The Health Resources & Services Administration just released new dollar figures reflecting payouts from the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.

The payouts for vaccine injuries just went past the whopping $4 billion mark. Using the government’s own conclusion that only 1% of all vaccine injuries are reported, the $4 billion is just the tip of the iceberg.

Despite assurances from CDC and our Federal agencies that all vaccines are safe, the payouts say otherwise. Vaccine injuries can and do happen—to previously healthy children and adults. Consumers deserve to know the facts about the full range of vaccine risks. 

In most public health communications about vaccination, officials gloss over vaccine risks, dismissing any possible “side effects” as mild. However, vaccination programs have always resulted in more serious vaccine injuries for some. In the 1970s and early 1980s, for example, the diphtheria-pertussis-tetanus (DPT) vaccine and its whole-cell pertussis component had chalked up so much vaccine damage that a television documentary likened receiving a DPT shot to playing “vaccine roulette.”

After the DPT debacle began attracting widespread attention, vaccine manufacturers started pressuring Congress for protection from vaccine injury lawsuits. Congress obliged. In 1986, President Reagan signed into existence a radical piece of legislation—the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA)—which launched what the Act described as an “alternative remedy to judicial action for specified vaccine-related injuries.” A key component of the legislation involved creating the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP), which was given responsibility for deciding (through the workings of a special “vaccine court”) whether specific injuries and individuals would be eligible for financial compensation.

Over the vaccine court’s 30-year history, individuals and families have filed over 20,000 petitions for vaccine injury compensation. This month, even as 12% of filed petitions remained unadjudicated, the payouts crossed over the $4 billion threshold. This amount was awarded in response to barely a third (31% or 6,276) of the filed petitions. There is no telling how much more money the taxpayer-funded program might have shelled out if the court had not chosen to dismiss the remaining petitions (56%)—possibly doing so fraudulently in at least some cases.

Running the Gauntlet

Over the three decades, despite the stated intent to furnish an “accessible and efficient forum for individuals found to be injured by certain vaccines,” the NVICP has devolved into a protracted and litigious David-versus-Goliath battleground. The vaccine court, in actuality, is “not a court at all but…a consumer-funded government claims program that uses…employees of Health and Human Services (HHS), rather than judges to make decisions on compensation.” While government-funded Department of Justice (DOJ) lawyers vigorously represent and defend the interests of HHS and vaccine manufacturers, the consumer-unfriendly system forces the vaccine-injured to meet an exceptionally high burden of proof. For dismissed claims, there is no assurance that the program will even cover attorneys’ fees and costs.

Children’s Health Defense recently called attention to a glaring example of the NVICP’s pro-industry and anti-vaccine-injured bias. In 2007 and 2008, DOJ attorneys exhibited “highly unethical and appallingly consequential official misconduct” during an Omnibus Autism Proceeding (OAP) orchestrated to determine the fate of 5,400 families who had filed claims for vaccine-induced autism. The potential value of the claims exceeded $100 billion—an amount that “would have bankrupted the [compensation] program many times over.” HHS’s Department of Justice lawyers, “under pressure” to deprive petitioners of their rightful relief, successfully achieved that aim through allegedly fraudulent means. In September 2018, Children’s Health Defense Chairman Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Rolf Hazlehurst (parent of one of the vaccine-injured children involved in the OAP) requested that the DOJ Inspector General and Congress investigate this fraud and obstruction of justice by HHS and DOJ officials.

Individuals who file claims with VICP must meet specific “medical criteria” and are out of luck unless their illness, disability, injury or condition is covered in the NVICP’s Vaccine Injury Tableand manifests within a specified time frame. As an illustration of the difficulties that NVICP petitioners may encounter, consider someone who experiences myocarditis (heart inflammation) following vaccination. A 2018 article in BMJ Case Reports recently observed that myocarditis is one of “the more serious vaccine-related sequela” and “has been reported following many different vaccines.”

Another recent article in a European medical journal describes post-vaccination reports of myopericarditis (inflammation of both the pericardium and the heart muscle) and other autoimmune disorders and offers two extremely plausible mechanisms “by which vaccines can cause autoimmune reactions.” In the Vaccine Injury Table, however, the only place where cardiac symptoms are mentioned is in connection with anaphylaxis—with the table’s notes indicating that “there are no specific pathological findings to confirm a diagnosis of anaphylaxis”—and most autoimmune illnesses are also conspicuously absent.

Tip of the Iceberg

By anyone’s accounting, the $4 billion paid out to date by the NVICP is an attention-getting amount of money. However, that amount pales in comparison to the billions of dollars’ worth of autism claims that the vaccine court unfairly dismissed. According to HHS, moreover, “fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported,” and studies confirm that many health providers are unfamiliar with the system for reporting vaccine injuries. The shocking underreporting of vaccine injuries also fails to account for the fact that one in six individuals who experience an “adverse event following immunization” (AEFI) have a recurrence with subsequent vaccination, often rated as “more severe than the initial AEFI.” If even a small percentage of these unreported and recurrent vaccine injuries were brought forward for compensation, the entire NVICP house of cards—and the CDC’s deceptive claims of unassailable vaccine safety—would crumble.

