Stunner in First-ever “vax/unvax” Study: Vaxxed Kids Have 4.7 Fold Higher Risk of Autism
Note from the Editor-at-Large. The editors at Age of Autism want to clarify the record on the leak of the vaxxed/unvaxxed paper. We were in possession of an embargoed draft of the paper when it was set to be published on line in late November by the journal Frontiers in Pediatrics. Dan Olmsted and I had written a news story on the study, a revised version of which we have now published below. We respected the embargo at every stage and have never published anything about the study or its findings until today. Via different channels, a draft copy of the paper was published on a different web-site and has now become widely available. That makes the study and its leaked contents news that is highly relevant to our readers, so we are obligated to cover the story. We do so with sadness, since we share the concerns of many that this leak jeopardizes subsequent publication of the study, thereby impairing its scientific impact.
By Mark Blaxill
In a development that autism parents have long anticipated, the first-ever, peer-reviewed study comparing total health outcomes in vaccinated and unvaccinated children was released on line yesterday. According to sources close to the project, the study had been reviewed and accepted by two different journals, both of which pulled back on their approval once the political implications of the findings became clear. That’s largely because, as parents have long expected, the rate of autism is significantly higher in the vaccinated group, a finding that could shake vaccine safety claims just as the first president who has ever stated a belief in a link between vaccines and autism has taken office.
Working in partnership with the National Home Education Research Institute (NHERI), Dr. Anthony Mawson led a research team that investigated the relationship between vaccination exposures and a range of over 40 acute and chronic illnesses in home schooled children, a population chosen for its high proportion of unvaccinated children. Surveying families in four states--Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi and Oregon—the study (officially titled Vaccination and Health Outcomes: A Survey of 6- to 12-year-old Vaccinated and Unvaccinated Children based on Mothers’ Reports), reported a number of startling findings.
Vaccinated children were significantly more likely than the unvaccinated to have been diagnosed with a neurodevelopmental disorder: most notably, the risk of being affected by an Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) was 4.7 fold higher in vaccinated children; as well, ADHD risk was 4.7 fold higher and learning disability risk was 3.7 fold higher. Overall, the vaccinated children in the study were 3.7 times more likely to have been diagnosed with some kind of neurodevelopmental disorder.
Vaccinated children were also significantly more likely to be diagnosed with an immune-related disorder. The risk of allergic rhinitis (commonly known as hay fever) was over 30 times higher in vaccinated children, while the risk of other allergies was increased 3.9 fold and the eczema risk was increased 2.4 fold.
With respect to acute illness and infectious disease the outcomes were in some respects surprising. As might be expected, unvaccinated children were significantly (4-10 times) more likely to have come down with chicken pox, rubella or pertussis. Perhaps unexpectedly, the unvaccinated children were less likely to suffer from otitis media and pneumonia: vaccinated children had 3.8 times greater odds of a middle ear infection and 5.9 times greater odds of a bout with pneumonia.
The study was based on a survey with participants recruited in a process led by NHERI and coordinated through 84 state and local homeschool groups. The survey itself was, according to the authors, “nonbiased and neutrally worded.”
These findings in a study population of 666 children, 261 of whom (39%) were unvaccinated, are sure to stir controversy, in part because it is the first of its kind. The scientific literature on the long-term effects of the vaccination program is virtually silent. Most studies on the safety of vaccines only consider immediate or short-term effects. There was no obvious explanation for the differences in health outcomes observed between the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups of children other than vaccination itself.
The finding that vaccination is a significant risk for autism is the most explosive finding in the paper. For well over a decade, parents concerned that vaccines were involved in autism’s sharp rise have been calling for what has long been labelled the “vax/unvax” study. Public health officials such as Paul Offit have resisted these calls with claims that a comparative study of autism risk and other health outcomes in unvaccinated and vaccinated children would be retrospectively impossible and prospectively unethical.
