Dachel Media Update: New Jersey Expands Autism Treatment to Adults
Dachel Media Update: California Sneetches - Vaxed UnVaxed

Foundation for Pediatric Health Asks Why CDC Has Not Studied 1st Year Vax & Autism Rates

By Scott Laster, Communications Director, Foundation For Pediatric Health

The Foundation For Pediatric Health (FFPH) is highlighting the fact that the CDC hasn't studied the first-year vaccines (particularly Hib and HepB) to compare autism rates in children who received vs didn't receive these vaccines.  (Click photo to increase size.) FPH

FFPH has conducted a review of the studies listed on the "Vaccines Do Not Cause Autism” page of the CDC website, as well as other studies that have been performed, and concluded that none of the studies compared autism rates in a group that was vaccinated with Hib or HepB to the rate in a group that did not receive these vaccines.

Since these studies have not been performed, parents should have the right to choose on vaccination. FFPH issued a challenge letter to California Senators Pan and Allen to produce just one study of Hib or HepB vaccine that compares autism in vaccinated versus unvaccinated that finds no association. FFPH also sent a letter to each of the California Assembly Members to point out that Senators Pan and Allen have not responded to the challenge.

The CDC is disingenuous in boldly claiming on its website that “Vaccines Do Not Cause Autism.”  A quick review of their referenced studies clearly shows that most vaccines have not been studied by the CDC for an association with autism. Why haven’t the other vaccines been studied?  Dr. William Thompson, a senior CDC vaccine researcher who invoked whistleblower status in 2014 and provided evidence to Congress that the CDC intentionally hid data showing a link between vaccines and autism in the MMR and thimerosal studies, stated about further research: “[CDC researchers] are not doing what they should be doing because they’re afraid to look for things that might be associated [with autism].”  The CDC has no credibility on the vaccine-autism studies they’ve performed, and no credibility on their implication that all vaccines have been studied.

If the Hib vaccine or HepB vaccine causes autism, then the risk of the vaccine is quantitatively higher than the risk of injury or death from the disease prior to vaccine introduction.  See FFPH one-pager talking points for more details.

  • Pre-vaccine for Hepatitis B disease:  1 in 200,000 risk of acute Hepatitis B in children ages 1-4 [1]
  • Pre-vaccine for Hib disease:  1 in 106,000 risk of death and 1 in 10,200 risk of injury [2][3][4]
  • Autism risk after introduction of Hib & HepB vaccines:  1 in 68 [5]

Please visit the Find Out Who Cares website to learn about the ongoing awareness campaign.  Reference documentation can also be viewed at the Foundation For Pediatric Health resources section. 

[1] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Shapiro CN, McCaig LF, Gensheimer KF, Levy ME, Stoddard JJ, Kane MA, Hadler SC. Hepatitis B virus transmission between children in day care. Pediatr Infec Dis J. 1989 Dec; 8(12):870-5.

[2] Schoendorf, K., Adams, W., Kiely, J., Wenger, J.  National Trends in Haemophilus influenzae Meningitis Mortality and Hospitalization Among Children, 1980 through 1991.  Pediatrics.  1994; 93: 663-668.

[3] Peltola H. Worldwide Haemophilus influenzae type b disease at the beginning of the 21st century: global analysis of the disease burden 25 years after the use of the polysaccharide vaccine and a decade after the advent of conjugates. Clinical Microbiology Reviews 2000;13:302–17.

[4] Ladhani S, Heath PT, Aibara RJ, Ramsay ME, Slack MPE, Hibberd ML, Pollard AJ, Moxon ER, Booy R.  Long-term complications and risk of other serious infections following invasive Haemophilus influenza serotype b disease in vaccinated children.   Vaccine 2010;28:2195-2200.  doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2009.12.057

[5] CDC autism prevalence study for the 2002 birth year. http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2014/p0327-autism-spectrum-disorder.html





Who is behind FFPH? The website doesn't say.

Jeannette Bishop

Thank you, FFPH, for seeking a response from Pan and Allen to some of the oversights in U.S. vaccine safety that are more the norm than not. I wonder, just from facial expressions in a few youTube videos (not a lot to go on), if Senator Allen might be most open to seriously reflecting on this?

