Senate HELP Hearing Was Five White Men in the Seats and 500 Women in the Halls.
Are There “Sleeper” VACCINE-caused Mutations Cytochrome P450 Genes Produce Which Medicine Deliberately Ignores?

James Lyons-Weiler on the New MMR/Autism Study From Denmark

James Lyons WeilerAoA links to Lyons-Weiler's review of the new paper by Hviid:"

An Autopsy on Hviid et al. 2019’s MMR/Vaccine Science-Like Activities

JUST IN TIME to be sandwiched between two one-sided Senate Hearings, a new cohort study by Hviid et al. has all of the hallmarks of a completely well-done study.  Well done as in overcooked.  Here is my initial assessment.

The burnt ends on this brisket are obvious.  Just like all the past studies on the MMR/autism question, the study focuses on one vaccine.  This is a problem because the variable they call “genetic risk” (having an older sibling), which is the most significant variable, is confounded with health user bias (there is no control over vaccine cessation).  It’s an important variable, but genetic risk of what?  Of autism?  Or of autism following vaccination?  It’s impossible to tell because the study never tests a VACCINE x FAMILY HISTORY interaction term.  Or any other interaction term that includes vaccines.

Were it not such an imporant question for which so much “science-like activities” have occurred, we could just shrug our shoulders, one could argue that defining the data analysis strategy is just about how one like to season their meat.  But there is real evidence Hviid (who did the data analysis) appears to be up real data cookery here.

(1) The smoking gun is the study-wide autism rate of 0.9-1%.  The rate of ASD in Denmark is 1.65%.  Where are the missing cases of ASD?  Given past allegations of this group’s malfeasance and fraud, the rest of the study cannot be accepted based on this disparity alone: the study group is not representative of the population being studied.....(continue reading at



"Risk of Vaccine Induced Diabetes in Children with a Family History of
Type 1 Diabetes" is the name of the paper by Classen. He reanalysis the data of Hviid and finds a link between vaccines and diabetes where Hviid did not, because he used "novel and controversial adjusters" according to Classen.


It looks like Hviid has a history of using statistics to achieve the results he wants. In this paper Classen explains how Hviid did this in a study that showed no link between vaccines and diabetes: › ...PDF
Web results
Risk of Vaccine Induced Diabetes in Children with a Family History of Type 1 ...


Thank goodness for sturdy ,hardy, scientists who are more than capable of taking on the forensically fondled studies and statistics!

Good article to read at :
The Alliance For Natural Health - https/
Article - The Danish re-birth of scientific freedom and integrity. 13 March 2019.


More thoughts on the missing cases from Hviid et al....

Indeed, so what was so compelling anyway that led Hibiid et al to so blatantly cutoff cases? I believe Hviid et al wanted to followup from Madsen et al cohorts (1990 to 1998), saying, here is a decade of cohorts later (2000-2010) still showing no MMR link. This, however, was complicated by problem of the Danish 2008 recommendation of MMR2 for four-year old. This meant that kids born after 2003 would have had two series of MMR, and comprising a substantial portion of Hibiid et al cases. If MMR had an effect, certainly two rounds of it would amplify it. Hviid et al essentially then had no choice but to opt for a quick endpoint to conceal the later incidences coming from the later MMR2

Interestingly, Hviid et al gives a mean diagnosed age for autism as over 7, whereas it was over 4 in Madsen et al. Initially, I was perplexed by this, wondering why the regression in diagnostic time and especially in a medically advanced country such as Denmark. This increased diagnostic time is perfectly explained by the later cases of autism that would be coming after MMR2.

Also interesting, Madsen et al was quite upfront about the possibility that a second round of MMR could affect the results. Still, they explained they only consider the first dose, since at that time the second dose was given at 12 and outside the window for their cohorts. This definitely wasn’t the case with Hviid et al and they provided no rationale for not considering MMR2.

Also interesting, the 1999-2001 birth cohort had the weakest MMR/autism link, HR .84 (.73 – .96), but we must reflect that this cohort would’ve been the least MMR vaccinated group. In 2008 they would’ve been past the age of 4, the new recommended age for MMR2. Again one ponders why Hviid et al made no provisions for MMR2 in their study.


Vaccines save lives. They are wonderful medical advances that protect everyone. But we need to make sure we in America are smart in how we use them and that we don’t try to make rules that are easy to apply but hurt people unnecessarily.