Despite opposition from those like Offit, attempts to launch a formal vax/unvax study have been made for many years. In 2006, Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney (D, NY) authored what is now called Vaccine Safety Study Act. Said Maloney to the opponents, "Maybe someone in the medical establishment will show me why this study is a bad idea, but they haven't done it yet.” In 2007, Generation Rescue (one of the Mawson study’s sponsors) retained a market research firm to undertake a similar survey (it is available on line and had similar findings but was never published in a scientific journal).
Less formal surveys focused on whether or not autism was present in the unvaccinated have also been undertaken in unusual populations, including the Amish and the patients of alternative health practitioners. Age of Autism founder Dan Olmsted investigated autism in the Amish, who vaccinate less frequently. Autism is rare among the Amish and the only autistic Amish children we discovered were also vaccinated. (Others reported cases in Amish children with birth defects, but not “idiopathic autism,” the kind that occurs in otherwise typical children who are the heart of the current epidemic). The late Mayer Eisenstein reported in his HomeFirst practice in Chicago that he delivered more than 15,000 babies at home, and thousands of them were never vaccinated. Of these unvaccinated children, none had autism.
The link between autism and vaccination became a hot topic in this year’s presidential election. Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton once tweeted ““The science is clear: The earth is round, the sky is blue, and #vaccineswork. Let's protect all our kids. #GrandmothersKnowBest.” In contrast, President Donald Trump has long been outspoken about the likely connection between vaccines and autism. As early as 2007, Trump remarked, “When I was growing up, autism wasn't really a factor. And now all of a sudden, it's an epidemic. Everybody has their theory, and my theory is the shots. They're getting these massive injections at one time. I think it's the vaccinations.”
In the absence of any published evidence on the question, the call for a vax/unvax study has become a rallying cry for autism advocates. Now it appears, the results confirm what many have long suspected. These findings, especially the significant link between autism risk and vaccination, are certain to increase pressure on public health officials inside and outside the government to acknowledge the legitimacy of a concern they have long dismissed.
Like any study, this one is open to critique. One will be its relatively small sample size, relatively high ASD rate (3.3% overall as compared to 2.24% in the closest comparable CDC study) as well as the funding sources. Most studies that have found no link between autism and vaccination have been pharma or government funded, and the media has not considered that significant enough to mention. Nonetheless, expect a hue and cry that money for this study came in part from sources concerned about a possible vaccine-autism link.
Note: Here is the funding statement from the leaked paper. “This study was supported by grants from Generation Rescue, Inc., and the Children’s Medical Safety Research Institute, charitable organizations that support research on children’s health and vaccine safety. The funders had no role or influence on the design and conduct of the research or the preparation of reports.” Generation Rescue is a Founding National Sponsor of Age of Autism
That is Not up on the facts as well as we are here.
Posted by: Benedetta | March 23, 2019 at 04:42 PM
@Lisa, in this case unvaccinated means no vaccines at least since birth (I don't think they considered prenatal vaccines in the research).
In most vaccine studies though, "unvaccinated" means did not get the vaccine under study in the timeframe of the study, but may still have received other vaccines in their lifetime, often other vaccines for purposes of the study.
Posted by: Jeannette Bishop | September 04, 2018 at 11:25 AM
What exactly is un vaccinated?
Posted by: Lisa | September 04, 2018 at 06:50 AM
Answer : Zero High toxicities pumped into their blood vessels under the lie & guise of healthcare.
No foreign RNA or DNA (human or otherwise)
No hidden undeclared ingredients - Gatti
un vaccinated = perfect unpolluted natural health.
Posted by: Sophie Scholl | September 04, 2018 at 10:38 AM
666 children 39% un vaccinated. What exactly is un vaccinated?
Posted by: Lisa | September 04, 2018 at 06:50 AM
-If you look for something hard enough, you're bound to find it.
Posted by: Jeremy | January 04, 2018 at 10:49 AM
Yeah the CDC looked for it , and found it back in 2001-2003 Boyle & DeStefano (Gerberding)
And they buried it Jezza. William Thompson was there when they did it.
