Dachel Media Update: Wisconsin Bill Would Prevent Vaccine Opt-out For Children
Dachel Media Update: The Meaning of Autism "Screening"

The True Data Revealed: Adult Autism Data Fabrication in the United Kingdom Part 3

Dept Health UKBy John Stone

In part 1 of this series I examined the desperate attempt of National Health Service  in the UK to locate a hidden horde of adults replicating the numbers in the child population in its survey of adult psychiatric morbidity in England 2007-9. In the end using non-standard and diluted psychiatric testing tools they managed to find only 19 cases, less than a third of the one per cent figure they were looking for and postulated that they had mislaid most of the cases (which notwithstanding were held to be there and accounted for). This is only to give a brief summary of this extraordinarily ramshackle project which was carried out to be incorporated in National Statistics (which in turn became a reference point for US National Institute of Mental Health director Thomas Insel).  (Part 2 is here.)

Where the autism problem was beginning to show was in the childhood surveys conducted for National Statistics (there seem to be two such documents, one for 1999 and one for 2004 but not subsequently). In the survey conducted in 1999 between January and May from approx. 10,500 interviews they discovered a rate of PDD of 0.2% (i.e. 1 in 500) among 11-15 year-olds and 0.4% (i.e. 1 in 250) among 5-10 year-olds (Table 4.1). It should be noted that with these children, who would have been monitored by the same services, you would expect if the rate was stable for the older group to have a higher rate of diagnosis (the older they were the more likely they would be to get one) but in fact it was lower.

The same pattern is evident in the survey carried out between March and June 2004 from approx. 8,000 children. In the older group now 11-16 year-olds and classified as ASD the rate is 0.8% (1 in 125), also Table 4.1 in this document. This would be roughly the same birth cohort as the younger group in the earlier survey and the fact that rate has now doubled may be partly explained by the fact that they are older and will therefore be more likely to have a diagnosis, but it also has to be allowed that the study group is different and that may be a variable. But again the younger group of 5 to 10 year-olds have a higher rate of 1% despite not having had as long to get a diagnosis (notable also that remarkably few girls in this cohort have a diagnosis). In both cases autism disorder whether PDD or ASD is listed as “a less common disorder”. However, we note a five-fold rise between those born between 1983-88 and those born between 1994-1999 despite the fact that former group had had longer to get a diagnosis - so the position was undoubtedly worse than immediately visible.

At this point we may turn to Baron-Cohen’s long suppressed study of 5-9 year-olds in Cambridgeshire studied in 2003-4, a very similar group perhaps to the younger cohort in 2004 study. This study, which provoked a vicious and unprincipled establishment backlash when a story was published about it in 2007  in The Observer (just before the corrupt General Medical Council proceedings against Wakefield and colleagues), showed that the figure of 1% in the National Statistic cohort was more or less replicated but there would be a further two cases for every three already identified. In 2007 The Observer reported a figure of 1 in 58: when the study was finally published two years later a figure was given of 157 in 10,000 or 1 in 64, still a lot higher than National Statistics figure for children (and suggesting a nearly eight-fold rise from the older group in the first set of National Statistics). Here it is from the abstract:

The prevalence estimates generated from the SEN register and diagnosis survey were 94 per 10 000 and 99 per 10 000 respectively. A total of 11 children received a research diagnosis of an autism-spectrum condition following screening and assessment. The ratio of known:unknown cases is about 3:2 (following statistical weighting procedures). Taken together, we estimate the prevalence to be 157 per 10 000, including previously undiagnosed cases.

It follows that if the authors of the Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey of 2007 were looking to replicate the 1% figure of 2004 children’s survey, not only had that figure moved on, but they had little expectation of matching it by any conventional means. The older children from 1999 children’s study, now adults, had only registered an incidence of 1 in 500 and being older they would be relatively well diagnosed. In the end even pioneering new tests which might have a propensity to throw up more diagnoses by relaxing the criteria did not get them very far, and they had to postulate that they had missed most of the cases (while insisting that they were really there). It is also troubling that there was no follow up to the 2004 children’s mental health survey: given what that might have revealed about a former “less common disorder” – no survey for 2009, no survey for 2014, or any other year.

