HuffPo Allows Vaccine Related Posts Then "Poof!" They're Gone
First Peer-Reviewed Study of Vaccinated versus Unvaccinated Children (Censored by an International Scientific Journal) Now Public

The Time is Now for a Vaccinated/Unvaccinated Study

Do it nowNOTE: A Vax/Unvax study is finally available. Dan Olmsted would be proud today, don't you think?  Thanks to everyone for their continued work on the front lines of the Rebel Alliance. We published this study today, please share the results and the review by Kevin Barry: First Study of Vaccinated versus Unvaccinated Children - Censored by an International Scientific Journal - Now Public Vaccination and Health Outcomes: A Survey of 6- to 12-year-old Vaccinated and Unvaccinated Children based on Mothers’ Reports, was censored by the journal Frontiers in Public Health.

By Anne Dachel

It’s clear that certain people are very frightened at the prospect of a federal commission to look into vaccine safety and scientific integrity at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  Stories on Google News warn us that this unwarranted inquiry could cause parents not to vaccinate. They assure the public that the science is settled; there is no reason to look further. President Trump’s choice to head this commission, environmental attorney Robert Kennedy, Jr., has been repeatedly attacked as an “anti-vaxxer.” Similarly, Trump’s pick to head Health and Human Services, Dr. Tom Price, is said to belong to a fringe medical group that supports parental choice when it comes to vaccination.

Here are some of the arguments in the press.

NPR: Despite The Facts, Trump Once Again Embraces Vaccine Skeptics

Domenico Montanaro:

“Kennedy has been a prominent voice in the anti-vaccine community, raising questions for years about a possible (disproven) link between a preservative in some vaccines and autism.”

Montanaro cited the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Institute of Medicine. He called the pro-vaccine science “overwhelming,” and dismissed Trump as someone who has “peddled numerous conspiracies.”

CBS News said the claim of a link between vaccines and autism had been “repeatedly debunked and discredited.”

The New York Times published a piece by Dr. Peter Hotez who wrote, “I’m worried that our nation’s health will soon be threatened because we have not stood up to the pseudoscience and fake conspiracy claims of this movement.”

Dr. Saad Omer from Emory University was in the Washington Post warning readers that Trump “might be willing to discard science and medical research on vaccination in favor of debunked myths.”  Omer said he feared that politicizing vaccines would lead to parents not vaccinating and a loss of herd immunity.

 Michael Hiltzik at the Los Angeles Times said, “The Trump team effectively reiterated the discredited claim of a link between autism and vaccination.” For backup Hiltzik quoted vaccine developer, Dr. Paul Offit, without of course mentioning his ties to Merck, and Offit forecast the possibility of “a costly crisis in public health” if we continue to listen to the viewpoints of those of don’t accept the “extensively documented scientific studies.”

My point here is that there wasn’t a mainstream news source that didn’t immediately denounce the idea of a presidential commission looking into vaccine safety.  Everyone was on the same page. There wasn’t any hint that this might be a worthwhile project.

There are actually several issues here. First of all, the press, due to their absolute failure to ever honestly and thoroughly investigate vaccine safety concerns over the past two decades, has just as much at stake in this as U.S. health officials. No reporter at the New York Times or the Washington Post has EVER challenged what a spokesperson from the AAP or CDC has said about vaccines (with the exception of former CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson back when she was at CBS.) In reality, reporters have been nothing more than industry mouthpieces. They’ve done what they’ve been told and have always defended vaccines as safe and effective, no matter what concerns were raised..


YEARS of endless coverage by major networks and newspapers where health officials and doctors from top institutions were cited attesting to the safety of vaccines while either ignoring or dismissing an epidemic of neurologically disabled children hasn’t convinced us. The controversy couldn’t be more heated than it is today.


Actually it’s simple. Parents and independent researchers have called for it for years, and it would settle the debate overnight.


What could be easier than to examine two groups of children: ones who are fully up to date on all their vaccines and ones who have never been vaccinated (including ones whose mothers who didn’t get a mercury-laced flu vaccine while pregnant).