And William has admitted it all August 2014 , and this paper you quote comes out 6months latter as a damage control measure because Colleen & Julie were having too many sleepless nights about exactly what extent they had involved themselves in the biggest crime in all history.
Colleen & Julie et al you are the fall guys if this blows girls !
Still waiting for the BBC to write the name William Thompson senior research scientist CDC !
It will be 4 years in August. Don't pretend you aren't aware Jez .
Posted by: Hans Litten | January 04, 2018 at 11:58 AM
The Mawson study is certainly now published despite numerous bullying attempts to stop it.
An obvious problem with the Jain paper is its convoluted and opaque methodology.
Posted by: John Stone | January 04, 2018 at 11:20 AM
So we are going to hang vaccine safety and autism on a "leaked" study that included 666 homeschooled children...Ok, cool. Just wanted to make sure I understood your rigorous qualifications needed to deem a study scientifically sound...
Never mind that one with 95,000 kids that showed the exact opposite...
-If you look for something hard enough, you're bound to find it.
Posted by: Jeremy | January 04, 2018 at 10:49 AM
These are the links I followed from Dr. Mawson's Autism One conference presentation ( https://youtu.be/ZNFvuaXqoJo?t=6m7s )...
Posted by: Jeannette Bishop | August 17, 2017 at 09:30 PM
Where is the study?
Posted by: Rose Rinaldi | August 15, 2017 at 11:05 PM
Where is the actual study? Did it come out yet? I don't care if it's published in a journal, I just want it peer reviewed and I want a link to it. It's hard for me to tell others there is such a study without actually seeing it.
Posted by: Shmuel | March 29, 2017 at 07:20 AM
All the posts were excellent and added important points.
Now why is it that 100 % pro-vaccine folks can publish papers--always pro-vaccine, of course, but when someone /some organization is objective and just "wants what's best for our children and might be a vaccine-safety advocate, that they're biased in some way? What twisted logic!
Also, one poster's comments that the mother may have been given a flu shot DURING her pregnancy, is an excellent point. I would go further. We want to examine children who have not been and whose mother AND grandparents were also NOT vaccinated. This is because their could be genetic and epigenetic influences at work in children NOT vaccinated.
Posted by: Tom Petrie | February 25, 2017 at 09:15 AM
David and Richard,
Thanks for your comments! You're right, Crohn's disease is unusual even in teens, usually doesn't start until the twenties. But I have read that one in ten children now has inflammatory bowel disease, which would usually be from a vaccine reaction. Is the chronic diarrhea (autistic enterocolitis) that many autistic children have different from ulcerative colitis? Alexander Spordalakos had many lesions on the inside of his gut, and he reacted to the MMR with severe autism and bowel disease.
I've wondered if my high amounts of stored vaccine mercury may have been picked up by my daughter in utero, and may have contributed to her vaccine reactions and autism. And I've read that vaccines can change cellular DNA, which can then be inherited by babies. So it wouldn't even have to be damage from vaccines received while pregnant: children might be damaged by vaccines the mother received at any time both before birth and before the end of breastfeeding.
And you're absolutely right that we have to have precise information on exactly what vaccines were received at what ages, in the context of the total number and kind received. While some would be severely damaged with even one vaccine, especially as a young infant, as a general rule, the more received, the higher the risk of severe damage. As we see from the explosion of vaccine damage since the vaccine epidemic started in 1990 with the Hib series for infants. Putting all the information in a database which could then be analyzed by a computer program could show us the trends involved.
Posted by: ciaparker | February 25, 2017 at 12:47 AM
Another question I have about the study, how many of the vaccinated were vaccinated according to the full CDC schedule? Were some of the "vaccinated" only have some of the recommended vaccines, or had some delayed to a later age? If so, the effects of the full CDC schedule compared to being unvaccinated could be worse than the study makes it seem.
Also, I wonder if any of the mothers of the "unvaccinated" got shots while they were pregnant? If so, I wouldn't really consider that child to be unvaccinated.