A Gold Rush: Liability Protection Encourages More Vaccines

Instead, whether intended or not, the end result of the 1986 Act and the NVICP has been to create a “gold rush” environment that encourages manufacturers to develop even more vaccines, while conveniently exempting them from liability for the injuries and deaths that result from their powerful immune-system-altering products. With no incentive to make vaccines safe and a large and lucrative market guaranteed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s childhood vaccine schedule—as well as a growing effort to foist unnecessary and dangerous vaccines on adults—vaccine manufacturers appear to have it made. The public and vaccine safety advocates must continue to remind the government that the approximately 6,300 claims that have been compensated over the NVICP’s 30-year history represent the very tip of the iceberg.

The viewpoints expressed here do not necessarily represent those of Infowars.

When historians write about the Vaccine Decades (1976–2020), there are two names that will live in infamy: Dr. Frank DeStefano, and Dr. Coleen Boyle.

In the 1980s, Congress mandated Agent Orange studies. Frank and Coleen ended the studies two years early, ensuring that “no link” would be found between illnesses being reported by injured veterans and dioxin. The early termination of the study allowed the US Department of Veterans Affairs to deny any connection between Agent Orange and medical problems, preventing veterans and their families from qualifying for compensations. Here’s your hurt, what’s your hurry. The Boyle/Destefano team bamboozle was outed by Admiral Zumwalt who went to the President and laid out the science in a classified report (now declassified):

“Without exception, the experts who reviewed the work of the Advisory Committee disagreed with its findings and further questioned the validity of the Advisory Committee’s review of studies on non — Hodgkin’s lymphomas .”

“a decision which should have been based on scientific data was reduced to vague impressions”

[One impartial review team’s results were] “a stunning indictment of the Advisory Committee’s scientific interpretation and policy judgments”

“1987 Followup Examination Results,” described statistically significant increases in health problems among Ranch Handers including all cancers”

“The work of the Veterans’ Advisory Committee on Environmental Hazards, as documented in their November 2, 1989 transcript, has little or no scientific merit, and should not serve as a basis for compensation or regulatory decisions of any sort.”

“the Air Force could just as easily have concluded that the health problems associated with the Ranch Handers were not necessarily related to eating beer nuts.”

“Shamefully, the deception, fraud and political interference that has characterized government-sponsored studies on the health effects of exposure to Agent Orange and/or dioxin has not escaped studies ostensibly conducted by independent reviewers, a factor that has only further compounded the erroneous conclusions reached by the government.”

The Zumwalt report concluded:

“It can, in my judgment, be concluded, with a very high degree of confidence, that it is at least as likely as not that the following are caused in humans by exposure to TCDD: non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, chloracne and other skin disorders, lip cancer, bone cancer, soft tissue sarcoma, birth defects, skin cancer, lung cancer, porphyria cutanea tarda and other liver disorders, Hodgkin’s disease, hematopoietic diseases, multiple myeloma, neurological defects and auto-immune diseases and disorders.

In addition, I am most comfortable in concluding that it is at least as likely as not that liver cancer, nasal/pharyngeal/esophageal cancers, leukemia, malignant melanoma, kidney cancer, testicular cancer, pancreatic cancer, stomach cancer, prostate cancer, colon cancer, brain cancer, psychosocial effects, and gastrointestinal disease are service– connected..”

President Clinton called Admiral Zumwalt “the conscience of the US Navy”. In fact, Zumwalt’s report is used by veterans seeking compensation. Zumwalt’s son was exposed to Agent Orange and died of lymphoma in 1988.

Boyle and Destefano’s Role in Agent Orange Pseudoscience

The CDC study (which lists no authors) that was published did not study any specific mechanism by which Agent Orange might have caused health issues in veterans. Instead, it studied dioxin levels in Vietnam veterans compared to non-Vietnam veterans. The 646 Vietnam veterans studied by CDC who all served in units that were most likely exposed, did not have elevated levels of dioxin as compared to non-Vietnam veterans. This retrospective study seeking differences of levels of dioxin nearly two decades after exposure is a type of epidemiologic study with only a long shot at success. The aims of the study were to determine whether military records could be “used to identify US Army Vietnam veterans who were likely to be exposed to the herbicide Agent Orange”.

Dioxin is stored in fat. The study measured dioxin levels in serum. Given the CDC’s failure to detect evidence for increased exposure in the 1980s, the ill-posed study was initially used as justification for no further science on the possible effects of exposure.

The analysis and conclusions were also blasted by a Congressional Report:

Human Resources and Intergovernmental Relations Subcommittee, US House of Representatives: The Agent Orange Coverup: A Case of Flawed Science and Political Manipulation. 101st Congress, 2d Session, House Report №101–672. Washington, DC: Govt Printing Office, 1990.

What else has the Destefano/Boyle team failed to detect?

Under their watch, studies conducted ostensibly to test the hypothesis of a link between vaccines and autism have consistently failed to detect any association. Are they competent enough, given the debacle of their failed study in 1988, to run the hopefully entitled “Immunization Safety Office” (which ignores the differences between Vaccination and Immunization) and the “National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities”?

It is my professional opinion that no, neither of these individuals is sufficiently competent to be involved in vaccine safety science and interpretation of studies.

Further, it is my professional opinion that both are guilty of intentional and scientific fraud, perpetuated repeatedly and consistently, to hide the association between vaccines and neurodevelopmental disorders.

