Two Senators Call for Hide No Harm Act for Execs Who Conceal Product Dangers
Still Crazy?

Dachel Media Update: Time Teaches More Fear to Parents RE Vaccine Compliance

Online newsBy Anne Dachel OurKids ad 2013

Read Anne's commentary and view the links after the jump.  The Dachel Media Update is sponsored by Lee Silsby Compounding Pharmacy and their OurKidsASD brand. 

The folks at TIME Magazine have outdone themselves promoting the idea that no matter how bloated the current vaccination schedule has become, it's never a problem.  Markham Heid, (someone TIME says, "writes about health, nutrition, fitness, and lifestyle topics for and other national magazines and media outlets,") presents a jumbled assortment of experts and their claims about the safety and efficacy of vaccination.

In the July 16 story, Spacing Out Kids' Vaccines Can Hurt Their Health, Experts Say,  Heid lines up three experts who fully support vaccines:

Dr. Michael J. Smith, a pediatrician at the University of Louisville,  Dr. Jessica Brian, a developmental psychologist at the University of Toronto, and Dr. Simon Hambidge, a professor of pediatrics and epidemiology at the University of Colorado. 

Heid writes, "According to Brian's research, those children who did not receive their shots on time or altogether were slightly more likely to develop autism. 'I don't want to suggest that vaccines offer some protection against autism," she says. "But our data show that there's no increased risk of autism among kids who are vaccinated on time.'"

What is that supposed to mean?  How can an expert make this claim and not give us the details that support it?  Just how ignorant and gullible are parents expected to be?

Both Dr. Smith and Dr. Hambidge are worried about unvaccinated children getting measles.

Hambidge downplays sides effects like febrile seizures and cautions that getting the measles is far more risky.

Smith: "Vaccines are one of the most rigorously tested and effective health products on the planet. Nothing involving them is done lightly."

Heid cites false information from the Internet as the reason parents are leery of vaccinating their children. "Brian, Smith and other vaccine researchers repeatedly point to the Internet as a source of misinformation and, in some cases, unsubstantiated fear mongering when it comes to vaccines."

NOTE TO MARKHAM HEID, DRS. SMITH, HAMBIDGE, AND BRIAN AND ALL THE EDITORS AT TIME:  The public can easily see this ridiculous article for the propaganda piece that it clearly is.  Yes, the Internet is a threat to the medical community and members of the media who only give us pretend science on vaccines. 

The Internet has educated us.  It's connected us to INDEPENDENT experts who don't believe that a one-size-fits-all vaccination can possibly be safe.

Heid should actually do what a reporter is supported to do---RESEARCH HIS MATERIAL.  Heid lets Brian make the absurd claim that vaccinated kids are less likely to have autism, hoping it seems that readers will buy it because a doctor says it. 

To all those involved in this pharma ad disguised as a news story, WE KNOW WHAT YOU'RE NOT TELLING US....

We know that the vaccine schedule more than tripled after 1983 without a single study on the cumulative effect of so many vaccines so soon.

We know that there are toxic ingredients like aluminum, mercury, and formaldehyde used in vaccines and they've never been tested by FDA.

We know that neither the doctor nor the vaccine makers has any liability for damages from vaccines.

We know that while publicly denying any link, the federal government has been compensating children for vaccine injuries that included autism for the past two decades.

We know that any parent who has a child injured by a vaccine has to file a claim with the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program where they're up against government lawyers defending the government's vaccine schedule using government money.  The few parents who've won report that it was a torturous ordeal taking seven to fourteen years to get compensation. 

We know that health officials have adamantly refused to call for the one study that could settle this issue: a simple comparison of fully-vaccinated and never-vaccinated children. 

We know that every one of the "dozens of subsequent studies" showing no link between vaccines and autism has been shown to have pharmaceutical industry ties.

We know that HHS conceded the vaccine injury case of Hannah Poling, a normal, healthy child who dramatically regressed into autism after receiving nine vaccines in a single doctor's visit.

We know that being vaccinated doesn't prevent measles.  An article from the Financial Post in Canada on May 1, 2014 had one of the top vaccine experts in the U.S., Dr. Greg Poland at the Mayo Clinic, saying that the measles vaccine wears off.  He was highly critical of the effectiveness current vaccine.

We know that one of the top autism experts in the country, Dr. Judy Van de Water at the MIND Institute at UC-Davis, has expressed her concerns about vaccines.   "'Some vaccines, such as those aimed at viral infections, are designed to ramp up the immune system at warp speed,' she says. 'They are designed to mimic the infection. So you can imagine getting nine at one time, how sick you could be.'

"In addition, she says, there's some evidence, that children who develop autism may have immune systems that are particularly slow to mature. Van de Water worries that current vaccine schedules may be overly aggressive for some children. She suggests that parents who are concerned about vaccine safety ask their pediatricians to give fewer at a time. And, she adds, don't vaccinate a child when he or she is ill."