Recently there was a report from Denmark that there is no link between one MMR vaccine and autism. As the parent of two vaccine-injured children, this is good news but I think Americans need to learn the right lesson from this report. I think that lesson is to be more aware of immune status, especially in babies.

Denmark has had newborn screening for diseases since at least 1982, and immune screening since at least 1995. Immune compromised individuals should not be vaccinated so I assume there were no immune compromised individuals vaccinated in the Denmark report/study.

We know the danger of vaccinations to the immune compromised because they can trigger unpredictable adverse reactions. That is why the vaccine recommendations provide that immune compromised children and adults should not be vaccinated. But the US did not include immune disorders in its newborn screening until recently. Wisconsin and Massachusetts were the first states in 2008, and currently there are 31 states that screen for immune disorders. Some only started screening in 2015.

One of the worst immune disorders, SCID aka the Bubble Boy Syndrome, is estimated to occur in 1 out of every 40,000 to 100,000 births. But in the first two states that tested (Wisconsin and Massachusetts) the first year showed SCID occurred in 1 in every 15,000 births and clinical immune dysfunction in 1 in every 3,000 births. (Link: That is a lot of sick babies who would normally have been vaccinated, probably aggressively, when they should never have been vaccinated at all. Multiply that by 50 states for decades and think about how that might impact autism in America.

I think we need to expand newborn screening for immune problems to all states and territories, use care in vaccinating them, and explore titer testing for them and other people with serious diseases.


Oops quick edit:
In your own way you’ve made the point that “truncated data” could NOT be skewing the data....


In your own way you’ve made the point that “truncated data” could be skewing the result, there is no trend in the autism HR’s for MMR v no MMR in the 2 yearly birth cohorts. The numbers diagnosed with autism is obviously lower in the more recent cohorts, simply because some diagnoses are occurring after the close of the trial, look at the graph in Figure 2 if you don’t believe me.
John your silence on substantive points is very eloquent: no comment/rebuttal on the clearly incorrect Lyons-Weiler incidence comparison, nor on the lack of any effect of possible the truncated data in younger children, (as pointed out to Greg), nor on the fact that the paper specifically dealt with Exley’s query of adjuvant containing vaccines prior to the MMR vaccination. As to what defines hyperbole let’s agree to disagree; I find last comment underneath the paper “a failure to perform chart reviews” rather amusing, lets review >650,000 charts….yes OK…..

John Stone


The Montgomery ruling of 2015 places an obligation on health practitioners in the U.K. to. be open about the risks of any medical intervention. However, it is evident in the case of vaccination that irrespective of any further court cases this is not routinely being observed, so it is important to keep on posing the question to the PTB what they propose to do about it. At the moment even doctors are under-informed about the risks. I am not sure that having another court case as such would clarify anything. We are left with the position that the NHS are left in daily breach of the law, which at least some of its senior officers must be aware of.


Following up from my previous post where I discussed missing cases due to a quick cut-off date, if we go by Hiviid et al 2019, Denmark has to be the only country in the world where autism cases are falling, actually earth shattering plummeting. For the 6511 autism cases found it's divided into 2874 for the 1999-2001 cohort, 2095 for the 2002-2004, 1274 for 2005-2007, and just 321 for 2008-2010. Never mind just 321 cases over three years, but we're considering a 900% decrease from the oldest cohort. I am not making this stuff up, these numbers are right there in the figure 3 results.

Had the cases held from the 1999-2001 cohort we would've had around 11,500 total cases. This would suggest 45% missing cases. Also interesting, the 11,500 figure would put the prevalence rate at 1.74%, over the 1.65% expected rate but a lot closer to it than the study's rate of .09-1%.


Informed consent of Material Risk

I know this is a result of a bad habit that some of us human guinea-pigs have, witch which doctors wish we didn’t do,.. but I’ve ‘thinking’!
A couple rapid responses in the BMJ points out that if a (say) a health practitioner does not provide (in the UK) the manufacturer’s PIL that comes with the vaccine, and omits to inform the patient of any Material Risks s/he knows about (and perhaps should know about). Then the patent is unable to give informed consent consistent with the Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board [2015] ruling.
Therefore, if the patient should suffer harm, from a risk they would not have agreed to take, had they been properly informed, then they can sue the doctor. This of course would have to be heard by a jury who could be then informed about the latest evidence on Adjuvants and their effects – good and bad.
12 ordinary Jon & Mary Doe’s would then have to decide, based on the evidence presented.
This I think, would serve as a good test case. Providing the judge is not the brother or some other relative, who is on the board of a pharmaceutical company etc., as happen with AW v. BD.
Is anyone in the unfortunate position where they could take this idea forward? (Rapid responses by Wendy E Stephen 01 March 2019 & Noel Thomas 06 March 2019)