(1) Boyle informed Congress that no studies have been conducted that compares the rates of autism in vaccinated and unvaccinated Americans. Yet the CDC website clearly reads “Vaccines Do Not Cause Autism”. How could any competent scientist make such as stunning conclusion when the science required to answer the question has not been conducted?

Dr. Coleen Boyle testified to Congress that no science exists that shows vaccines do not cause autism, yet the CDC website still proclaims that “Vaccines Do Not Cause Autism”.

(2) Destefano removed results showing increased risk of autism from on-time MMR prior to presenting to the Institutes of Medicine, and prior to publishing the fraudulent study known as “Destefano et al., 2004”. Two subgroups are missing: African American boys, and isolated autism. The latter group had increased risk, included boys and girls from any race, who had no other conditions other than autism. That means “anyone”.

Dr. William Thompson confessed his role in allowing false reports to be published both in audio recordings to Dr. Brian Hooker, and in statements from his lawyers. He was put on leave after reporting his concerns to then CDC Director Julie Gerberding, who put him on suspension for breaking rank. Dr. Walter Orenstein is also implicated in the cover-ups. See vaxxedthemovie.com and youtube.com/watch?v=hlxdWfTLHH0

(3) Boyle personally attempted to reconfigure the study design of that same study in an attempt to make the association of on-time MMR and autism go away. The team played with study design after knowing the increased risk of autism had been found, which is not allowed in objective research. They worked very hard to attempt to make the association go away. They play games with birth certificates and age-group definitions. Nothing worked. So they simply removed the results:

(4) DeStefano admitted to journalist Sharyl Attkisson that (a) they removed the results because they did not believe them, and (b) that vaccines may be responsible for autism in susceptible individuals (See Sharyl Attkisson’s capture and hear the confession to her here).

Dr. Frank DeStefano’s career exemplifies a list of failures to detect anything wrong with vaccines.

“I guess, that, that is a possibility,” said DeStefano. “It’s hard to predict who those children might be, but certainly, individual cases can be studied to look at those possibilities.”

(5) DeStefano has participated in other publications in which he outlines how association studies should be conducted. He says that covariates must be “corrected for”, and that finding covariates that cause associations between vaccination and adverse events to disappear after the association is first found and then lost due to such corrections somehow exonerates vaccines. This is poppycock. If birth weight, mother’s age, mother’s income, gestational age, etc. cause a loss of significance of vaccination status, the correct model selection procedure is to look for interactions between vaccines and the covariates — especially because they can be functionally related to adverse events from vaccines. If the interaction terms are significant (which could easily be, given that mother’s income, age, gestational age, and birthweight may all correlate to nutritional status), the result is pointing to covariates that make vaccination an increased risk. This is elementary linear modeling, and any studies that “correct for” covariates without also studying, and reporting, the interaction terms is hiding the effects of vaccines interacting with other variables.

Given these realities and the fact that this and other equally damning information has been available for at least three years, it simply is unconscionable that Destefano and Boyle remain in their positions at the CDC. We cannot have incompetent individuals unable to conduct and properly interpret science standing in the way of helping America deal with the explosion of neurodevelopmental disorders — and the full suite of consequences currently being experienced in schools and homes all around the country.

Cowardice at CDC is Not Leadership with Accountability

These people are not only incompetent. They are cowards. Here, we learn from Dr. Thompson that Coleen Boyle refused to ever testify to Congress again. CDC abdicated its responsibility to account for their policies:

(recorded May 24, 2014) Page 25 —

Dr. Thompson: Well let me tell you something really interesting I learned about this week so in the midst of this. Ya know, I was yelling at Marshalyn this week, I mean, Marshalyn and I were . . . WHOOOO! I was, it was suggested I resign, and um it’s like that type of stuff going on right now. The whole place is a big pressure cooker . . . So I don’t know if you know this. The CDC was invited to testify (before Congress) and they declined, so this is . . .

Dr. Hooker: Really?

Dr. Thompson: Yeah, and Marshalyn said she’s been offered to testify and said she won’t. Coleen (Boyle) said she’s been offered to testify and Coleen said that she would never go and testify again.

May 20, 2014 — the hearing which Thompson is talking about and Boyle and CDC declined to attend:

Examining the Federal Response to Autism Spectrum Disorders (5/20/2014)

The rate of ASDs is now 1 in 36. Frank, Coleen, you can stop the denialism. It’s over. And you can help America. How? Please resign, and in your letters of resignation, provide a full confession, like Dr. William Thompson has, and let someone capable try to clean up the mess you’ve made.

Vaccines can cause autism in some people, and, from the looks of things, in many people, and you know it. You failed to adjust the schedule, or offer meaningful public health advice in terms of vaccine safety. Your deeds are having profound effects on society, which are difficult to grasp:

• Half of children have a mental illness in the US.
• Teachers cannot teach children due to behavioral anomalies.
• Violence in schools is causing special education teachers to quit in schools across the country.
• Property taxes are going up as special education costs skyrocket.
• Calm rooms are being built in schools, and wobble chairs to allow fidgeting.
• Rates of schizophrenia are increasing among 20– 30-year-olds.
• High levels of amyloid are found in the brains of kids with severe autism.
• High levels of aluminum are found in people with autism.
• Artificial immunization programs are failing as parents abandon them due to first-hand experience with neurological and immunological adverse events.
• Exemptions to vaccine mandates are increasingly under fire.

