Account Navigation

Account Navigation

Currency - All prices are in AUD

Currency - All prices are in AUD
 Loading... Please wait...
Autism Coach

Covering Up The Autism/Vaccine Connection - Buried Data, Fudged Pro-Vaccine Studies & Criminal Rent-A-Docs

Posted by on

A new study this week found no link between vaccines and autism. It instantly made headlines on TV news and popular media everywhere. Many billed it as the final word, “once again,” disproving the notion that vaccines could have anything to do with autism.

What you didn’t learn on the news was that the study was from a consulting firm that lists major vaccine makers among its clients: The Lewin Group.

That potential conflict of interest was not disclosed in the paper published in The New England Journal of Medicine; the study authors simply declare “The Lewin Group operates with editorial independence.”

(As an aside, according to OpenSecrets.org, The Lewin Group’s parent company, UnitedHealth Group, is a key government partner in Obamacare. Its subsidiary QSSI was given the contract to build the federal government’s HealthCare.gov website. One of its top executives and his family are top Obama donors.)

Conflicts of interest alone do not invalidate a study. But they serve as important context in the relentless effort by pharmaceutical interests and their government partners to discredit the many scientists and studies that have found possible vaccine-autism links.

Many Studies Suggest Possible Vaccine-Autism Links

When the popular press, bloggers and medical pundits uncritically promote a study like The Lewin Group’s, it must confound researchers like Lucija Tomljenovic, Catherine DeSoto, Robert Hitlan, Christopher Shaw, Helen Ratajczak, Boyd Haley, Carolyn Gallagher, Melody Goodman, M.I. Kawashti, O.R. Amin, N.G. Rowehy, T. Minami, Laura Hewitson, Brian Lopresti, Carol Stott, Scott Mason, Jaime Tomko, Bernard Rimland, Woody McGinnis, K. Shandley and D.W. Austin.

They are just a few of the many scientists whose peer-reviewed, published works have found possible links between vaccines and autism. But unlike The Lewin Group’s study, their research has not been endorsed and promoted by the government and, therefore, has not been widely reported in the media. In fact, news reports, blogs and “medical experts” routinely claim no such studies exist.

To be clear: no study to date conclusively proves or disproves a causal link between vaccines and autism and—despite the misreporting—none has claimed to do so. Each typically finds either (a) no association or (b) a possible association on a narrow vaccine-autism question. Taken as a whole, the research on both sides serves as a body of evidence.

The Astroturf Propaganda Campaign

It’s theoretically possible that all of the studies supporting a possible link between vaccines and autism are wrong. And, if the propagandists are to be believed, each of the researchers is an incompetent crank, quack, nut or fraud (and, of course, “anti-vaccine” for daring to dabble in research that attempts to solve the autism puzzle and leads to vaccine safety issues). The scientists and their research are “controversial,” simply because the propagandists declare them to be.

The disparaged scientists include well-published neurologists, pharmacists, epidemiologists, immunologists, PhD’s, chemists and microbiologists from places like Boston Children’s Hospital, Horizon Molecular Medicine at Georgia State University, University of British Columbia, City College of New York, Columbia University, Stony Brooke University Medical Center, University of Northern Iowa, University of Michigan, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Arkansas Children’s Hospital Research Institute, Al Azhar University of Cairo, Kinki University in Japan, the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Swinburne University of Technology in Australia, Institute of Psychiatry and Neurology in Poland, Department of Child Health Care, Children’s Hospital of Fudan University in China, Utah State University and many more.

Their work is, at best, ignored by the media; at worst, viciously attacked by the predictable flock of self-appointed expert “science” bloggers who often title their blogs with the word “science” or “skeptics” to confer an air of legitimacy.

This astroturf movement, in my opinion, includes but is not limited to: LeftBrainRightBrain, ScienceBlogs, NeuroSkeptic, ScienceBasedMedicine, LizDitz, ScienceBasedMedicine, CrooksandLiars, RespectfulInsolence, HealthNewsReview, SkepticalRaptor, Skepticblog, Skeptics.com, Wired, BrianDeer, SethMnookin, Orac, Every Child by Two, the vaccine industry supported American Academy of Pediatrics, and the government/corporate funded American Council on Science and Health (once called “Voodoo Science, Twisted Consumerism” by the watchdog Center for Science in the Public Interest).