Posted by: Richard | February 24, 2017 at 08:39 PM
I think the reason this study didn't show a difference for ulcerative colitis or Crohn's disease is that it was of 6-12 year olds, when most cases of Crohn's have an onset age of at least 15 years old. Thus, there probably aren't enough cases in the study population to have a statistically significant outcome.
The limitations of that sample size and age probably apply to most of the others where no statistically significant correlation was found, even the ones that are common in older age groups (how many 6-12 year olds are diagnosed with depression?) but I'd love to see the actual study to see the numbers myself. I know personally cases where vaccine injury has caused type 1 diabetes and seizures, but they're both less common than autism and allergies. Obesity is probably an exception, there are lots of obese children in this day and age so unless the homeschoolers are very different than average there were probably plenty of cases of obesity in the sample. However, I haven't personally heard anyone say that vaccines are linked to obesity, so that lack of correlation makes sense to me.
Posted by: Richard | February 24, 2017 at 08:28 PM
ciaparker, You ask an excellent question about "bowel disease" in its many forms, and that this study did not document any of these terrible damages.
Particularly since the (great) Dr. Andrew Wakefield, et al., documented a variety of extremely serious bowel damages associated with MMR vaccinations, as have studies thereafter verifying Wakefield et al.
Regardless, this Study is a valid insight into vaccine-caused damages.
Posted by: david m burd | February 24, 2017 at 07:07 PM
What's the point of leaking 'embargoed' information? Doesn't that make the whole 'leaking' thing more rediculous than it already is??
Not sure why anyone would need to 'leak', or 'embargo' this kind of information. Or who on earth would even have the authority to impose such a rediculous form of censorship.
But what I do know, is that this crisis desperately needs truth. Delivered by people who have the courage to tell it, in a timely fashion, without any excuses.
Facts are never affected by when someoene chooses to release them.
Posted by: Barry | February 24, 2017 at 05:07 PM
@Janet, thank you.
Posted by: Jeannette Bishop | February 24, 2017 at 11:59 AM
I agree. I'd like to see the study itself. I also noticed the discrepancy: is it a twofold higher risk of autism or a 4.7 times higher risk? More studies need to be done as follow-up and confirmation. Several older studies showed a much higher risk of Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis in the vaccinated. What would be the reason that this one didn't?
Posted by: ciaparker | February 24, 2017 at 11:46 AM
Maybe it was finally leaked because behind the scenes there was absolutely no forward progress being made in the past 2 months trying to get it into the public sphere again. Although there are now 80,000 readers of Frontier that know Frontier's decision makers may not be in publishing for the sake of moving ideas from the hypothetical realm to confirmed science, which is kind of nice to know - 80,000 people who have now directly experienced a situation that will look and taste like scientific censorship to them. How many of those readers are parents, I wonder, or future parents? Maybe the university, also, is not taking active steps to find other publishing vectors, or is even refusing to just post the findings on their own systems internally, even.
Maybe some people in the know got tired of other people in the know sitting on information while children continue to be vaccinated every day with their parents having no ideas of the true pros and cons that need to be considered when making that medical decision.
If it's a case of money, I know more than a few parents who would love to see the study in full form, and would probably be able to cough up $10 to $20 to do it? So one can't say there is no way for the researchers to still profit from the effort, if profit indeed is any part of the picture here. Maybe instead of a kickstarter campaign to fund something, there should now be a kickender campaign to publicly compensate quarantined science and the scientists that bother to seek the truth at the risk of changing the future path of their careers.
I hope that the researchers will take active steps to expand beyond the artificial boundaries of the current scientific publishing situation and those entities adept at truly controlling information. Sometimes there is a bit of motion forward - such as that seen from people such as Dr. Mickey Nardo - from the site 1boringoldman.com, who was on quite a journey of revelation in the twilight of his career, revealing the various ways information can be manipulated in order to support the use of pharmaceuticals in psychiatry regardless of effectiveness or safety, who passed away this week.
Posted by: Jenny | February 24, 2017 at 10:38 AM
> most likely is explained by the fact that this is a home-schooled population,
> and sadly, unfortunately, some students today end up being home-schooled
> precisely because of their disability.
