To parents whose child suffers from vaccine-induced autism, public health policymakers’ claims of protecting children ring hollow. Paradoxically many parents now feel they must protect themselves and their families from myopic and insular agency administrators unresponsive to consumer reports of adverse reactions to vaccines.
One example came last fall from Dr. Marie McCormick of the Harvard School of Public Health, who claimed that children with autism are especially in need of immunization in order to “protect them.”
On November 2 HSPH held a forum (webcast here) entitled “Trust In Vaccines: Why It Matters.” The event was held to discuss “the importance of immunization, the safety of vaccines, and the consequences of vaccine hesitancy.” Vaccines were described as a “cost-effective stalwart” and a “target for misinformation.” (One might argue, though, that said misinformation began with the event’s one-sided promotional description, which predictably omitted mention of vaccines’ limitations and failures.)
One of four “expert participants,” McCormick is a professor of maternal and child health at Harvard. Near the forum’s end, at 56:54, an online question was read to the moderated panel:
“With the surprising volume of science and medical evidence that shows a large percentage of children with Autism Spectrum Disease have a range of immune system dysfunction indicators, i.e. physiology, neurology and genetics, can the panel comment on whether continuing investigation should look at how vaccines may intersect to change the trajectory of ASD development, rather than the cause?”
Oddly, the members of the panel responded with nervous laughter; they then looked to McCormick to respond, and off she went. “I actually think that’s asking the question the wrong way,” McCormick said. “First of all, there is no evidence that I know of that says immunization alters anything in the expression of autism. I just – I don’t.
“But I think – the point that the question makes, that there are a broad range of children with neurodevelopmental disabilities. And if you think that the nervous system also regulates your immune system, then it’s not surprising that if you have something wrong in one area that you may have some immune dysfunction.
“What I think IS important is that the evidence clearly suggests that these children are far more vulnerable to infectious diseases than children who do not have neurodevelopmental disabilities. There was a paper published last year about the mortality and morbidity rates among children with neurodevelopmental disabilities due to influenza. And so the fact is that the risk of not immunizing in the context of neurodevelopmental disabilities is really quite severe – that these kids are more vulnerable to these conditions, and really should be immunized because, in order to protect them.”
“Should be immunized… in order to protect them.” That is the unending, unexamined, one-size-fits-all public health mantra, despite tens of thousands of families reporting their children’s onset of regressive autism following vaccination. And despite ever-increasing cases of ADD/ADHD, allergies, asthma, autoimmune disorders… and that’s just the A’s.
Dr. McCormick is being disingenuous when she insists that “no evidence that I know of that says immunization alters anything in the expression of autism.” If the stumble in her voice is any indication, she’s heard of the Hannah Poling case in the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. She must know about the Zimmerman report locked up by the U.S. Department of Justice; to whit: “[T]he vaccinations CHILD received on July 19, 2000, significantly aggravated an underlying mitochondrial disorder, which predisposed her deficits in cellular energy metabolism, and manifested as a regressive encephalopathy with features of autism spectrum disorder....”)
As per McCormick’s comment about the intersection of nervous and immune systems, just one example is the purposely misreported 2006 study on the mercury-based vaccine preservative Thimerosal: “A team of cell biologists, toxicologists and molecular bioscientists at UC Davis has published a study connecting thimerosal with disruptions in antigen-presenting cells known as dendritic cells obtained from mice…. ‘Even one rogue dendritic cell can activate many inappropriate immune responses.’”)
What public health has institutionalized is a circular perpetuity of health damage. First, the body is injected with substances that disrupt one’s natural immune system, making one more vulnerable to diseases. Then when public morbidity and mortality increase, call for more vaccines.
The vicious cycle of government mandated vaccine-induced immune dysfunction is like a mob shakedown – first you take a pounding from one group of white-coated wise guys, then their union goons insist that you need protection. You pay… dearly.
Published studies of health disorders linked to vaccines include thimerosal-induced inflammation and apoptosis, calcium channel disruption, mitochondrial dysfunction, autoimmune disorders, developmental disabilities after the hepatitis B vaccine, oxidative stress, neuronal insult, and more. Yet according to McCormick, vaccine skepticism arises because consumers just don’t understand how vaccine policymaking committees work.
“I don’t think people appreciate how much work goes into that system,” McCormick said. She referred to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System as “an early warning system that anybody can report to,” though in working reality VAERS has devolved into a de facto data morgue.
McCormick also implied that because some non-government or non-industry individuals sit on vaccine policy committees, it follows that those committees are truly independent bodies acting in the best interest of all consumers. However one need only read the minutes of NVAC, ACIP and other committees to quickly conclude that the minority opinions from members of the general public are unwanted and ignored.
Years ago public health policymakers were tasked with examining evidence linking autism to vaccination, and deciding how to handle their findings. In the leaked minutes of a 2001 Institute of Medicine planning meeting that led to the infamous 2004 “no link” pronouncement, McCormick initially had suggested the following data analysis parameters:
“It is safety on a population basis but it is also safety for the individual child. I am wondering, if we take this dual perspective, we may address more of the parental concerns, perhaps developing a better message if we think what comes down the stream as opposed to CDC, which wants us to declare, well, these things are pretty safe on a population basis. I offer that as one strategy as we take this dual track.”
Unfortunately that proposed “dual track” of adverse event study was abandoned before the train could leave the station. Though in 2010 the health advocacy group SafeMinds provided 18 pages of additions to the IOM research pool, the subsequent 2011 IOM Report on Vaccine Adverse Effects denied any vaccine/autism link – protecting bureaucrats and pharmaceutical companies, and ensuring that more infants, children and adults would become victims of vaccines for many years to come.
The World Vaccine Congress and Expo meets April 16-18 in Washington, DC. The list of exhibitors and list of speakers make clear just how profitable the vaccine racket has been, and intends to be, for its insiders. But what about consumers? Forget about it. Bada bing, bada boom.
Nancy Hokkanen is Contributing Editor to Age of Autism.