OT, just to share, I've almost spammed this link (SB277recalls.com), with no personal connection, partly hoping to get more information ...
just found some info here in an interview by Tim Donnelly of Lauren Stephens @ 1:05:20:


John Stone

Going from memory when I first wrote to the UK Department of Health c.2000 about the manifest local rise in autism (coincidentally this was N. London like the Taylor paper) they sent it to me as if the only thing on their mind was the rebuttal of Andrew Wakefield, though I had mentioned neither him or MMR. They were apparently so backed into a corner over Wakefield that sending me a paper that showed autism had risen by 24 times between the birth cohorts of 1979 and 1992 was a slight matter. As I also commented under my recent article on the Scottish figures the DH are like a vehicle without breaks or even steering lurching ever forward: they just enable the industry, hence the ever expanding schedule and an ever more effective culture of denialism - they just can't stop.


In 1990 it was already well established that the DPT (particularly the pertussis component) was a dangerous vaccine but they had managed to bury the fact (it was no longer a live issue in the media). This history was recorded in the memoirs of the founder of the British yellow card scheme, Bill Inman. So, what did they do, they brought schedule forward so even younger infants were exposed!!! The two problems here were that politicians like to engage in magical thinking (and were just being told what they wanted to believe) and there was no effective means to hold the DH to account.


@ Jeannette Bishop:
I have to wonder how our family was chosen?
Always suspicious when I get random survey calls from the CDC or NIH.
Oh, for the days when I was not some conspiracy nut job!

Peter Miles

Many thanks, FFPH. Our son was vaccinated within hours of birth with HepB in 1991 (Ontario, Canada) and had a reaction. This wasn't immediately identified (sound familiar?) and it wasn't until much later we compared his symptoms with the published list of severe reactions. He developed severe jaundice and was in the hospital for over a week after birth, so the doctors and nurses had plenty of time to identify his symptoms but didn't. The next year, 1992, Ontario changed the vaccine schedule to give HepB at 2 months and NOT BEFORE 6 WEEKS (my emphasis) with no published explanation. This tells me that the knowledge is already there but hidden from public view. It may not be a "peer reviewed" study, but "anecdotal evidence" supplied by a number of doctors, however it was strong enough evidence to make a change to the vaccine schedule. No doubt some spin doctors would have been tasked with the development of a rationale that avoided taking correlation with severe reactions seriously and there would have been a spurious reason like avoiding needle jabs in the very young. I look forward to the day when more whistleblowers get the guts to follow Dr Thompson in both industry and government and open up this very messy can of worms.

John Stone

Note Figure 1 in Brent Taylor's MMR/autism paper (Lancet) from 1999 was supposed to show that autism was not related to the introduction of MMR in North London in 1988 and shows a sustained rise in autism in birth cohorts between 1979 and 1992. He fails, however, to note various confounders. Increased uptake of DPT and measles vaccines prior to the introduction of MMR; MMR catch campaigns involving children born before 1987; accelerated DPT schedule in 1990 moving vaccination forward from 3,5,10 months to 2,3,4 months; and finally introduction of HiB in 1992.



One lunacy we have so far been spared in the UK is routine Hep B.



Jeannette Bishop


I have no real idea of how these things work, but I wonder if you were to put "strongly agree" if you would be more likely to be polled on vaccine issues in the future?

Why wasn't the AAP leading the charge?

Why wasn't the AAP leading on this? More and more the actual health OTHS look awful and not only that but culpable.


I received a Health Information National Trends survey in the mail this week - from the NIH - or HHS along with a brand new crisp two dollar bill for my trouble for filling it out.

It is mostly about smoking- Who do I listen to for information- who do I trust to get information from - Only one question in the middle of the survey was asked however.

Vaccines that I get are tested to see if they are safe before they go on the market.

What say you which answer I put down strongly agree; Agree; Disagree; strongly disagree?

There was also some Whom do you trust questions. My response was that the NIH, FDA where in the same category as a big tobacco company

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.)