That is exactly our situation.
> The public school's special education system has unraveled in the face of so
> many disabled children.
Perhaps "unraveled" is a bit strong, but public education is based on the concept of economies of scale and autistic children don't scale well. Everyone was trying and everyone meant well, but it was an uphill battle and getting steeper every day. Eventually, we simply had to put aside the feeling of "failing" or "giving up" and realize that *THE* goal is educating our child - not fitting in, making it work, or getting along with anyone.
Posted by: Ken | February 24, 2017 at 10:09 AM
The irony about scientific journals publishing or not publishing this study or similar studies is that not publishing them grants instant street credibility. Nobody in this community thinks less of Dr. Wakefield's 1998 study because the Lancet retracted it. To the contrary, the retraction is proof that Andy et al. were on the right track. If the paper is ever re-published, it will not vindicate Andy or the paper as much as it will cast light on the sordid peer review/publication process.
Posted by: Brett Wilcox | February 24, 2017 at 08:23 AM
Jeannette Bishop, from my own observations in my child's classrooms, 1 in 25 would be more accurate.
Posted by: Janet | February 24, 2017 at 12:36 AM
So if the choice was to post or not post... then why not just wait so it could be published? Not understanding that part. We could have waited I think to see this info. Maybe I read it wrong though?
Posted by: Angela | February 23, 2017 at 09:55 PM
@Bayareamom...trying to explain my naive imaginings...a small journal might have incentive (in opposition to the risk they might be taking) to publish the truth from potentially increased readership/recognition for being one of the first to be on the right side of history, first to get groundbreaking research that might be frequently referenced out there... but if it's already out there from having been leaked, will anyone bother to buy and/or cite their publication (maybe just to have a journal to officially reference?)?
Posted by: Jeannette Bishop | February 23, 2017 at 09:36 PM
If the CDC truly CARED about anyone's children, don't you think when they 'randomly' call to check on the vaccination status in families, that maybe ONE of their intrusive questions would ask about vaccine reactions, or the health status of vaccinated, vs unvaccinated?
82 pages I've just read here.
CDC doesn't give a crap about children. They care about their own bottom line, & they've already proven that with Dr William Thompson. Julie Gerberding sold all her Gardasil shares before moving to the head of Merck's vaccine division. A wee conflict of interest there, I'd say! (Follow the money!)
Posted by: Dee | February 23, 2017 at 09:27 PM
Where are reference dates?????
Is this actually a new study?????
I feel like I just read a whole lot of mumbo jumbo!!!!!
Posted by: cynthia | February 23, 2017 at 09:14 PM
Reserve your expectations. There's evidence that suggests that rather than the unvaccinated children being 4-10 times more likely to come down with chicken pox, rubella or pertussis, in reality the vaccinated are 4-10 times more likely to develop subclinical infections of the respective illnesses after exposure, either asymptomatic or atypically symptomatic. The Boston University study told us that during a measles outbreak on campus approximately 15% to 20% of the student subjects, all of whom had been vaccinated as children, developed fever and respiratory symptoms, but no rash, likely morphing them into the very surreptitious disease vectors the unvaccinated are so illogically claimed to be. The infamous FDA-released study told us those vaccinated for pertussis are prone to developing asymptomatic infection after subsequent exposures, able to infect others for six weeks, and a study of subclinical pertussis infection found existing, asymptomatic infections in fully 4.8% of a vaccinated population.
Vaccines don't immunize, they bastardize, interfering with the common immunological response to the potential pathogens going forward. Vaccinated kids who develop the full blown illnesses after exposure anyway are the lucky ones; their immune systems are still working.