There are two striking features to this story. The first is that until we come to the Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey of 2007 and its autism off-shoot of 2009 the data seems to be relatively consistent, though frightening. Secondly, the point that young people are more likely to acquire a diagnosis as they get older is a firm underlying theme of this data. But also if we look at the children surveys of 1999 and 2004 we must consider that the older children were being monitored by the same services as the younger and there was no particular reason why cases would have been missed - and they get more difficult to miss as they get older. There was no identifiable discontinuity, just a strong upward trend: in the 1983-88 birth cohort it is 0.2%, in 1989-94 cohort it is 0.7/8% and in the post 1994 cohort about 1.6%. When they saw this they stopped counting (there was a major official tantrum over media coverage for the Cambridgeshire survey, which had almost given the game away) and the phantom adult horde was moved into position: the adult prevalence was announced as 1%, and the child prevalence was frozen at 1% (2004 figures) before it inevitably went up again as the unpublished Baron-Cohen's paper had predicted it would (and just as the numbers had gone up for the 1989-94 cohort between the 1999 and 2004 publications).

Our officials, protecting their own backs and their friends in the pharmaceutical industry, have a lot to answer for. They could toss all the blame on to Andrew Wakefield but no one knew better what was really happening to our children than they did. In 2007 Baron-Cohen denied the story, The Observer was forced to  retract the report, and the editor lost his job. In 2009 the paper - substantially corroborating what had been reported by The Observer in 2007 - was published amid zero mainstream publicity.



PS These were some comments I made to a friend about this off site:

In the mid 90s our local authority was forced to begin developing a new kind of provision, for a largely new group of children - it was a practical issue. While they were closing down special provision for children with various difficulties and putting them into mainstream they were by no means similar to the new group. Even the old severe learning difficulty schools were not geared to dealing with the new intake.

From the late 90s the local authority was coming under increasing political/ideological pressure from central government to keep a lid on special educational needs. They were under pressure from the other direction because the cases were so badly in need of support. It was certainly not because they were recognising odd little quirks which had been passed over in ealier generations.

John Stone is UK Editor for Age of Autism.



John Stone

Planet Autism

Many thanks. Yes, indeed, I remember this document.

Some very interesting corroborating figures here. Also, the commentary:


Does this give credence to those who claim that we are witnessing an ‘autism epidemic’?

Many experts believe that perceived increases in the number of people with autism are better attributed
to improved diagnosis, although it remains the case that the quality of autism diagnosis and assessment
is patchy and variable. If it is indeed true that diagnosis has improved in recent years, what does this
mean for the children now in secondary school who remain undiagnosed or misdiagnosed? How many
of the children currently being excluded from mainstream secondary schools might be found on
assessment to have an autism spectrum disorder? Improving the level of autism awareness and training
in secondary schools would seem to be the only way to verify whether there has been a real increase in
the incidence of autism in the primary years. It will also enable young people who are currently
struggling through their teenage years, undiagnosed, to access vital support.
Whatever the cause, the consequence of this finding is that secondary schools will shortly be faced
with higher numbers of children with autism spectrum disorders than they have previously
experienced. Each additional child will pose challenges of educational and social integration,
whether they have high-functioning autism or Asperger syndrome, or low-functioning autism with
accompanying learning difficulties. This prospect is of particular concern: the familiar routine
and friendly environment of many primary schools is comforting for children with autism, whereas
the requirement for independence, and the noise and disruption, at secondary level can prove greatly
challenging to their behaviour and self-esteem.

‘We are very concerned about provision in secondary schools. We have had children in the past
who have found transition very difficult.’ (LEA Mainstream Junior)

The "better diagnosis" hypothesis was already being trotted out, but it was red-herring. There is absolutely no reason why the professionals dealing with failing children at secondary level would not have been alert to the possibility of Asperger syndrome or high functioning autism given the many cases being diagnosed at a younger age. Your would simple expect more cases. But they are stating in 2002 that the rate for five local authorities is 1 in 80 at primary level (11 or under) and 1 in 268 at secondary level (12 or over). A completely disastrous situation which the NAS subsequently did everything they could to paper over.

