late 1980s drive for vaccination that his profession in the UK were instructed just a handful of years ago to go out and look for as many cases as possible. The Mighty Officials then wanted to use the increased statistics to claim the science shows it was all greater awareness and better diagnosis. LOL.

And then Gorski reveals he has had an analytical skills total bypass from birth and his math education was wasted. He says:

"Apparently, basic math isn't a homeopath's strong suit ..... if 20% of autistic children equals four, then there could only be 20 autistic children, but the survey suggests that there were twice that many in unvaccinated children."

Really David? Let's see what he bases this on and show that Gorski's math is sadly a long way from his strong point [if he has one].

The numbers cited are entirely in keeping with the text:
- there were 44 children reported as having an autistic condition
- over 80% of parents reported the autistic conditions in children were mild and of the Asperger type.
- only 4 were reported as having severe autism

What does that tell us?

- Over 80% means 35 of the 44, leaving 9 or less cases.

- 4 of the 9 were reported as having severe autism.

- That leaves 5 cases where 1) either the parents did not say what kind of autistic condition their child had or 2)there were less than 5 cases of severe autism in those 5 or both.

- Let's say it was 5 cases and the parents did not say. At over 80% the probability is of those 5 cases 4 were mild, leaving 1 which might be the more severe autism.

So Gorski, 4 cases of severe autism or even 4 +1 is not 20% but that is still consistent with "over 80%" of parents reporting mild autistic conditions.

And here is another hoot:

"a prevalence of 0.57%, even if this survey were accurate, would be within the range of estimated prevalences found in various studies."

0.57% is 1 in 175. But wait a mo'. In the USA the figure is nearly half that at 1 in 100. In the UK the figure is a third of that at 1 in 64.

And David, these figures reflect the kinds of differences seen in the Generation Rescue telephone survey you decry don't they?

And in the UK 30% of autistic conditions are the more severe autism - in the US we understand the number is higher.

Yet for the unvaccinated this survey suggests the number [4 cases or less than 10%] is 300% lower or 1 in 2000 cases which is close to the pre vaccine era of 4 in 10,000. And the affected children had higher exposure to mercury or heavy metals.

And this GorskiDrivel is a hoot too:-

"autism prevalence is so obviously not appreciably different in the unvaccinated in this survey compared to reported prevalence numbers"

When Gorki in the same passage notes that:-

"depending on the age range it ranges from 0.37% to a whopping 2.36%, ..... 3,075 were for children under two years old, ... autism might very well have not been diagnosed ... the reported prevalence was 0.37%, while in the 11-12 year range the prevalence was highest, at 2.36%."

But at the same time ignores that in the 15-16 year age group the figure is 0.62%.

But that does not stop the science free zone between Gorski's ears from concluding so stupidly it burns:

"The prevalence of autism in unvaccinated children in this survey does closely match reported numbers for overall population prevalence in populations where the vast majority of children are vaccinated.

This result is an unmitigated disaster for Bachmair and his groupies ..."

But hang on Gorski old boy, didn't you just say a mere few million drivel points earlier hidden in abuse and rhetoric that:

"the whole survey was so ridiculously badly designed that you really couldn't tell anything from it at all"

We told you he is a nutter. That demonstrates it - the stupid it burns.

And what is Gorski and his band of amateur night pseudo-scientists going to do. Yep you guessed it they are going to sabotage this genuine effort to get data that everyone has been clamouring for for years.

How do we know? GorskiCare's postscript to his blog:-

NOTE: I notice that the total number of children is increasing. It's now up to 7,799 at this moment, suggesting that 30 people have filled it out since last night. Given that Child Health Safety lists it as 7,724 five days ago that suggests that the surveys still open and is automatically updating totals.


@Kevin - I'm not sure, but aren't the cohorts that were used that give us that "public" figure of 1 in 110 really outdated?
Comparing a recent survey for current figures and comparing it to figures from years ago seems like comparing apples to oranges. The 1 in 110 figure was drawn from a time when autism rates were escalating quickly, with no sign of downturn. Why wouldn't (or shouldn't) we assume that numbers are even higher now in the general population? If we extrapolated the growth pattern to cover the time period of the survey, I think your argument would be nullified. Survey studies are valuable resources for setting up logical scientific investigation.


Of course, Orac was all hot and horny to write about the flaws in this survey, but didn't touch the CATS study. Cherry picking, I think he calls it.

Kevin Hubbs

Sadly, no detailed data is provided so we can only guess how the survey authors came to those numbers. They speak of only four cases of "severe" autism, but based upon the chart they obviously had many, many more cases of autism that must not be classified as "severe". Yet they don't provide any explanation for the numbers nor can we even see the original survey questions.

More analysis of this "survey" here:

Kevin Hubbs

We are continually told that the rates of autism are roughly 1 in 110 American children and that this number has bloomed in the past decade, yet this graphic (if you average all children from 0-12 years of age) shows the rate to be 1.46%. If you factor in all children through age 18 the rate averages to 1.25%. So if the rate of autism in the general population is 1 in 110, that equates to 0.90%. However this survey is suggesting that the rate of autism in unvaccinated children is anywhere from 1.25% to 1.46%... which is an increase over the general population of 38% to 62%!

Now let me be clear that I give no credibility to this survey nor do I feel it is in any way scientific. However if they wish to consider this a valid survey, then by all means they need to be willing to accept the data, and that means an unvaccinated child is 38% to 62% more likely to be autistic than a vaccinated child. Hey - I can only go off of the chart provided, and math doesn't lie, so I guess that is what they want us to believe.

Kevin Hubbs

There is a huge difference between a scientific study, and a survey distributed via facebook pages and social media. To call this excellent work is silly, and there are so many flaws in this 'survey' that I'm ashamed they would even bother to post it.