Posted by: Shawn Siegel | February 23, 2017 at 09:02 PM
Having now read the previous post on the subject, I'm wondering about the discrepancies. Compare from this post,
"the risk of being affected by an Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) was 4.7 fold higher in vaccinated children; as well, ADHD risk was 4.7 fold higher and learning disability risk was 3.7 fold higher. Overall, the vaccinated children in the study were 3.7 times more likely to have been diagnosed with some kind of neurodevelopmental disorder."
and from the other post,
"7-fold higher odds of any neurodevelopmental disorder (i.e., learning disability, ADHD, or ASD)
2-fold increase in Autism Spectrum Disorder (“ASD”)
2-fold increase in ADHD
2-fold increase in learning disabilities"
Also, from this post,
"The risk of allergic rhinitis (commonly known as hay fever) was over 30 times higher in vaccinated children, while the risk of other allergies was increased 3.9 fold and the eczema risk was increased 2.4 fold"
and from the other post,
"1-fold increase in allergic rhinitis
9-fold increase in other allergies
9-fold increase in eczema/atopic dermatitis"
Why is there such a discrepancy? Is the whole study available somewhere online to read?
Posted by: Richard | February 23, 2017 at 08:35 PM
This is great news. I hope there are further studies like this. I wonder if a truly randomized study would show an even greater increase in autism especially for the vaccinated, the reason being that the unvaccinated children probably tend to be more genetically susceptible to vaccine injury. I say that because a good number of the unvaccinated probably have older siblings or other relatives that became autistic or had other bad reactions from vaccines, which led to the parents looking into the issue and deciding not to vaccinate.
Posted by: Richard | February 23, 2017 at 08:28 PM
"I can imagine a loss of financial incentive to publish something that is already out there, maybe."
Feel like a complete dunce asking you this, but can you explain please? WHAT financial incentive?
...how about TRUTH being the incentive? There's a new one. But that's not the incentive pulling the engine these days, is it (at least in some circles).
Posted by: Bayareamom | February 23, 2017 at 08:08 PM
I can imagine a loss of financial incentive to publish something that is already out there, maybe.
Posted by: Jeannette Bishop | February 23, 2017 at 06:44 PM
Some are saying that the current rate appears to actually be closer to 1 in 25 (not the 1 in 68 per the CDC or the several years old 1 in 50 parental phone survey). Does anyone observe something like this rate within their experience? I'm too isolated lately from school age children to judge in my area.
But the CDC continually changes which states they sample for their counts. And I heard that within Mississippi (with mandatory vaccination) they are reluctant to give an autism diagnosis, even as they recommend autism therapies to parents seeking help for their children. There is also the Utah CDC whistleblower case claiming inaccuracies in the rate ascertainment. I'm not sure in which direction the accuracies weigh in, but the rate in Utah declined in the last count.
So, it might be possible this study did not find an over-ascertainment of the U.S. rate of autism.
Whatever the case, we don't have a trustworthy "official" source for anyone to base arguments upon IMO, and if the peer review publication process (however valid it has been) continues to be corrupted by state/corporate interests we'll have to perhaps resort (evolve?) to online publication of findings and methodology first and then let reviewers weigh in with whatever credibility they can acquire to help us lay-person types make interpretations.
Posted by: Jeannette Bishop | February 23, 2017 at 06:34 PM
"What would be the scientific rationale for not publishing a study just because it has already been seen by the public? Is this science or politics?"
I just asked myself the same question. Mark - can you explain? I don't understand the rationale for not publishing at all - simply because the public (most likely a small sliver of the public) have already viewed the results?
Posted by: Bayareamom | February 23, 2017 at 06:07 PM
The higher rate of autism in this vaccinated sample than even we would have expected, based on national stats, most likely is explained by the fact that this is a home-schooled population, and sadly, unfortunately, some students today end up being home-schooled precisely because of their disability. The public school's special education system has unraveled in the face of so many disabled children. The system simply can't handle it and is still trying to mainstream all these kids despite how unrealistic this is. So, parents whose kids are disabled and not getting the services they need often end up pulling them out of public school and homeschooling them.
Posted by: Lisa | February 23, 2017 at 05:06 PM
"...this leak jeopardizes subsequent publication of the study, thereby impairing its scientific impact."
What would be the scientific rationale for not publishing a study just because it has already been seen by the public? Is this science or politics?
Posted by: Linda1 | February 23, 2017 at 03:41 PM