Incidentally, two year before this I had tried to write an article about this in a national newspaper. One of the authors of this publication briefed against me and I was even accused by the health editor of lying. It was a devastating experience, but that's the NAS. It is a snapshot of the moment when briefly they had to admit for istitutional reasons that they had a little problem - like mass injury tto the population.

Planet Autism

@John Stone, this seems to be the NAS 2002 Survey sent to schools:

(cached version, PDF can be downloaded if you Google):

"Autism in schools crisis or challenge?"



The point of this comment is to explain why all studies to date which looked for a correlation between specific vaccines and autistic conditions are invalid and cannot be cited reliably to claim there is no causal association between vaccines in general and autistic conditions.

In other words, there is an absence of reliable scientific evidence to support the claim vaccines do not cause autistic conditions. There are however in contrast specific admissions from US health agencies and officials that vaccines do cause autistic conditions.

The chart we posted here earlier [February 17, 2016 at 05:18 AM] adapted from the Jick and Kaye 2001 peer reviewed paper shows that all studies looking only at MMR vaccine and autistic conditions would never find a correlation between just that one vaccine and an increase in autistic conditions.

This is because all vaccines are implicated and not just one so any effect from MMR vaccine would be hidden by the effect of all the other vaccines.

That any vaccine can cause an autistic condition was acknowledged publicly by the US HRSA in 2008 and by Julie Gerberding, the CDC Director and later Merck's Director of Vaccines Division.

They admitted any vaccine can cause an encephalopathy resulting in an autistic condition or if a child has a mitochondrial dysfunction.

See the quotes below:

From an mail May 5th 2008 from the US HRSA to CBS News reporter Sharyl Attkisson:

"We have compensated cases in which children exhibited an encephalopathy, or general brain disease. Encephalopathy may be accompanied by a medical progression of an array of symptoms including autistic behavior, autism, or seizures.

Email Feb 20, 2009 from US HRSA to New York journalist David Kirby:
"The government has never compensated, nor has it ever been ordered to compensate, any case based on a determination that autism was actually caused by vaccines.

We have compensated cases in which children exhibited an encephalopathy, or general brain disease. Encephalopathy may be accompanied by a medical progression of an array of symptoms including autistic behavior, autism, or seizures.

Some children who have been compensated for vaccine injuries may have shown signs of autism before the decision to compensate, or may ultimately end up with autism or autistic symptoms, but we do not track cases on this basis.

The President of Merck’s Vaccines Division, Julie Gerberding confirmed to CBS News when she was Director of the US Centres for Disease Control that:
"Now, we all know that vaccines can occasionally cause fevers in kids. So if a child was immunized, got a fever, had other complications from the vaccines. And if you’re predisposed with the mitochondrial disorder, it can certainly set off some damage. Some of the symptoms can be symptoms that have characteristics of autism.
HOUSE CALL WITH DR. SANJAY GUPTA – Unraveling the Mystery of Autism; Talking With the CDC Director; Stories of Children with Autism; Aging with Autism – Aired March 29, 2008 – 08:30   ET

The first known cause of autism was rubella virus

rubella (congenital rubella syndrome) is one of the few proven causes of autism.”  Walter A. Orenstein, M.D. US as Assistant Surgeon General, Director National Immunization Program in a letter to the UK’s Chief Medical Officer 15 February 2002.
rubella virus is one of the few known causes of autism.” US Center for Disease Control. http://www.cdc.gov/nip/vacsafe/concerns/autism/autism-mmr.htm" target="_blank">“FAQs
(frequently asked questions) about MMR Vaccine & Autism”  [search in or scroll down the page to see the text]. 
rubella can cause autismThe Pediatrician’s Role in the Diagnosis and Management of Autistic Spectrum Disorder in Children – PEDIATRICS Vol. 107 No. 5 May 2001

Journal references:

Chess, S. Autism in children with congenital rubella. J Autism Child Schizophr. 1, 33-47 (1971).
Chess S. Follow-up report on autism in congenital rubella. J Autism Child Schizophr. 1977;7:69 –81
Ziring PR. Congenital rubella: the teenage years. Pediatr Ann. 1997;6: 762–770

John Stone

It may be mentioned in relation to Robin's comment that in 1998 when a an NHS news conference published the survey it was designed as a public rebuttal of the MMR hypothesis. So, what do you conclude they were most worried about if they had to fake the result.