IF two percent of children who have never been vaccinated have autism, CASE CLOSED. There is no link. With so many parents now so skeptical that they won’t vaccinate (in states where they still have that right), the study group is out there—big time. The government conducts retrospective studies like this all the time, so why not do one to settle the most heated debate in pediatric medicine?

I would be interested in the opinion of experts like Dr. Paul Offit, Dr. Peter Hotez and Dr. Saad Omer regarding such a study. All of these doctors have warned about the consequences of parents not vaccinating. Here’s a perfect way to restore faith in the vaccine program.

 There is an army of vaccine promoting reporters out there. They are at every major news outlet. Why aren’t they calling for such a study?

I decided to ask several of the experts I’m in touch with for their opinion on the validity of a vaccinated/unvaccinated study. Here’s what they had to say.

James Lyons-Weiler:

It's absolutely stunning to learn that not all of the vaccines in the schedule have been tested for association with autism, and yet to see the CDC Website bluntly state "Vaccines Do Not Cause Autism". They have manipulated the meaning of "No Studies Available" to mean "No Studies Have Shown". Their data manipulation has now repeatedly hidden discovered associations.  Besides studies focused on finding ways to predict who is likely to be injured, and provide medical exemption biomarkers, a large, long-term randomized prospective trial of No Vaccine vs. Vaccines would be absolutely essential to make a whole-health outcome benefit and risk determination of vaccination. Past studies have always been one-off, and I think we know why.  Combined vaccines are now known to increase risk of injury and morbidity.  Enough studies have been conducted that do find increased risk of adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes, but those studies have uniformly been ignored by the CDC, including during testimony to Congress. Passive, retrospective study of adverse events have literally placed us all - illegally, and immorally - as unwitting participants in clinical experiments without informed consent. Vaccines have positive and negative effects at the individual and at the population level, and we are beginning to see the cumulative effects of the adverse events at the population level.  Any vaccine vs. no vaccine study should include stopping criteria in the event that the rates of adverse events due to vaccines (or lack thereof) becomes clear should the population burdens of mortality and morbidity exceed those typically allowed for any other drug.  I would welcome a return to using rationality in the rendering of public health policies on vaccination and disease control.

James Lyons-Weiler, PhD, is the CEO and President of the Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge (IPAK), a pure public charity research institute. He is former faculty member in the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, the Departments of Pathology and Biomedical Informatics, and the former Senior Research Scientist and Scientific Director of the University of Pittsburgh’s Genomic and Protoemic Core Laboratories’ Bioinformatics Analysis Core.

Michael Schachter:

As far as I can see, the continuous claims of safety and effectiveness of vaccines are based on nothing substantial. A well designed study that compares the health of vaccinated and unvaccinated children is long overdue. The public deserves this type of study, especially with all of the vaccine mandates that have been imposed on children and the possibility that the vaccines may be impairing the health of children in various ways.

Michael B Schachter MD, Certified Nutrition Specialist

Certified in Psychiatry by the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology

Chris Shaw:

To do such a study well would require significant numbers of children in each of several key groups: fully, partially, or unvaccinated. This is likely quite feasible to do and would not compromise the well being (the frequent argument that it would be unethical to do so as it would leave them unprotected) of the latter two groups since they are already in these groups. The harder part would be to match for age, sex, race, etc. and a host of other demographics (food, water quality, other pollutants, etc. etc.). Again, not easy, but certainly do-able. Ir would be expensive to do well, but not insanely so, certainly not in context to the budget of the NIH. The answer, depending on how well the study was designed and conducted might be relatively conclusive...or it might not. This is the way such things work, so there is always the danger that we'd be left with an ambiguous outcome. Also, keep in mind that entrenched positions on both sides are so deeply fortified that I'm not sure either polarity would accept a conclusion going against their core beliefs.

As for the "science" being settled, two points: 1. Science is never "settled", rather always evolving. What we believed true of nature 100 years ago has undergone major shifts; it will undergo more in the next 100 years. This is true in medicine, neuroscience, and basically all fields. Much of the so-called settled science is based on looking at two things (and not well either): thimerosal and the MMR vaccine. There are huge gaps in terms of total vaccines, other vaccine components, autoimmune reactions, CNS-immune interactions, genetic suspectibilities, and a host of other things. Anyone who claims in this context, or in the first, that the "science is settled" simply does not understand science.