@Jen -
My girls are healthy except for their autism? The brain is not a separate entity from the body. I'm glad that you seem to be coping and accepting of the situation as that probably eases some stress, but I reject your comment as any evidence that vaccines are not risky, which appears to be what you are trying to imply. Were you and/or your husband vaccinated or have you have yourselves tested for environmental toxins, some of which are the same toxins found in vaccines? Were your own parents vaccinated? Polio vaccine probably? Were they teachers or in the military or health care and subject to multiple shots as part of standard protocols? This could imply epigentic changes being passed on. Autism without ongoing infections is still not the optimal state of cognition or health. Your comment reminds me of one of my neighbors, who is going through the 3rd round of chemo for cancer, suffering from it, who still smokes, who offers me advice on how to raise a healthy my family. I definately learn from our conversations - I learn what NOT to do. I hope there comes a day what neither your daughters or you have autism, or any sign of it anymore. My questions to you are, when a cure for autism is found, or a non-toxic treatment that erases all signs of autism-like symptoms is developed, will you give it to your daughters? And if they grow up and get married and want to have children and we know what helps lower the risk of developing autism, would you share that information with your daughters, if you knew it but they didn't? Because if epigenetics is at play here, it may be possible to reverse or switch back the epigentic manifestations to "non-autism" mode. If you were standing by the wall with your hand on the switch, what would you do?


My two unvaccinated autistic girls are healthy as anything going. Sure they catch their fair share of circulating virii at school, but when other children are off school for a week and have a prescription for antibiotics, my girls might take a day or two to sneeze or whatever. They are, however, autistic anyway. Their father has autism, I have a few traits myself, and they were that way from birth.

kathy blanco

all four of my boy grandchildren have no autism, no vaxes, natural delivery, and a mom who detoxed herself before and after. Breastfeed longer, one even till today at three. No autism. Ok, I have two children with autism, a boy and girl, and the two girls inbetween narrowly escaped (with immune issues). If autism is so X linked, if autism is about a metallothionein issue, or generational mercury poisoning, then the cure and prevention of autism is to never vaccinate again subsequent generations (oh, and I have to mention, those girls never had amalgam fillings like I did), and do natural deliveries. WHALA, no more autism, IMHO. If it occurs otherwise, it's because mom is toxic, was not aware the baby was pumped in the nursery against her wish with HEP B and or she has exposures to mercury from her teeth or lives near crematoria, cement plants, or othwerise dirty polluter industries. We should be aware now how to prevent autism, if a family has celiac tendencies, thyroid tendencies, are infected with generational LYME or mercury/heavy metal toxicity. Eh, what did I need to fund that study, just my wits and millions no nuttin. Also, stay away from Abx's and modern medicines and GMO/MSG foods.


Cassandra you make the point yourself, it's not valid to average out over the whole population, about 50% of the replies were for children 0-2 years old when autism may not have yet been diagnosed or developed, so calculating an average overall incidence of 0.57% is incorrect.
If you look at all the age groups >2 years old the autism incidence ranges from 0.63 to 2.36%, with most being in the range 1-2%, the population size was about 3500 replies.
My main criticism is a self selected population with potentially varying diagnostic criteria, but on these data the incidence of autism in unvaccinated children seems to match vaccinated children

Heidi N

The kids I see that don't have vaccines appear to have much more awareness, no hyperness at all, and have a full range of emotions. They remind me of the babies I saw many years ago before the autism/ADHD epidemic.


I wonder if we will ever see a study like this in a peer review journal.... bwhahahahah! probably not. Big Pharma has too much to lose

Katie Ott

I haven't vaccinated my almost 7 month old twin boys, and they are very healthy, and no one can believe they were preemies. I opted for a no drug labor and delivery, and they were healthy out of the shoot! A little small at birth (5 lbs each), but never needed anything but a little help learning to eat. One had a minor cold that I got, and really no fever or anything, just needed extra snuggles. It was gone in a day and a half.


P.S.: I think you got confused by looking at the data based on different age groups.
0.57% applies overall. One thing to note is that most children were under 2 in the survey so an autism diagnosis that early might not be possible. A larger study is really needed.


Sarah, I see 0.57% for autism roughly half of the rate seen in vaccinated children.
Note also that many who are not vaccinating are doing it because they have a child with autism already and these families have an increased likelihood of another child having autism as well. These numbers could be much lower in a larger survey and the cases are less severe as noted already. I hope this helps.


Help! What am I doing wrong trying to read these graphs? The one titled autism in UNVACCINATED children shows autism percentages above the commonly accepted level in vaccinated children, but in the full study, which also shows a similar graphic, they say only 4 children in the study had severe autism. Are the graphs supposed to be the levels in vaccinated children? What am I missing here? Does this study show higher rates of autism among the unvaccinated?


I actually received a call from the CDC (after receiving a letter) regarding a study on vaccinated children. Unfortunately, I don't think it will be very effective because part of the questionnaire is: tell us who has provided medical treatment for your child in the last 2 years. They contact info. That means parents of unvaccinated children will be ratting out their doctors etc. So, when I refused to give them info they terminated the survey. So sad....


Be prepared to be attacked by others...


Victor, I doubt it. The CDC will hunker down even more and will resist further studies.
Only public outrage and congressional push will help. This study should be widely circulated and used to demand a fax/unvax study in the US.

victor pavlovic

Well done, now we have a survey, that should quite some of the misguided people who think vaccines are safe, and essential for good health.I believe this will make them think twice.

Adam M

I knew it ! I knew it ! I knew it !

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

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

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

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

Your Information

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