This circle operates with the moral support of the vaccine industry and its government partners, citing one another’s flawed critiques as supposed proof that each study has been “debunked,” though the studies continue to appear in peer-reviewed, published journals and in the government’s own National Institutes of Health library.

“Weak,” “too small,” “haphazard,” “not replicated,” “junk science,” “flawed,” “unrelated,” declare the propagandists, without exception. Just as attackers spent years challenging any study that linked tobacco to lung cancer.

They know that reporters who don’t do their homework will conduct an Internet search, run across the blogs with science-y sounding names, and uncritically accept their word as if it’s fact and prevailing thought.

CDC claims “no link” between vaccines and autism


A Small Sampling

Many of the studies have common themes regarding a subset of susceptible children with immunity issues who, when faced with various vaccine challenges, end up with brain damage described as autism.

“Permanent brain damage” is an acknowledged, rare side effect of vaccines; there’s no dispute in that arena. The question is whether the specific form of autism brain injury after vaccination is in any way related to vaccination.

So what are a few of these published studies supporting a possible link between vaccines and autism?

As far back as 1998, a serology study by the College of Pharmacy at University of Michigan supported the hypothesis that an autoimmune response from the live measles virus in MMR vaccine “may play a causal role in autism.” (Nothing to see here, say the critics, that study is old.)

In 2002, a Utah State University study found that “an inappropriate antibody response to MMR [vaccine], specifically the measles component thereof, might be related to pathogenesis of autism.” (“Flawed and non-replicable,” insist the propagandists.)

Also in 2002, the Autism Research Institute in San Diego looked at a combination of vaccine factors. Scientists found the mercury preservative thimerosal used in some vaccines (such as flu shots) could depress a baby’s immunity. That could make him susceptible to chronic measles infection of the gut when he gets MMR vaccine, which contains live measles virus. (The bloggers say it’s an old study, and that other studies contradict it.)

In 2006, a team of microbiologists in Cairo, Egypt concluded, “deficient immune response to measles, mumps and rubella vaccine antigens might be associated with autism, as a leading cause or a resulting event.”

A 2007 study found statistically significant evidence suggesting that boys who got the triple series Hepatitis B vaccine when it contained thimerosal were “more susceptible to developmental disability” than unvaccinated boys.

Similarly, a 5-year study of 79,000 children by the same institution found boys given Hepatitis B vaccine at birth had a three times increased risk for autism than boys vaccinated later or not at all. Nonwhite boys were at greatest risk. (“Weak study,” say the critics.)

A 2009 study in The Journal of Child Neurology found a major flaw in a widely-cited study that claimed no link between thimerosal in vaccines and autism. Their analysis found that “the original p value was in error and that a significant relation does exist between the blood levels of mercury and diagnosis of an autism spectrum disorder.”

The researchers noted, “Like the link between aspirin and heart attack, even a small effect can have major health implications. If there is any link between autism and mercury, it is absolutely crucial that the first reports of the question are not falsely stating that no link occurs.”

(Critics: the study is not to be believed.)

FDA list of thimerosal-containing vaccines

A 2010 rat study by the Polish Academy of Sciences suggested “likely involvement” of thimerosal in vaccines (such as flu shots) “in neurodevelopmental disorders such as autism.” (The critics dismiss rat studies.)

In 2010, a pilot study in Acta Neurobiologiae Experimentalis found that infant monkeys given the 1990’s recommended pediatric vaccine regimen showed important brain changes warranting “additional research into the potential impact of an interaction between the MMR and thimerosal-containing vaccines on brain structure and function.”

A study from Japan’s Kinki University in 2010 supported “the possible biological plausibility for how low-dose exposure to mercury from thimerosal-containing vaccines may be associated with autism.”