Chris Shaw, PhD                                                                                                                  
Professor of Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia

Boyd Haley:

I have constantly demanded this type of study be done, I quit when I realized the CDC controlled all aspects of this and they were definitely not going to let such study occur.  This is a simple straight forward study for which the data already exists in the CDC files.  It is criminal not to do such as study and I would gladly have my name added to the list of those requesting it.  It is the lack of such as study that causes the public to doubt the CDC’s claim of vaccine safety and efficacy.  The CDC position begs the question “If the vaccine program of the CDC is so safe and efficacious as they claim, then why did the USA have such a comparatively high infant and childhood mortality rate in the years immediately after the initiation of the CDC mandated vaccine program? “  Also, I have data from Sweden that shows that after the removal of thimerosal from their infant vaccines the rate of SIDS deaths dropped dramatically.  The Swedes did not release this for about 10 years for fear it would injure the vaccine compliance in Sweden.  It is really time for vaccine safety and efficaciousness to be studied where the scientists involved are not in a position to be threatened by some government agency or professional organization.

Boyd E. Haley, PhD                                                                                                               
President NBMI Science LLC

Ken Stoller:

Despite numerous Congressional requests that the CDC do a Vaxxed vs Un-Vaxxed study the CDC has refused to comply with these requests.

The reason is obvious... the CDC has known for almost two decades that vaccines were very much implicated in causing neurological harm to children. This was revealed in the
Simpsonwood meeting transcripts that date back to the year 2000.

The Infectious Disease Division at the CDC has always felt its job was to promote the use of vaccines and cover up safety concerns even if that meant lying to Congress and shredding their own research results.

The Infectious Disease Division of the CDC is apparently manned by tobacco-scientist like individuals that will deny, deny, discredit and destroy any one or any evidence that does not fit in with their agenda.

A Vaxxed vs Un-Vaxxed study would end their ability to deny and that is why such a study will never be done.

K Paul Stoller, MD, FACHM
Hyperbaric Oxygen THerapy San Francisco
Chief, Hyperbaric Medicine
Azzolino Neurology Group
(415) 563-3800
Editor, Medical Gas Research

Paul Thomas:

As a busy pediatrician with over 30 newborns a month joining my practice for the past decade, I am now the pediatrician for over 13,000 patients. I have heard over 200 times a very similar story: "my child was fine then within days or sometimes months after vaccines (usually the 12 month, 15 month or 18 month set of vaccines) they regressed into autism, lost eye contact, lost speech and in many cases were in obvious pain. When I saw this regression with my own eyes a few times I decided as a physician it was my duty to first do no harm. The Vaccine-Friendly Plan (VFP) of slow careful vaccination approach, covering those diseases the child is most at risk for and not giving vaccines that they don't need, my practice experienced statistically significant absence of autism in the unvaccinated and the VFP plan children. While we know that autism and other developmental disorders are caused by a multitude of environmental toxins, it may just be that vaccines are the single most potent toxin of all. What if we actually looked at the effects of the full CDC schedule and compared it to those who chose not to vaccinate and a more science-based schedule like the VFP selective schedule? 

What if we reduced autism from 1/50 back to 1/1000 or even less?  We can potentially save 76,000 children a year fomr autism by this one simple change.  We simply must do the studies!  If you care about children, their developing brains and their health, you must insist on large studies and many of them, comparing vaccinated to unvaccinated children. Nothing could be more important. FIRST DO NO HARM!

Paul Thomas, MD 

Founding Director of PIC (Physicians for Informed Consent)
Co-Chair for OFMF (Oregonians for Medical Freedom)
Author of The Vaccine-Friendly Plan ...