There are desperate attempts ongoing now to convince the increasingly vaccine injured public that vaccine injuries are rare, to blame ASD on stress in the home, and most recently on alcohol use during pregnancy. Why now, all of sudden, can such association be detected? Where were these studies of environmental exposures conducted by CDC after 1988?

There were none. CDC (i.e., Boyle, Destefano) had a suspicious lack of curiosity of what DID cause autism. CDC convinced IOM to say that no more studies were needed.

Sound familiar?

CDC failed to detect association, and called for no more science. Just like Agent Orange.

Studies of genetics have revealed 850 genes associated with autism, but no single gene explains more than 1% of ASD. No studies have looked for genetic/vaccine interactions — and they must be conducted to fill in the gap. “No studies” does not mean “negative evidence.” It means “we need more science.”

The future is now. Vaccines can no longer be said to be “safe” and effective. Other science has progressed, independent of CDC, and the cat is out of the bag.

History will recall the names Destefano, Boyle, Orenstein, Gerberding — and Thompson. There are others. History has shown us that propaganda has never been successful in propping up a regime founded on fraud.

It’s time for Vaccine Safety Science Reform at the CDC, and across the United States.

First, we need competence.

https://www.infowars.com/report-same-people-behind-failed-agent-orange-study-in-charge-of-vaccine-safety-at-cdc/

Rates of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) continue to soar worldwide, with average prevalence estimated to be around 1.5% in developed countries.

This estimate appears to be spot-on for Canada, which reported in March 2018 that autism (as of 2015) affected 1 in 66 children and youth (1.52%). These numbers place Canada among the “top ten” for autism among North American, European and Asian countries.

The Canadian public had been expecting the Public Health Agency of Canada to release these first-ever nationally representative ASD numbers since 2016.

The data come from the National ASD Surveillance System (NASS), which, according to the Public Health Agency, is intended to pinpoint the number of young people diagnosed with ASD “both across regions and over time.”

The Agency’s report provides answers on both fronts—showing steady increases in ASD prevalence since 2003 and notable differences across regions—but the document declines to speculate on factors that might account for the regional differences.

ASD prevalence by province and territory

NASS compiles administrative data from the health, education and social services sectors for children and youth (aged 5-17 years) who have a confirmed ASD diagnosis. Seven of Canada’s 13 provinces and territories provided information for 2015, including six provinces (British Columbia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Quebec) and one territory (Yukon). As the figure below shows, ASD prevalence in 2015 varied among the seven regions, with the highest prevalence noted in the three provinces of Newfoundland and Labrador (1 in 57), Prince Edward Island (1 in 59) and Quebec (1 in 65). In comparison, prevalence was substantially lower in the Yukon territory (1 in 125).

The three high-prevalence provinces also provided retrospective data that allowed for an assessment of temporal trends. For the slightly narrower age group of 5-14 year-olds, the historical data showed sizeable increases in ASD prevalence from 2003 to 2015 (Prince Edward Island and Quebec) and from 2003 to 2009 (Newfoundland and Labrador):

• Newfoundland and Labrador: from 6 to 19.6 per 1,000 (a 227% increase)
• Prince Edward Island: from 5 to 17.7 per 1,000 (a 254% increase)
• Quebec: from 3.5 to 15.7 per 1,000 (a 349% increase)

Explaining the regional differences

What might explain the variation in ASD prevalence within Canada’s borders? The NASS report does not offer any comments.

However, an observant health practitioner in British Columbia has noticed a compelling parallel: autism prevalence is highest in the Canadian provinces that also have the highest vaccination coverage.

This evidence comes from a 2013 survey carried out by the very same Public Health Agency of Canada, which examined vaccine coverage by province/territory and type of vaccine (see table).

The survey showed that coverage by age two was generally lower (with a few exceptions) in Yukon territory than in the three high-autism provinces.

For Newfoundland/Labrador and Quebec, the percentage point difference in vaccine coverage was anywhere from five to fifteen percentage points higher than in Yukon; Prince Edward Island’s lead in vaccine coverage compared to Yukon was less substantial.

Correlation is not causation but…

Any researcher worth their salt knows that while correlation is not the same as causation, a plausible association between two variables is often an important clue worth investigating.

The substantially lower ASD prevalence in a region that happens to have markedly lower vaccine coverage is one such clue.

Another strand of evidence that simply cannot be chalked up to coincidence are the tens of thousands of parental reports of children regressing into autism after receiving one or more vaccines.

Unfortunately, Canadian parents who suspect that their autistic child was vaccine-injured have nowhere to turn, because Canada remains “one of few western countries that denies the reality of vaccine injuries and provides no avenue whatsoever to compensate vaccine injury victims and their families.”

It would behoove Canada’s public health officials to take a closer look at their own data and start taking meaningful steps to prevent the country’s ASD numbers from climbing still further.

https://www.infowars.com/report-more-autism-in-regions-where-vaccine-coverage-highest/

Luke E. Taylor, a “Pediatric Registrar” at the Children’s Hospital at Westmead in Sydney, Australia, may not realize that his surname has been co-opted by many in the vitriolic vaccine-autism science debate.

A college graduate in 2009, Mr. Taylor (he’s not a doctor) was only one year removed from getting his Master’s Degree in Medicine in 2014 when he authored the only research paper he’s ever published, Vaccines are not associated with autism: An evidence-based meta-analysis of case-control and cohort studies. Today, his paper is commonly referred to as the “Taylor study” and it has become, surprisingly, the evidence du jour that “vaccines don’t cause autism.”