A paper intended to show no correspondence between MMR vaccine and autistic conditions instead assists to show how with the introduction of each new vaccine there was a leap in cases of autism.

The graph above is adapted from a 2001 paper by Jick et al. The authors claimed [emphasis added]:-

“... the data provide evidence that no correlation exists between the prevalence of MMR vaccination and the rapid increase in the risk of autism over time. The explanation for the marked increase in risk of the diagnosis of autism in the past decade remains uncertain. ….. The increase ….. could be due to …… environmental factors not yet identified.

“Mumps, measles, and rubella vaccine and the incidence of autism recorded by general practitioners: a time trend analysis” BMJ 2001;322:460-463 24 February.

The data shows something different and when correlated with major changes in the UK childhood vaccination programme shows what are the most likely “environmental factors not yet identified“. With each major change to the UK’s childhood vaccination programme cases of childhood autism increased substantially.

The childhood autism risk increased three-fold for children born in 1988 and 1989 from the previous rate of between 1 and 4 in 10,000 to 12 in 10,000.

The major change: the MMR vaccine was introduced in October 1988. Routine administration was at around 15 months.

The childhood autism risk increased five-fold for children born in 1990 and 1991 to 20 in 10,000 from the pre 1988 rate of 1 to 4 in 10,000.

The major change: in May 1990 the accelerated DTP vaccine programme was introduced. British babies were given the DTP vaccine substantially earlier at 2, 3 and 4 months instead of the previous 3, 5 and 10 months: [Persistence of antibody after accelerated immunisation with diphtheria/tetanus/pertussis vaccine: 1489 BMJ VOLUME 302 22 JUNE 1991]

The childhood autism risk increased nearly eight-fold for children born in 1993 to 29 in 10,000 from the pre 1988 rate of 1 to 4 in 10,000.

The major change: the Haemophilus Influenzae b vaccine was introduced in October 1992. Routine administration was three doses at 2, 3 and 4 months. [Routine Hib Vaccine: 438 BMJ VOLUME 305 22 AUGUST 1992, Hib immunisation catch up programme in North East Thames: R17 Communicable Disease Report Vol 4 Review Number 2 4 February 1994]

It appears it was only from 1993 that most infants were vaccinated at 2, 3 and 4 months with those born earlier being vaccinated at later ages in “catch-up campaigns”. This data suggests that to reduce the risk of autism from vaccines parents should delay the age at which their children are vaccinated.

Mr James Blish

Oh well ...

Northern Ireland

"The figures provided by the Northern Ireland School Census have shown that the estimated prevalence of autism has increased by 0.9 percentage points across all Health and Social Care Trusts between 2009/10 and 2014/15, from 1.3% of the compulsory school age population to 2.2%."


"Researchers found the prevalence of ASD diagnosis before age of seven was higher (2.5 per cent) in the younger age group compared with 1.5 per cent in the older age group. In both groups parents of children with ASD reported their children had poorer quality of life and more emotional and behavioural problems than their non-ASD peers. "

I believe there's some Scottish figures lying around ...

John Stone

PS These were some comments I made to a friend about this off site:

In the mid 90s our local authority was forced to begin developing a new kind of provision, for a largely new group of children - it was a practical issue. While they were closing down special provision for children with various difficulties and putting them into mainstream they were by no means similar to the new group. Even the old severe learning difficulty schools were not geared to dealing with the new intake.

From the late 90s the local authority was coming under increasing political/ideological pressure from central government to keep a lid on special educational needs. They were under pressure from the other direction because the cases were so badly in need of support. It was certainly not because they were recognising odd little quirks which had been passed over in ealier generations.

John Stone


Yes, I like that formulation.


We're twenty odd years in this autism epidemic.