David Brownstein:

Of course we need a Vax/Unvax'd study.  It is relatively simple to do and would not cost a lot of money.  And, most importantly, it could help answer the question if vaccines are responsible for causing the autism (and many other childhood illnesses) epidemic we are currently experiencing. The CDC should have done a Vax/Unvax'd study years ago.  Since the CDC has become an arm of The Big Pharma Vaccine Cartel, they have hindered a vaxxed/unvaxxed study.  We need an group independent of Big Pharma and the CDC to perform a study.  If there is a link found, the CDC has some 'splaining to do.  If they don't find a link, then vaccines could well be exonerated from causing autism. 

David Brownstein, MD                                                                                                               
West Bloomfield, MI

Andy McCabe:

My first year of teaching special needs children was 1968 and during that year, I believe I had one autistic child in my class. At the time, I didn’t know what autism was; however, thinking back, his behavior included: spinning in circles, fixating on objects, poor communication and Socialization, and very limited cognitive ability.

Two years later, I became a school psychologist and, after one year in that position, was promoted to Coordinator of Child Study Teams.

Why the personal history? From 1968 to about 1990, I never came across another autistic child, even though I worked in a district with about 10,000 children. In the early 1990’s things changed. Within two years, we had about 5 children and the numbers grew each year. Back then, these children we usually sent to special schools outside our district. Tuition and transportation often exceeded $70,000.00 and during that time, as Coordinator, we decided to start our own in-district program for children on the spectrum.

Initially, I thought the cause was air and water pollution and thought that visiting a rural district, with a similar number of students to my own, might offer, by comparison, some answers.  My district was urban and we are surrounded by oil refineries on the east and west. The answer: We both had almost the same number of children on the spectrum.

Let it also be recognized that the increase in number of children identified as being autistic was not because of improved diagnostics because I was there before, and during, the autism bubble that continues to this day.

After pollution, I thought it might be Electro-Magnetic Frequencies brought about by cell towers, computers and cell  phones.  I recently reviewed the work of EMF experts Dr. Martha Herbert and Ms. Cindy Sage and found there seemed to be evidence for further study, but no conclusive data.

In 2011, my first book, The Gifted One, was published By Balboa Press. It’s a novel about the world’s greatest healer. A woman on the West Coast , who owns a radio station, read it, a year or two later, and saw that I had been recognized for my work with the autism population. She asked if I would like to do a weekly radio show on autism and now, four years later, I’ve interviewed about 200 experts on my show: Autism with Dr. Andy, which is part of the Healthy Life Radio Network, Manhattan Beach, CA.

What evolved was the many mothers on my show reported they had  seemingly normal children who, after receiving vaccinations, experienced a myriad of physical and cognitive problems that would bring them to inclusion on the autism spectrum. Granted, this was anecdotal evidence, but there was a consistent pattern being represented in our interviews.

When I began my work as a teacher and later, as a school psychologist and Coordinator of Child Study, the number of children on the spectrum went from 2 to 5 per 10,000,  to around 1 in 50 in New Jersey.

I am not anti-vaccination; however, I fully support the idea of safety and science in vaccination and hope that the expressed concerns of Bobby Kennedy Jr. and Robert DeNiro can be further studied in the committee being established by President Trump. 

Andy McCabe, Psy.D.                                                                                                              
Professor of Special Education, New Jersey City University                                                  
Former director of special education services, Bayonne, NJ, (27 years experience)

Finally, during a debate on vaccine safety between a journalist from the National Post, Lawrence Solomon, and Ari Zaretsky, MD in Toronto this past January, there was another call for a vaccinated/unvaccinated study. During the discussion, Dr. Zaretsky, a strong proponent for vaccines as safe and effective, called for just such a study.

This is what was said at 33:20 into the discussion

Zaretsky:“I’m happy to support the idea of research. If you don’t vaccinate your children with MMR, you can look at whether there is a higher or lower incidence of autism in those children. I think it will be very interesting to find out in the future if there’s a difference. One would assume that there would be a causal relationship if you would see a lower incidence of autism in those that haven’t been vaccinated. At this point in time there is no evidence to suggest that at all.”

Solomon: “I would like to commend you for endorsing the idea of that study. There has a study comparing the health of vaccinated children with the health of unvaccinated children. You would think …There has never been a large scale study. The one study (speaking to someone in the audience) you’re referring to actually was suppressed, it was very hard to get it published, despite the credentials of the people doing it. It was actually retracted after the publisher agreed to publish it. The publisher retracted it because of pressure from the medical establishment.