Roughly one month ago, Mr. Taylor’s 2014 paper was being widely circulated on Facebook, and I heard from many asking me to comment on the study. Worse, the link many were sharing actually came from a summary of the study provided by Autism Speaks, who treated the Taylor study (back in May 2014) as a nail in the coffin on the vaccine-autism debate. 

I’m perpetually disappointed in Autism Speaks, and the way they framed this study was no exception. Here’s a quote from their summary of the Taylor paper:

“Meta-analysis can be a powerful research approach,” comments epidemiologist Michael Rosanoff, Autism Speaks associate director for public health research. “It assesses the quality of data across multiple studies and combines the highest-quality data to give us a ‘higher definition picture’ of the relationship between potential risk factors and autism.”

Two more reasons to write

In just a moment, I will explain to you how absurd it is to treat this meta-analysis as anything more than a “garbage in-garbage out” study, but before I do, I want you to understand why I’m actually taking the time to write this article. Like you, I’m a busy parent, I’m not paid to write these articles, and I can’t waste my time on every topic in this debate, but two things recently happened that pushed me over the edge:

1. Quick story: some leading activists in the autism community met with one of the most senior members of the National Institutes of Health. They pressed this newly-appointed person that the science on whether or not vaccines cause autism remained wide open. He disagreed. They asked him for his evidence. He said he would follow up with the studies he relied upon to convince him this debate is settled. Later, an email arrived. He sent a single link. To the Taylor study!

2. Four days ago, and this was really the final straw for me, my own State Senator here in Portland, Oregon, Elizabeth Steiner-Hayward, posted the Taylor study on her Facebook page, and referred to it as an “Important new study” despite the fact that it’s four years old…and added the deeply galling hashtag “#sciencematters.” Many of you might recognize Senator Steiner-Hayward’s name, as she was the cranky sponsor of a 2015 bill that would have made vaccines mandatory here in Oregon. Her mean-spirited campaign cratered, but not before she proved to many that her mastery of the vaccine-autism debate involved copying and pasting anything that exonerated vaccines, sort of like her recent Facebook post. While it’s not entirely germane to the topic at hand, there’s never a bad time to share this short video of Senator Steiner-Hayward, who happens to also be a “family doctor” who vaccinates children for a living:

The Taylor Study: Fundamental Flaw

I’m going to start with the punchline. It’s maddening, really, how often I have to explain this simple concept to people. I guess it speaks to what a great job P.R. firms have done convincing the public that the “science is settled” about whether or not vaccines cause autism. Here’s an image, and by itself, it pretty much renders the Taylor study useless:

So what are you looking at? This is a simple table that shows three things:

1. Column A shows 38 separate ingredients that are included in AT LEAST two vaccines given to children in the United States.

2. Column B shows the first 25 vaccines given to American children in the first 15 months of their life, if they follow the CDC’s recommended schedule.

3. Column C shows my son’s progression into autism over time. Note that he was very sick long before he received the MMR vaccine, which American children typically get at their 12-month vaccine appointment.

Finally, the red circles show something very important. And, this is really the point.

The red circles show the two things that the Taylor Study actually considered in relation to autism: the MMR vaccine, and the mercury-based ingredient Thimerosal. That’s it.

But what about all the other things injected into children when they get vaccinated? What about the 37 other ingredients and what about every other vaccine except MMR? The Taylor “meta-analysis”–which only analyzed studies looking at the MMR vaccine or Thimerosal–would provide no answers. Don’t believe me? As you probably know, a “meta-analysis” is an analysis of other studies. The conclusions and data of each study are aggregated, and the hope is that by comparing all these studies, the conclusions reached will be even more robust. It makes sense, and is often helpful. But, it can’t be helpful if the group of studies in your “meta-analysis” only looked at one ingredient and one vaccine. If you actually read the details of the Taylor Study itself, the authors are quite clear about how narrow the scope of the studies they included in their meta-analysis really were:

“Studies were included that looked at either MMR vaccination, cumulative mercury (Hg) or cumulative thimerosal dosage from vaccinations…”

The Meta-Analysis Studies

Since the authors just affirmed that they only compared autism rates to either Thimerosal (mercury) or MMR, I won’t belabor this point, but here are the actual studies that were included in their meta-analysis, all 10 of them, the titles reveal what was actually looked at:

MMR  Studies: 6

1. “A population-based study of measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination and autism.”
2. “MMR-vaccine and regression in autism spectrum disorders: negative results presented from Japan.”
3. “Age at first measles–mumps–rubella vaccination in children with autism and school- matched control subjects: a population-based study in metropolitan Atlanta.”
4. “Lack of association between measles–mumps–rubella vaccination and autism in children: a case-control study.”
5. “MMR vaccination and pervasive developmental disorders: a case-control study.”
6. “The combined measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines and the total number of vaccines are not associated with development of autism spectrum disorder: the first case-control study in Asia.”

Thimerosal Studies: 4

1. “Thimerosal exposure in infants and developmental disorders: a retrospective cohort study in the United Kingdom does not support a causal association.”
2. “Safety of thimerosal-containing vaccines: a two-phased study of computerized health maintenance organization databases.”
3. “Association between thimerosal-containing vaccine and autism.”
4. “Prenatal and infant exposure to thimerosal from vaccines and immunoglobulins and risk of autism.”