And all we've seen from the medical community, is study after study aimed at convincing the the world of the ONE thing that couldn't possibly be causing it.

If that doesn't tell you exactly what IS causing it, then you're not really interested in knowing

John Stone


I take your point about mercury amalgams (which I should have mentioned below) and the defensive strategy. But when I first started communicating with the DH over rising autism trends c.2000, I didn't mention vaccines very deliberately: they did. They even sent me the Brent Taylor study showing the trend steepling (I think by x16 between 1979 and 1992) because it ostensibly showed it wasn't the MMR (which I hadn't mentioned). At the DH my concern about rising rates of autism had morphed into their concern about defending the vaccine programme.

John Stone


I am not sure whether you are being flippant but it certainly wasn't beyond Leveson's remit to consider the behaviour of Brian Deer and the Sunday Times. Clearly, there was no surprise when the inquiry engaged in dirty tricks but there was no honourable reason why these nauseating incidents should not have been considered and exposed at the hearing:


As a matter of documentary history Leveson allowed News International to veto our evidence - whether or not it really lay in his discretion or their's. Leveson never said he could not consider the matter, he just placed the issue in the hands of News International whixh seemed to falling over backwards to help the main organisation in the dock.

But both Leveson and lead inquiry attorney Robert Jay were involved in the MMR litigation so they were conflicted anyway, and this was not disclosed..

Angus Files

Never a truer quote "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"


Robin P Clarke (end of comment)

"Denying that autism was really rising and the defence of the vaccine programme were almost identical projects from day one."

I'm not 100% sure about this, in the context we didn't have any bugs in the relevant offices at the time. Sure those two go logically together. But there's also been a clear hidden agenda of pretending that mercury hasn't been causing adult (non-autistic) disabilities either. For instance see http://dentalmerc.blogspot.co.uk/. And when I spotted behind me in the Waitrose queue a man with haematologist badge, I asked if he had heard that mercury binds with haem and stops it working. At which he INSTANTLY replied "but only at high levels". Which was a blank assertion (a) lacking in the slightest evidential basis (b) contradicted by Hal Huggins's studies. But you see there the instant denial that mercury could ever do anything (even though I hadn't said anything about where the merc might come from, and this guy was not even a pediatrician or immunologist, merely another sort of member of the national hypocrisy system).

Robin P Clarke (end of comment)

Jenny, I see some misunderstanding of how judicial inquiries work, such as Leveson. It would be beyond his remit to reopen questions already closed. Thus he would have to take as "known facts" that Wakefield was a fraud, that MMR was safe, that Deer was indeed a saint, and so on.
As for Fiona Fox, her sister Claire is the "Director of the Institute of Ideas", which was financed by Pfizer. It's a small world up there.
(Ironically Claire talks a lot of sense about some subjects, albeit only some.)

Jeannette Bishop

Thank you further! Of course, if we pull out (sort of) something we don't "know" (but do know) is unsafe at the doses used, it's perfectly fine to pile on a few more doses of other unstudied ingredients... see how that goes. I pray people soon wake up!

Thank you for all your work!

John Stone

Hi Jeanette

Oddly, thimerosal was only removed in the UK in 2004 but we'd recently had the addition of the Men C vaccine and pneumococcal vaccine was just on its way. If there was a benefit from the removal of thimerosal it was probably submerged in these other factors. I note Elizabeth Hart has been posing more and more questions about aluminium adjuvants - and that's just one issue.

Jeannette Bishop

Thank you, Mr. Stone. It is surprising (or should be) that the autism rate has not been surveyed in children born since 2000 (if I calculated correctly), especially as it was clearly not constant in prior surveys.

Has there been similar obfuscation (as in the U.S.) over the levels of thimerosal/thiomersal in UK child and infant vaccine schedule? Is it correct to say at the very least that they have not taken a survey of autism prevalence since a removal of thiomersal went into effect (I'm not certain of the year for the U.K)?