Piotr Tchaykovski

In my opinion there is no point discussing to death various nuances of this last MMR-autism study, as we know that it was planned and executed to be fraudulent, as are over 80% of pharma-CDC sponsored studies. Its goal was to confuse and deceive about MMR "safety". Most parents now know that this vaccine is very dangerous, as all other vaccines. In VAERS database MMR is linked to highest numbers of encephalitis/autism - 1970 cases. This should be multiplied by at lest 100, as only c. 1% of vaccine adverse reactions are reported, which would give us the number about 200 000. Of cause it is probably only about 1/10 of all autism cases in US.

John Stone


If any answer from you to my comment yesterday was dispatched it was not received. I decided not post a comment from you earlier in the week because it was not sourced, but this one we know nothing about. Your comment about the reasons for the exclusion of children of immigrant mothers is ridiculous - nor do I see any explanation of this omission in the paper. Perhaps they did not want to draw further attention to it. You also seem to be under a misapprension that the rise in autism is being ascribed solely to MMR when we are making the point that we believe their are other risk factors including other components of the expanding schedule - for instance Christopher Exley is expressing particular concern over aluminium adjuvanted vaccines (he is no the only one). You misrepresent Angus Files as anyone who cross-checks his comments can see.

My final comments are not hyperbole. If the CDC had cared about trying to regain trust they might have tried almost anything else. The politicised timing showed that it was simply another agenda. To give an example there is supposed for very good reasons to be a law in the U.K. that the publication of National Statistics is not supposed to coincide with policy statements - whether it is properly observed is another issue. But with the publication of so many medical/scientific papers the agenda seems to be built in. The public are being endless manipulated, and there is never so much as a gesture towards decent behaviour.

Jeannette Bishop

Thank you, Dr. Lyons-Weiler and the researchers/physicians commenting on the paper published! These analyses are so very helpful in understanding and conveying to others what is going on.


Much of ASD in Denmark gets diagnosed as young adults for some reason With children getting diagnosed at an ASD rate of 0.7%

I was rather surprised to see that supposedly unvaccinated (no MMR but most received other vaccines) had ASD rates of 1 in 60 (1.6%) while those who got MMR had rates 1 in 105 ( 1.0%). I suppose this is due to HUB

Again another study without adequate controls funded by Big Pharma. Why arent these studies being done in US? Supposedly we have lots of unvaccinated kids who can be used as a control. Perhaps thats why there is the push to vaccinate everyone

You would think that with almost 15 million kids with chronic illnesses requiring expensive medical intervention and exceptionally high costs for special education that a huge project would be funded. Instead they seem content to fall back on “no evidence” and discouraging anyone from looking for it


I pointed out to you yesterday with shades of Thompson DeStefano they had excluded arbitrarily, or with method, children of immigrant mothers, I did submit a reply, but it wasn’t published, I’ll try again.
The logical, and perfectly reasonable explanation is that for non-native Danes there may well be no information on the pregnancy, previous births etc., to enable the study to be completed where’s your problem?
as with the Madsen farrago children at the younger end of the cohort are too young to have a diagnosis. They even give themselves some extra room because they begin counting at 12 months when the first vaccination with MMR is not scheduled till 15 months.
Look at Figures 2 and 3, there is no difference in the Hazard Ratio for autism between vaccinated and unvaccinated (MMR) children with the different cohorts when arranged in 2 yearly intervals from 1999 to 2010, if the truncated evaluation time was having an effect it would be clear in the youngest children, ie born between 2008 & 2010, but there is no such effect.
Perhaps, what is most alarming (a feature that they do not remark upon) is that Hviid cohort 1999-2010 has a rate of autism more than 7 times higher than the Madsen cohort 1991-8.
The % of children receiving 2 MMR vaccinations was 82%, in the Hviid study it was 93%, so are you ascribing the X7 increase in autism to just a 13% increase in MMR vaccination uptake?
Your last paragraph is hyperbole, but since I’ve tried to answer your points in a polite manner would you to care to comment on the specific point I made about Lyons-Weiler comparing the autism rate in the whole study population (3-14 years) with the previously published rate for 10 year olds?
Exley’s comment refers to aluminium adjuvant vaccines somehow potentiating the effect of MMR, the paper specifically looked at that with the effect of children receiving adjuvant containing DTaP-IPV/Hib vaccine (Figure 3) on the autism Hazard Ratio with +/- MMR, there was no interaction.
Angus I would have thought that even you realised that MMR doesn't contain Al adjuvant or thiomersal.