Importantly, every single child in every single study included in this meta-analysis HAD BEEN VACCINATED. Really.

Before I move on, I want to mention one other study that often gets thrown in my face as “proof” vaccines don’t cause autism. It’s often called the “Sibling MMR” study, and it was created by a consulting firm to pharmaceutical companies, The Lewin Group. In the study, the authors misappropriate the word “unvaccinated” which confused many. I do my best to explain in this article:

An excellent website, Vaccine Papers, also debunked The Lewin Group’s study. Here’s a quote:

“The Jain [Lewin Group] study only looked at MMR. Media reports about this study have falsely and deceptively asserted that the Jain study shows that “vaccines” in general do not cause autism. In reality, the Jain study says nothing about other vaccines. The MMR vaccine is the only vaccine that has been much studied in relation to autism, and all of the MMR-autism studies suffer from HUB. The other likely more dangerous aluminum-containing vaccines, given at younger ages, have hardly been studied at all. It is a blatant lie to claim that the science shows “vaccines” in general do not cause autism.

The science actually shows the opposite. Controlled animal experiments overwhelmingly prove that immune activation (i.e., interleukin-6) in the developing brain causes autism. Animal experiments also prove that aluminum adjuvant causes brain damage, at dosages human infants routinely receive from vaccines.”

VAERS Madness

There are two excerpts from the study itself that simply need to be seen to be believed. One of the study authors actually witnessed his two children experience seizures after their vaccines, including one that was a “serious event.” His solution? Give vaccines in the morning so you can watch for seizures.

He recommends reporting adverse events to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (“VAERS”). At the same time, any studies that included VAERS data were excluded from consideration for the meta-analysis…you can’t make this stuff up! (Some unsolicited parenting advice: If your child has a seizure after you give them something, maybe don’t give them that thing again?)

“Saddest paper I’ve ever seen”

Dr. William Thompson, a CDC scientist and head epidemiologist of the National Immunization Program, has become well-known in the autism community for his decision to blow the whistle about the MMR #3 study above, stating that, “I regret that my coauthors and I omitted statistically significant information in our 2004 article published in the journal Pediatrics.” Dr. Thompson had multiple phone conversations recorded while speaking with an autism dad, Dr. Brian Hooker. In one of those conversations, Dr. Thompson, the leading autism-vaccine epidemiologist in the world at the time, had this to say about the Taylor study:

Epidemiology vs. Biology

All the science included in the Taylor study, as narrow as the scope of the studies are, was epidemiology. Scientists are looking at data, in this case medical records and vaccination records of children, and they’re analyzing them to look for patterns and relationships. But, there’s a different kind of science that’s more revealing. It’s biological science, the kind Vaccine Papers referred to in the above quote. It’s science looking at living things and how they actually respond to other things. In the vaccine-autism debate, we have a growing body of biological science. It’s compelling, and it’s all very recent. We have mice studies where the mice are injected with vaccine ingredients, producing devastating results. And, we have clear biological plausibility for how, exactly, a vaccine can cause autism in a child. That’s not the point of this post, but it is the point of an article I wrote a few weeks ago, and you can read about it right here:

Needless to say, the Taylor study didn’t contemplate ANY of the compelling biological science linking vaccines to autism.

Asking the Right Question

If science doesn’t ask the right question, the answer a study produces is useless. Perhaps the biggest issue with the science done to date to assess the relationship between vaccines and autism is that it doesn’t reflect the real world of how vaccines are administered and the feedback from parents on how this impacts their children.

In 1983, the maximum number of separate vaccines a child would receive by the age of five was 10. Today, that number is 38. By the time a child is five years old, if their parents follow the CDC’s recommended schedule, they will have received the following vaccines, many in multiple doses (the doses are what get you from 11 to 38: you get DTaP 4 times, for example):

1. Hepatitis B
2. Rotavirus
3. DTaP
4. Hib
5. Pneumococcal
6. Polio
7. Flu
8. MMR
9. Varicella
10. Hepatitis A
11. Meningococcal

Of the 11 separate diseases covered above, there are actually 34 separate vaccines licensed with the FDA. For example, your child might receive either Rotateq or Rotarix, each of which has been developed in a separate and unique way to address the disease Rotavirus. The possible combinations of total vaccines your child might receive are almost infinite: my child got the Merck Hep B, but the Sanofi Flu, etc, etc. So, in a single two-month-old visit, the average American child will receive six separate vaccines in about five minutes (or less, if you can stomach watching this video – PTSD warning for autism parents):

1. Hepatitis B
2. Rotavirus
3. DTaP
4. Hib
5. Pneumococcal
6. Polio

Two months later, at four months of age, most children in America will again receive the same six vaccines, all administered at the same time:

1. Hepatitis B
2. Rotavirus
3. DTaP
4. Hib
5. Pneumococcal
6. Polio

Two months later, at six months of age, most children in America then receive seven vaccines, all administered at the same time:

1. Hepatitis B
2. Rotavirus
3. DTaP
4. Hib
5. Pneumococcal
6. Polio
7. Flu

So, by six months of age, most American children receive 19 vaccines through three visits to the doctor. (It’s worth noting that many kids also receive a birth dose of Hepatitis B, boosting this number to 20 vaccines.)