TIME won't convince anyone that vaccines are safe with stories like this.  Parents are worried about autism.  They've heard enough about the link from parents who've experienced it firsthand.  They also know that the media can't be trusted to give us the facts.  They willingly buy into each press release from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  Each time the autism rate takes another gigantic leap ahead, they happily tell us it's just more better diagnosing of a genetic disorder that's always been around.  Each time the CDC produces yet another study showing no link between their ever-expanding vaccine schedule and autism, they eagerly tell us the news.   

The media continues to give us the same tired defense of vaccines while telling us that autism is just something we celebrate every April with blue lights.

Lee Silsby logo 09 The Dachel Media Update is sponsored by Lee Silsby Compounding Pharmacy and their OurKidsASD brand.  Lee Silsby Compounding Pharmacy is one of the largest and most respected compounding pharmacies in the country. They use only the finest quality chemicals and equipment to prepare our patients’ compounded medications and nutritional supplements. Customizing medication and nutritional supplements for our customers allows them to achieve their unique health goals.

Anne Dachel Book CoverAnne Dachel is Media Editor for Age of Autism and author of  The Big Autism Cover-Up: How and Why the Media Is Lying to the American Public, which goes on sale this Fall from Skyhorse Publishing.



Kurt N. Woeller, D.O.

The sad reality is that for some kids vaccines, or at least some of the vaccines, continue to be a problem with autism regression. Despite the public healths firm stance that the MMR vaccine does not cause issues, or the pediatric medical community stating that autism has nothing to do with immunizations, I still continue to see kids who clearly regressed after various vaccines. Unfortunately, it is just to simplistic to brush away the vaccine discussion all together.


I read this when it came out in TIME and I could not believe my eyes! Where that vaccine pusher states that NOT getting vaccines may lead to autism and then backs off of it in the next sentences and sites her data but gives nothing else - give me a break! TIME is like the STAR magazine....who cares if facts are checked? As long as it is written down in a magazine it MUST be true...NOT!


@Godfrey Wyl

That abstract seems full of the usual wordplay where "nonimmunized" really just means one or more vaccines being delayed or declined, i.e. anything short of fully vaccinated on schedule. So their reference to autism rates in "immunized" vs "nonimmunized" seems misleading if not dishonest.

I've also long suspected that partially vaccinated children will demonstrate an excessively high rate of vaccine-related injury due to a strong selection bias: they likely include an abnormally high makeup of the most susceptible children who react most noticeably and correspondingly to vaccine insults. Such children are biased toward ending up in this group because it is easier for their parents to make the connection (or, rather, more difficult for them to miss it and/or be cowed into ignoring it) and cease vaccinating, though often not early enough to prevent sustained damage.

Because of this bias, I suspect that partially vaccinated groups might have the highest rate of injury, even more so than fully vaccinated groups. This would be especially true of younger siblings of vaccine-damaged children: it further increases the odds of parents making the connection and ceasing vaccination partway.

Given this potential bias, a comparison of "immunized" vs "nonimmunized" (which is mostly partially immunized younger siblings) is especially dubious.

Godfrey Wyl
"Heid writes, 'According to Brian's research, those children who did not receive their shots on time or altogether were slightly more likely to develop autism. "I don't want to suggest that vaccines offer some protection against autism," she says. "But our data show that there's no increased risk of autism among kids who are vaccinated on time."'

"What is that supposed to mean? How can an expert make this claim and not give us the details that support it?"

The reference is probably to this, unless they have accrued a larger sample in the meantime. The paper is behind a paywall, so I cannot see the exact numbers.


Makes me glad that I let our Time magazine subscription lapse. Anyone who blindly supports vaccines will not get support from me.

BoB Moffitt

The Time's "article" provides more evidence of why once prestigious media resources .. such as .. TIME .. no longer have the readership to remain viable .. which probably explains why they have become so dependent on advertising dollars rather than purchases of the magazine.

There is no way that TIME is going to publish articles that dare question the "safety and efficiency" of one of their most valuable ADVERTISERS.

Indeed, it appears TIME advertisers have become TIME reporters.

Ernest Dempsey

Great article and I am happy that it mentions Time magazine's vaccine-promotion. What shouldn't go unnoticed is the fact that Time publishes full-page ads of various vaccines. Can it claim objectivity while openly benefiting from the business of vaccination?

False scientists make me laugh

What a stupid article by Dr. Brian and TIME. Canada doesn't have hep b at birth shots for starters.


This type of self-satisfied reporting reminds me of stories leading up to the Iraq war where reporters from Time, and other prestigious media outlets just took dictation from the government. Later it turned out to be misleading and erroneous. I am not sure when reporters decided that authorities have no biases and nothing to hide. As for Iraq, when a review was later done of the reporting on the war, it turned out that two reporters from the Midwest who had no inside sources or other such supposed advantages had the most accurate reporting of all the newspapers studied. They just read the material and did their own research. I wish some more writers would try this novel approach with the vaccine schedule.

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.)