Grace Green

Viewing these facts retrospectively is very illuminating. That year 2004 keeps cropping up, when there were also things happening and being said in the USA. I remember, indeed I have kept the evidence, that the Radio Times (BBC schedules) ran a series of public information whole page ads in May 2004, describing how an autistic person views the world. This was clearly aimed at adult autistic people self identifying. It invited readers to contact NAS for more information, which I did. However, they were unable to help me get a diagnosis. I wonder if they were just registering the number of people contacting them, without actually giving any follow up.

John Stone

Hi Bob,

I can promise you that whatever the bureaucratic means the news black-out is just as effective in the UK. However, it might be harder for the agencies to control the media in this way in the US if it was not for the money.

Bob Moffit

Hi John

I agree wholeheartedly with your observation a BIG problem is the US allowing pharmaceutical companies to spend billions of dollars on "advertising" their drugs to unsuspecting and uniformed citizens in U.S. .. which they cannot do in the UK.

In addition .. we have U.S. HHS Secretary Sebiellus (sp?) requesting media be very dismissive of publishing or interviewing anyone who dares question the safety and efficiency of vaccines .. because .. vaccines are too important to allow such questions to be asked .. causing more parents to become "reluctant" to vaccinate their children.

I listened to youtube video of Dr. Humphries .. and .. I think she stated that "google" has formed a policy to seek "prior permission" from various US public and private health care "experts" .. before publishing an article the "experts" may characterize as "unscientifically anti-vaccine".

John Stone


Plainly, the BBC went into a downward spin (emphasis on the word spin) after the Hutton report on the Kelly affair in January 2004. The Director-General and the Chairman resigned and effectively the BBC was left largely in the power of the Blair government. It seems likely that their hatchet work on Wakefield shortly afterwards was inspired by this event: after that they showed no interest in any kind of fair play (I had many contacts with them at this point). They were grubby to the ears and remain so.

SMC, Sense About Science and the Living Marxist gang who run them were almost certainly always a project of the Department of Business (alias the Department of Trade of Industry alias the Board of Trade).

Jenny Allan

"Fiona Fox in 2009 chaired a UK government (Department of Business) report into the future of science reporting in the media (and basicaly as far as I can see she is just a ruthless public relations lady)."

The 'Science Media Centre' is a quasi autonomous set up; initially the stated aim was to provide 'expert' scientific advice to the media, including the BBC. SMC funding includes taxpayer funded contributions from several UK Government funded research establishments, and from BBC licence payers. Like John I am enraged by this taxpayer funded pro pharma propaganda.

The choice of Fiona Fox as 'Director'of the SMC, is as dubious as Brian Deer writing 'peer reviewed'(they weren't!) articles for the BMJ. Neither Fox nor Deer have ANY scientific credentials whatsoever. Fox was a one time member of the Socialist Revolutionary Party in the UK. In one of her articles, Fox claimed to 'love' Deer. She certainly admits to a similar enthusiasm for 'Wakefield bashing'. Fox gave MMR vaccine so called 'evidence' to the recent Leveson Inquiry. Leveson preferred her evidence to the reams of well evidenced stuff sent in by myself, John and others. Without a SHRED of real evidence, Leveson declared Dr Wakefield a 'rogue researcher' after hearing Fox's regurgitation of Deer's Murdoch articles.

The SMC was also responsible for damaging the credibility of the BBC's science programmes, perfectly well researched and presented previously. Even the biased Leveson was snippy with Fox when she stated the BBC's science coverage needed to be improved. Amongst others, our revered David Attenborough's 'Frozen Planet' was far too doom laden on so called 'global warming', leading to an episode being banned in the US, a loss to the BBC which sells these big budget programmes worldwide.

There were two disgraceful BBC programmes presented by Adam Rutherford. The Radio 4 'Science Betrayed' programme which declared the Wakefield et al Lancet paper to be on a par with a notorious student prank claiming to find a new species of Homo sapiens called 'The Piltdown Man'. Thelow down on this can be found in AoA archives.

Rutherford then went on to present a ridiculous programme about genetic moderation. The programme featured US 'spider goats' and students creating God knows what fungal and bacterial organisms in test tubes. I found out later the goats, claimed to have spider DNA in order to 'harvest' a strong thread from their milk, were part of a failed business enterprise. The BBC programme appeared to be some kind of elaborate scam to obtain investment, even although the BBC is barred from advertising.