So, of the first 20 shots given to kids, how many have been studied for their relationship to autism? As you know from the Taylor study, the answer is ZERO, because only one vaccine, the MMR, has ever been studied for its relationship to autism. The MMR is first administered to American children at 12 months of age. I explained this to Dr. Stork on a memorable appearance I made on The Doctors, I think his reaction shows you what happens when you show up a doctor on his TV show.

But what about the two, four, and six-month well-baby visits where children receive so many vaccines? They have never been studied or considered, so no one has any idea. This would be like trying to identify the source of a plane crash, suspecting mechanical failure, solely analyzing one of the wings, and then declaring the entire airplane free of culpability. But, that’s exactly what has happened. They keep trying to tell us “vaccines don’t cause autism” without doing the actual science with the proper control groups (fully unvaccinated children) and asking the right question, that goes something like this:

Our children receive 38 vaccines by the time they are five, including 20 by their first birthday. Is the administration of so many vaccines causing autism in certain children?

That question, so important to the health of our children and our nation, has never been asked, so it can’t be answered. which begs the question:

Have scientists ever compared vaccinated children to unvaccinated children for ANY vaccine or ANY negative outcome?

In fact, they have. You just haven’t heard about these studies because the answers challenge the current narrative that vaccines are “safe and effective” and don’t cause autism. Read on.

Unvaccinated Studies

The first study that compared children who had received a vaccine to children that hadn’t was actually published in 2000. Although autism wasn’t something the study considered, it was still revealing. Titled “Effects of Diphtheria-Tetanus-Pertussis or Tetanus Vaccination on Allergies and Allergy-Related Respiratory Symptoms Among Children and Adolescents in the United States,” this study from the UCLA school of public health did look specifically at the DTP vaccine to see if it might be responsible for allergies and allergy-related symptoms, like asthma. Looking at more than 13,000 children, the study found that:

“DTP or tetanus vaccination in US children is associated with lifetime history of asthma or other allergies and allergy- related symptoms… assuming that the estimated vaccination effect is unbiased, 50% of diagnosed asthma cases (2.93 million) in US children and adolescents would be prevented if the DTP or tetanus vaccination was not administered.”

So, the first study to ever compare a group that received a vaccine to a group that didn’t found a dramatic difference in rates of asthma and allergies amongst the vaccinated group, so much so that they thought not getting the DTP vaccine might reduce cases of asthma by 50%! Note that many children with autism suffer from what are known as “co-morbid” conditions like asthma, allergies, and other auto-immune conditions.

In 2008, in the second study ever looking at a group of children who didn’t receive a vaccine, public health researchers Carolyn Gallagher and Melody Goodman from SUNY-Stony Brook looked at the possible relationship between the Hepatitis B vaccine and special education. Were children who received the full series of Hepatitis B vaccines (three separate vaccines, the first one often given on Day 1 of life) more likely to end up in special education classes than children who didn’t receive any Hepatitis B vaccines? The study, “Hepatitis B triple series vaccine and developmental disability in US children aged 1-9 years,” was published in the journal Toxicological and Environmental Chemistry, and the results were clear, the full series of Hepatitis B led to a nine-fold greater likelihood of receiving special education:

“This study found statistically significant evidence to suggest that boys in United States who were vaccinated with the triple series Hepatitis B vaccine…were more susceptible to developmental disability than were unvaccinated boys…The odds of receiving EIS [special education] were approximately nine times as great for vaccinated boys (n = 46) as for unvaccinated boys (n = 7), after adjustment for confounders.”

The same researchers from SUNY-Stony Brook published another study in 2010, this time looking at the relationship between receiving the Hepatitis B vaccine and autism. Published in the prestigious Journal of Toxicological and Environmental Health, “Hepatitis B Vaccination in Male Neonates and Autism Diagnosis” once again reached very clear conclusions: “Boys vaccinated as neonates had threefold greater odds for autism diagnosis compared to boys never vaccinated or vaccinated after the first month of life.” Journalist David Kirby appreciated the significance of the new findings, writing in the Huffington Post:

“[the study] will be among the first university-based population studies to suggest an association between a vaccine and an increased risk for autism. And that would be in direct contradiction to all those MMR and thimerosal studies that purportedly found no such link.”

(The two Goodman and Gallagher articles about Hepatitis B raise many concerns. I’ve met pediatricians who feel that the Hepatitis B vaccine specifically has triggered the epidemic of neurological disorders and autoimmunity we now see in our children. Hepatitis B was the first vaccine introduced after Congress indemnified vaccine makers from liability in 1986. The vaccine has a high dose of aluminum, which the new biological science is proving is likely a primary culprit of autism, and it’s often given to babies on Day 1 of life, which many doctors feel is a huge mistake.)

In 2017, another study revealed that the DTP vaccine in Africa killed more children than it helped. Published in the peer-reviewed journal EBioMedicine, the study is titled, “The Introduction of Diphtheria-Tetanus-Pertussis and Oral Polio Vaccine Among Young Infants in an Urban African Community: A Natural Experiment.”

Researchers from the Center for Vitamins and Vaccines, Statens Serum Institut (Denmark), and Bandim health project looked closely at data from the West African nation of Guinea-Bissau and found that the data for children who had been vaccinated with the DTP vaccine “was associated with 5-fold higher mortality than being unvaccinated. No prospective study has shown beneficial survival effects of DTP…DTP is the most widely used vaccine…All currently available evidence suggests that DTP vaccine may kill more children from other causes than it saves from diphtheria, tetanus or pertussis. Though a vaccine protects children against the target disease it may simultaneously increase susceptibility to unrelated infections.”