“But the study, Ari, that you suggested, would be determinative. Is exactly what the vaccine skeptic community is asking for. They’re saying, give us a study that compares the health of vaccinated children to the health of unvaccinated children. That would satisfy everyone.

“If that study showed that vaccines improve the health, or even if it doesn’t harm the health, that would satisfy everyone, and it would end the controversy. But the medical establishment refuses to perform that study. That is something that’s inexplicable. If you would like to join the cause, demand that this study be performed, you’d be doing a great service.”

Zaretsky:“I think it’s important to empathic for why  it hasn’t been promulgated. If you actually asked everyone to not vaccinate their children, then what happens to herd immunity? That’s the problem. …

(Responding to someone in the audience)“That’s right, the control group could be in Hollywood and we could study them to see if in fact what Larry is saying is true. My hope would be that in fact people would actually listen to the facts because if they found that there was no lower incidence of autism, one would assume that the people who haven’t been vaccinated, would have a lower incidence of autism. If you don’t find that, will people change their mind about this relationship between autism and vaccination? Personally, I doubt it.”

People with strong opinions on both sides of the issue can see the logic of simply looking at kids who’ve never been vaccinated. News people who harangue us endlessly about dangerous, ill-informed “anti-vaxxers,” should be the loudest voices out there calling for this study. So should medical groups like the American Academy of Pediatrics as well as the entire Vaccine Division at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Instead of advocating for the science that could quickly dispel parental fears about vaccine safety, all these pro vaccine people are strangely SILENT.

 Anne Dachel is Media Editor for Age of Autism.


Cynthia Cournoyer

Beware of governments bearing studies! If we ask for and get a study, you run the risk of more bias, more conflicts of interest and cherry picking data for a "favored" outcome. Then they can say they did what you asked for and FINALLY, we have debunked your crazy ideas.

A better approach might be to start every conversation with, "we already know unvaccinated kids are healthier......"

Because, we know. We know in our individual families. We know when we compare our unvaccinated kids to their peers in the neighborhood. We know when we ask our elders for comparisons of before (when they were young) and after (today), and they consistently say, "oh yes, kids are much more unhealthy today." We know there are triple the vaccines today, we know vaccine makers cannot be sued, all the while knowing that would never fly for any other product known to mankind.

We already know. Use that and go forth. Let them stand in awe of your confidence.


At this point; after finding that the Mother's immune system has plenty to do with her unborn child - that unvaccinated would have to be defined as even the parents would have to have received no vaccines.


Let's not forget that RhoGAM is still being injected into pregnant women and as far as I know still contains Thimerasol. I believe the practice of injecting while pregnant began around the year I was pregnant with my son, 1992. Many women today are injected with not only the flu shot but RhoGAM as well and this should be included in any and all studies, statements and articles.

Hans Litten

"Also, I have data from Sweden that shows that after the removal of thimerosal from their infant vaccines the rate of SIDS deaths dropped dramatically. The Swedes did not release this for about 10 years for fear it would injure the vaccine compliance in Sweden. "

Professor Haley , please make this data available ? or make available a link to it .
SIDS parents everywhere would be interested I'm sure.


It must be noted - this proposed study is one of the best ways for the FedGov to identify those evil ANTI-VAXXERS!.... ;)

Maurine Meleck

super article. Thanks.

Paul Thomas

So scientists who are still practicing medicine and want to be part of the solution... I have a proposal:
Let us get a team willing to participate in this vaxxed vs unvaxxed study. It is unethical not to do the study since many of us who are practicing informed consent already have plenty of patients selecting not to vaccinate or delaying vaccines or choosing a modfied or selective schedule.
My guess is we need funds to pay general pediatricians who are still practicing CDC schedule vaccination for access to their data (to help them participate and provide the researchers who would access the data). With and IRB, and a relatively simple prospective design, we will answer this question in the next 3 - 5 years.
I don't have the funds or band width to do this myself, but count me in.

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.)