I could go on and on, but to summarise, the corporate sponsored SMC is 'pushing' GM foods and species, Nuclear Power, Global Warming, Monsanto pesticides and herbicides, and of course Vaccines for everything.
God Help Us!!

John Stone

British Autism Mother

I don't specifically recall that survey though I was watching the NAS like a hawk in those days. It wouldn't necessarily be very helpful because autistic children did not get randomly deposited in schools and certain schools bore the brunt more heavily than others (and may have been more interested in communicating with the NAS).

An interesting figure that used to be available and long ago suppressed is how much the membership of the NAS grew over these years. If you got a diagnosis (certainly in that period) one of the first things you were likely to do was join the NAS. I don't know how it is now, but I imagine a lot of people left because it was almost completely useless.

John Stone


Absolutely. But of course if you have what is effectively six year birth cohorts it will considerably blunt the effects. In the period that we are talking about here we had additional to the UK schedule MMR in 1988, accelerated DPT in 1990, HiB in 1992, but a host of new infant vaccines followed in the new millenium (I don't exclude other factors such as organophosphates, Round Up, SSRIs). If you look at the Scottish schools figures that I covered in an ealier article you see diagnosis going from 1 in 925 in 1998 to 1 in 67 in 2013 which is 13.8 times which is blunted by the fact that you are dealing with approx 15 year birth cohorts and by now the real figure for younger students might well be ~1 in 30 (based on the recent heavy accumulation).


I also fear that with new vaccines just added to the schedule (maternal DPT, maternal flu vaccines, rotavirus, men b, children's flu vaccine from age 2) that we may be about to descend into utter chaos.

We also have to note that really the linkeage was always being made by the authorities. Denying that autism was really rising and the defence of the vaccine programme were almost identical projects from day one.

British Autism Mother

Back in 2002 the UK's National Autistic Society sent out a questionnaire directly to schools rather than through the education authorities. They had a surprisingly high number of replies (low percentages are common). The figures published were something like 1 in 80 for older secondary school pupils and 1 in 88 for the primary school pupils. The last time I tried to find this information on the NAS website I failed - I'm not always technically proficient; maybe someone else could have a go?

Ed Yazbak


Thank you for another wonderful investigation.

RE your paragraphs 2 and 3

Don't you think that the observations you so clearly define may be due to the increasing number of recommended vaccinations with time and may suggest a causal rather than a casual relationship between more numerous pediatric vaccinations and Autism/Autistic Spectrum Disorders?

John Stone

Hi Bob

How do you square the media? You bribe, lie and intimidate. We bribe less in the UK where pharma advertising is still restricted, but as Fiona Fox director of Science Media Centre wrote in her blog on the occasion of the Observer incident:

“With this in mind, the SMC reacted to the article primarily by coordinating a joint media statement by 14 institutions involved with child health and vaccination to back the safety of the jab which we issued to coincide with the GMC hearing. However I did also send a note to Denis Campbell, the journalist who wrote the article and a friendly contact of ours, to make sure he knew that the SMC was unable to defend the piece to the angry scientists who were contacting us. The result was an invitation to meet with him, the readers' editor and a variety of other Observer news editors at their offices. So, with two leading MMR experts at my side, I went to highlight the concerns.”

I find the notion that in order to publish an article on a scientific issue you have to meet the approval of Fiona Fox repugnant. And just to be clear what this means Fiona Fox in 2009 chaired a UK government (Department of Business) report into the future of science reporting in the media (and basicaly as far as I can see she is just a ruthless public relations lady).


Bob Moffit

"In the end using non-standard and diluted psychiatric testing tools they managed to find only 19 cases ..."

Reading the elaborate deceptions necessary to arrive at a predetermined conclusion is mind-numbing.

Reminds me of the metaphor "smoke and mirrors" describing the illusions created by a magician that deceive his audience into believing they are seeing something they are not.

In other words .. as an example .. deliberately using the term "sound science" .. when in fact these charlatans are really saying "sounds like science".

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.)