Angus Files

With your silly distracting,Oh, look! there`s a squirrel! questions,how about instead,we look, at a simple study of children- MMR vaccine-one with aluminium and Mercury and one MMR vaccine without Mercury and Aluminium - oh silly me, Merck wont even send the current MMR vaccine for independent analyses.

Pharma For Prison


John Stone

Some comments have now been left under the paper on-line by Christopher Exley and Vinu Arumugham


I don't believe ANY study which shows "lack of association" between MMR vac and autism, even if the author of such paper was God himself. I have personally seen many children who became autistic after this vaccination and know that millions of world parents report the same. The fact that the authors of the recent danish paper have big pharma connections and have been involved in the fraud completely disqualifies this paper. It clearly looks as another CDC-pharma attempt to cover up their fraud related to CDC-Thompson's study, which documented autism rate in children who received MMR vaccines about 7 times greater than in children who did not get this vaccine.

David Weiner

"This is not about science it is about brutal, cynical empire building and human subjugation."

That is very well said, John.

This is just another PR exercise.

W John Martin

Relevant to this topic is a comment I submitted to the Clinical Infectious Diseases journal on February 15, 2019. The submitted comment was in response to the article published in the journal on February 14th entitled “Principal Controversies in Vaccine Safety in the United States” The comment was not published, although the basic criticism of epidemiological studies is valid. The submitted comment read as follows:

Epidemiological studies are inherently flawed if multiple factors contribute to the disease in question. In pursuing the role in disease of a single factor, such as a particular vaccine, it is necessary that the comparisons groups be equally matched for all of the other influencing factors. This is impossible when uncertainty exists as to the entirety of the relevant factors.
The occurrence of an illness following vaccination warrants a detailed analysis of the affected individuals. One topic that public health authorities have failed to consider is the existence of vaccine-derived, stealth adapted viruses. These viruses are not effectively recognized by the cellular immune system because of deletions or mutations in the genes coding for the relatively few major virus components, which are normally targeted by the cellular immune system. Minor virus components may become immunogenic if the reactivity of the immune system is boosted with adjuvants. The growth of stealth adapted viruses can also be potentially stimulated by interactions with live vaccine virus.
DNA sequence data have unequivocally established an African green monkey cytomegalovirus origin of the stealth adapted viruses isolated from a patient with the chronic fatigue syndrome and from another patient who died following a bipolar psychosis (1, 2). This topic should have certainly been addressed in any discussion of vaccine safety. At the minimum, individuals developing illnesses following vaccination should be tested for stealth adapted viruses. Public health authorities have long had detailed technical information on the culturing of these viruses. W. John Martin, MD, PhD.

1. Martin et al. (1995) African green monkey origin of the atypical cytopathic 'stealth virus' isolated from a patient with chronic fatigue syndrome Clinical Diagnostic Virology 4(1):93-103.
2. Martin et al. (1996) Simian cytomegalovirus-related stealth virus isolated from the cerebrospinal fluid of a patient with bipolar psychosis and acute encephalopathy. Pathobiology 64(2): 64-6.


Indeed, I agree with James that there are likely missing cases, and over at RI I am pointing out how exactly it happened. For starters, this study is just a follow-up of the previous Danish study, Madison et al 2002. That study utilized a birth cohort of all Danish kids born from Jan 1990 to Dec 1998. The obvious problem with that study was the quick cut-off date, the date that the study ended and the researchers stopped counting times to a diagnosis. Two prominent critics had this to say,,,,,

Goldman and Yazbak, in a letter published in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, pointed out the “substantial under-representation of autism diagnoses and vaccination status for children born in the later study years.[5]” Children with ASD in Denmark are diagnosed at about 5 years old; many were simply too young to receive an ASD diagnosis by the end of the study period. This would apply to all children under the age of 36 months and, in a practical sense, to many of the 3-5 year olds. Among children born in 1997 and 1998, who made up a substantial proportion (39%) of the total years of observation time, many had yet to even receive an MMR vaccine all.