The scientists in this study closely explored the concept of “NSEs” which are “non-specific effects” of vaccines, which is a fancy way of saying vaccines may make a child more susceptible to other infections, explaining that although “protective against the target diseases, DTP may increase susceptibility to unrelated infections.” What we learn from the African study is that children going through the artificial disease process triggered by a vaccine are actually more susceptible to suffer from (and sometimes die) from other diseases, because their immune system is weakened and compromised in ways we really don’t yet understand. This was a “natural” experiment looking at vaccinated children versus unvaccinated children, and Dr. Aaby doubled-down on this study by recently publishing a follow up paper this month titled, “Evidence of Increase in Mortality After the Introduction of Diphtheria–Tetanus–Pertussis Vaccine to Children Aged 6–35 Months in Guinea-Bissau: A Time for Reflection?” Dr. Aaby, a highly respected international vaccine researcher, asks questions in this brand new paper few are willing to ask:

“Given the threat from diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis and the less-effective acellular pertussis vaccine used in many countries, it is understandable that there has been reluctance in accepting that DTP could have negative effects for overall health in low-income countries. However, the studies from low-income countries have been consistent in showing deleterious effect of DTP…Hence, it would seem to be high time to settle whether DTP has negative effects on overall child health and if it has negative effects to explore whether alternative vaccination schedules could remove the problem.”

Also in 2017, something amazing happened. Two separate studies comparing vaccinated and completely unvaccinated children actually got published. Unlike the Goodman and Gallagher studies above, which only explored a single vaccine, Hepatitis B (the rest of a child’s vaccine status was simply not considered), these two new studies met the “gold standard”—they found children who had never received any vaccines, and looked at their health outcomes in a variety of ways versus their vaccinated peers. The public health researchers from Jackson State University originally planned to publish a single study, until they looked at the data on children born prematurely, noting the data on the difference in health outcomes for vaccinated versus unvaccinated premature infants was so dramatic it deserved its own separate study.

Published in the Journal of Translational Science, the first groundbreaking study was called “Pilot comparative study on the health of vaccinated and unvaccinated 6- to 12-year-old U.S. children,” and its results were so devastating to the U.S. vaccine program, there wasn’t a single media outlet in the country that covered its release. Comparing vaccinated children to completely unvaccinated children, the results were no surprise to me, my wife, or any of the autism parents I know, but perhaps would surprise others:

“The vaccinated were less likely than the unvaccinated to have been diagnosed with chickenpox and pertussis, but more likely to have been diagnosed with pneumonia, otitis media, allergies and NDD. After adjustment, vaccination, male gender, and preterm birth remained significantly associated with NDD [neurodevelopmental disorders].” Specifically, vaccinated children were found to have a 4-fold higher likelihood of having autism. I’m reminded of a quote by Dr. Daniel Niedes of the Cleveland Clinic who said, “Some of the vaccines have helped reduce the incidence of childhood communicable diseases [like chickenpox and pertussis from the study above]…but not at the expense of neurologic diseases like autism and ADHD increasing at alarming rates.”

Simultaneously, the Jackson State authors published a study just looking at children born prematurely in the same journal titled “Preterm birth, vaccination and neurodevelopmental disorders: a cross-sectional study of 6- to 12-year-old vaccinated and unvaccinated children.” The results were disturbing, as the researchers found children born prematurely and vaccinated were 14-times more likely to develop a neurodevelopmental disorder! The authors were appropriately concerned:

“Preterm birth coupled with vaccination, however, was associated with a synergistic increase in the odds of NDD, suggesting the possibility that vaccination could precipitate adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes in preterm infants. These results provide clues to the epidemiology and causation of NDD but question the safety of current vaccination programs for preterm infants.”

Conclusion

The ongoing use of the Taylor study meta-analysis to “prove” that vaccines and autism are unrelated is scientifically dishonest and a distraction. The ten studies in the meta-analysis only consider a single vaccine ingredient (thimerosal) and a single vaccine (MMR). Every child in every study they analyzed had been vaccinated. They don’t consider the obvious question: do vaccinated children have higher rates of autism than unvaccinated children? People who post this study as proof that vaccines don’t cause autism are either uninformed on this topic or looking to mislead.

Meanwhile, the biological evidence, through peer-reviewed, published studies is mounting that vaccines trigger immune activation events in the brains of babies that lead to autism. (Here’s an excellent 20 page paper with 97 references explaining exactly how this happens.) The fact that Autism Speaks and one of the most senior leaders of the National Institutes of Health (and a doctor-turned-senator from Oregon) consider the Taylor study proof of anything tells me that many people just want this topic to go away, because facing the emerging science, and the endless stories of devastated families who watched their children regress into autism after vaccine appointments, is too overwhelming for many who have stood by and allowed the autism epidemic to happen. Worse, a manipulative and dishonest study like the Taylor study falsely reassures parents, leading to the ongoing and unnecessary path to autism so many of our children are placed on by a vaccine schedule that’s so harmful to so many.

When will the madness end?

https://www.infowars.com/autism-vaccine-debate-mired-in-dishonesty/