A 2011 study from Australia’s Swinburne University supported the hypothesis that sensitivity to mercury, such as thimerosal in flu shots, may be a genetic risk factor for autism. (Critics call the study “strange” with “logical hurdles.”)

A Journal of Immunotoxicology review in 2011 by a former pharmaceutical company senior scientist concluded autism could result from more than one cause including encephalitis (brain damage) following vaccination. (Critics say she reviewed “debunked and fringe” science.)

In 2011, City University of New York correlated autism prevalence with increased childhood vaccine uptake. “Although mercury has been removed from many vaccines, other culprits may link vaccines to autism,” said the study’s lead author. (To critics, it’s “junk science.”)

A University of British Columbia study in 2011 that found “the correlation between Aluminum [an adjuvant] in vaccines and [autism] may be causal.” (More “junk science,” say the propagandists.)

A 2011 rat study out of Warsaw, Poland found thimerosal in vaccines given at a young age could contribute to neurodevelopmental disorders. (Proves nothing, say critics.)

A Chinese study in 2012 suggested that febrile seizures (an acknowledged side effect of some vaccines) and family history of neuropsychiatric disorders correlate with autistic regression.

A 2012 study from the Neurochemistry Research Marie Curie Chairs Program in Poland found that newborn exposure to vaccines with thimerosal (such as flu shots) might cause gluten-related brain injuries.

In 2013, neurosurgeons at the Methodist Neurological Institute found that children with mild mitochondrial defect may be highly susceptible to toxins like the vaccine preservative thimerosal found in vaccines such as flu shots. (“Too small” of a study, say the critics.)

Then, there’s a 2004 Columbia University study presented at the Institute of Medicine. It found that mice predisposed for genetic autoimmune disorder developed autistic-like behavior after receiving mercury-containing vaccines. (Critics say that’s not proof, and the work was not replicable.)

There’s Dr. William Thompson, the current CDC senior scientist who has come forward with an extraordinary statement to say that he and his agency have engaged in long term efforts to obscure a study’s significant link between vaccines and autism, heightened in African Americans boys. (The CDC says the data changes made were for legitimate reasons.)

There’s the current CDC immunization safety director who acknowledged to me that it’s possible vaccines may rarely trigger autism in children who are biologically or genetically susceptible to vaccine injury.

There’s the case of Hannah Poling, in which the government secretly admitted multiple vaccines given in one day triggered her brain injuries, including autism, then paid a multi-million dollars settlement, and had the case sealed from the prying public eyes under a confidentiality order.

There was the former head of the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Bernadine Healy, who stoked her peers’ ire by publicly stating that the vaccine-autism link was not a “myth” as so many tried to claim. She disclosed that her colleagues at the Institute of Medicine did not wish to investigate the possible link because they feared the impact it would have on the vaccination program.

There’s former CDC researcher Poul Thorsen, whose studies dispelled a vaccine autism link. He’s now a “most wanted fugitive” after being charged with 13 counts of wire fraud and nine counts of money laundering for allegedly using CDC grants of tax dollars to buy a house and cars for himself.

And there are the former scientists from Merck, maker of the MMR vaccine in question, who have turned into whistleblowers and accuse their company of committing vaccine fraud.

Read: CDC Vaccine Information Statements

The Spin

If you want to review research and evidence on the other side, a simple Internet search will easily turn up everything you want to know. Those studies always seem to get covered in the news. They somehow turn up first in Google search results, along with the reports and blogs disparaging all opposing science and news reporting.

You might run across a February article in the New York Times. It treated the vaccine autism theory as if it comes down to a disagreement between emotionally fragile parents of autistic children and real research: “faith” and “feeling” versus hard science.

“Some parents feel certain that vaccines can lead to autism,” stated the article, and “the vaccine-autism link has continued to be accepted on faith by some.”

You might run across this network news story that uses Dr. Paul Offit as an expert on vaccine safety. He’s introduced as “director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia” and he “denies a connection with vaccination and autism.”