■ Follow up on medical records terminated just one year after the last day of admission to the cohort. “Because of the length of time from birth to diagnosis, the Cochrane reviewers felt it became ’… increasingly unlikely that those born later in the cohort could have a diagnosis.”

With this current study there appears to be a slight improvement in the time lag between the last birth cohort (Dec 2009) and the study's cut-off date (Aug 2013), but the fact that mean age of diagnosis is now 7 as opposed to Madison's 5 makes things essentially a wash, and we have the same problem on our hands. Spelling things out, a child born in the last cohort will be less than 3 at the time of cut-off. In fact, roughly half of the kids in the total sample will not reach the age of 7 where they would have a mere 50% chance of being diagnosed. Does this not sound like a recipe for hordes of missed cases? It sure does!

The truly head scratching thing is the Danish database is quite historic, and the researchers could've selected much older birth cohorts to study. Heck- they could've reexamined the Madison et al cases and while keeping the Aug 2013 cut-off. This would've ensured no missed cases with the kids having sufficient time to mature to a diagnosis. They did not do this opting instead to repeat the same mistake that was leveled against Madison et al. Deliberate? You bet your bottom dollar it was! A quick cut-off date is the most efficient way of getting rid of cases outside of blatant manipulation or fraud.

John Stone


The opaque waffle comes from the paper because it is supposed to represent something which it does not. Some clues as to why there is a shortfall in in autism numbers (1) as I pointed out to you yesterday with shades of Thompson DeStefano they had excluded arbitrarily, or with method, children of immigrant mothers, (2) as with the Madsen farrago children at the younger end of the cohort are too young to have a diagnosis. They even give themselves some extra room because they begin counting at 12 months when the first vaccination with MMR is not scheduled till 15 months. Also, they are not comparing MMR vaccinated against unvacccinated, but just MMR unvaccinated. Perhaps, what is most alarming (a feature that they do not remark upon) is that Hviid cohort 1999-2010 has a rate of autism more than 7 times higher than the Madsen cohort 1991-8.

There are aspects of this which are beyond disgusting: the sheer arrogance of returning to the Danish Staat Serum Institut after the Thorsen debacle (and some of same authors), ignoring the heavy criticisms of the original set of Danish vaccine/autism papers, the opportunistic and shameless timing of the publication. This is not about science it is about brutal, cynical empire building and human subjugation.


Thank you Dr JLW!!!!!


James that's just "opaque" waffle, the incidence value in the paper that you quote of 1% is accumulative for all ages until the study closed, ie 3-14 years old. You then compare and contrast this value with a previous study quoting an incidence of 1.65% at a fixed age of 10 years. Since the accumulative rate of autism diagnosis increases as the age band increases, as shown in Fig 2 in the paper, it is clearly not valid to compare an accumulative value of 3-14 years with that of a fixed age, ie 10 years

James Lyons-Weiler

Until the medical community begins to clinically interpret this study and studies like it differently for 10 to 14 year olds and for younger children, then translational failure will not have occurred. However every media coverage of this study has said another study shows that MMR is not associated with autism without any qualifiers about age. The study-wide rate does not represent the entire population rate, and thus my point stands.

A key to understanding whether a study is being interpreted by the authors, the media and by the clinical community correctly is to look at the populations that have been excluded. Unless the interpretation of the study is restricted to the population that was actually studied then we have unwarranted generalizations which is not only alogical it is not scientific.


(1) The smoking gun is the study-wide autism rate of 0.9-1%. The rate of ASD in Denmark is 1.65%. Where are the missing cases of ASD? Given past allegations of this group’s malfeasance and fraud, the rest of the study cannot be accepted based on this disparity alone: the study group is not representative of the population being studied.

No it’s not a “smoking gun” Dr Lyons-Weiler, it’s just your very careless reading of the data: to quote you the study-wide autism rate is 0.9-1.0% (actually James it’s 1.0011%). This covers the whole cohort born between 1999 & 2010, ie 3 years to 14 years old.
The study you link to quotes 1.65 percent in 10-year-olds in Denmark in 2016. ie it’s rate at a defined age of 10 years, not a cumulative value in 0-10 year olds!

Now look at Figure 2 in the paper, the cumulative incidence by age, eyeballing the graph it’s about 1.4% at 10 years old, for 14 years of age it’s over 2% in this Danish data.
So there is no “smoking gun” and this is just yet another conspiracy theory sparked by simplemisinterpretation of data…

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.)