Somehow, it goes unreported that Offit has made millions (he won’t disclose exactly how much) inventing a vaccine for Merck, which makes the MMR vaccine in question. Offit’s rotavirus vaccine has, itself, been the subject of safety concerns. And his employment at Children’s Hospital has been funded in part by $1.5 million given by Merck. In addition, he got caught giving false and disparaging information regarding a report I did exposing his financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry he so vigorously defends. His false statements were corrected by the publication that originally reported them. And Offit and his book publisher settled a libel accusation by an vaccine safety advocate who accused Offit of fabricating a disparaging conversation in his book: Autism’s False Prophets. Offit agreed to apologize, correct the book and make a donation to an autism charity.

But to the news: none of that matters. Offit is simply presented as an unbiased expert.

The supposedly best medical experts in the world who deny vaccines have anything to do with autism remain at an utter loss to explain this generation’s epidemic. To declare the science “settled” and the debate “over” is to defy the plain fact that many scientists worldwide are still sorting through it, and millions of people are still debating it.

The body of evidence on both sides is open to interpretation. People have every right to disbelieve the studies on one side. But it is disingenuous to pretend they do not exist.

Highlighting Rent-A-Doc, Dr. Gilbert Ross, Convicted Felon, Executive Director Council of Science and Health, Former Member of the CDC Vaccine Advisory Board

In the news recently the media is citing the American Council of Science Health (ACSH), calling for the Columbia University to sever ties with Dr. Oz, primarily because he is calling for GMO Labelling (labelling foods that are genetically modified so consumers can make an informed choice).  Dr. Ross Gilbert, executive director of ACSH, and who served on the CDC vaccine advisory board, inexplicably did not lose his medical license after he was convicted of a large Medicaid scam:

"Instead of tending to patients, Ross spent all of 1996 at a federal prison camp in Schuylkill, Pennsylvania, having being sentenced to 46 months in prison for his participation in a scheme that ultimately defrauded New York's Medicaid program of approximately $8 million. During a three-and-a-half-week jury trial, federal prosecutors laid bare Ross' participation in an enterprise, headed by one Mohammed Sohail Khan, to operate four sham medical clinics in New York City. For his scam to work, Khan needed doctors who could qualify as Medicaid providers, and Ross responded to an ad in the New York Times promising "Very, very good $$.

The clinics reportedly scammed the government by conducting (and being reimbursed for) unnecessary procedures and tests on "indigent patients." In addition to the prison sentence, Ross had his medical license revoked (it has since been reinstated). He began working for the ACSH in 1998."

So reading between the lines, it seems likely that Ross was cut a deal to keep his medical license in exchange for being a heading up a fake but official looking organization created to promote the agenda of pharmaceutical companies, the AMA, and the government.

How Studies Refuting the Vaccine/Autism Connection Fudge Their Data

As with almost all studies that dispute the link between vaccines and autism, there are two statistical “tricks” used to remove association.

– Hiding data, in this case through age of test
– Not discussing obvious results and focusing on areas where impact is not seen
– Comparing unrelated items to make invalid conclusions

For number 1, Dr. William Thompson of the CDC revealed that the age of the MMR had a large impact. The impact is before 36 months of age. In this study they look at well before (age 2) and well after (age 5). This could mask the problem, especially since you would be looking for a small population size, less than 1% of the total children.

Second, In the initial discussion they reveal that 2% of children had an older sibling with ASD, but only 1% of these children had ASD themselves. This states that the risk of autism in a younger sibling is cut in 1/2. This is extremely significant and brings the question of, what was different with these kids, how did they cut the autism rate in HALF. There is no way these doctors did not notice this. They made it the first sentence of the results, yet the wording is such that it is not obvious on the first reading.

The study then reveals that the MMR vaccine rates were lower and more delayed for the children with siblings with autism. This screams there is a significant relationship between the two. So how did the study not see it and why did they not discuss this?

That brings us to number three, When they go to look at risk of the MMR they compare against the total population, this has the effect of diluting the connection. The previous findings should have had them compare the MMR rates for children with older siblings with ASD (994) that;

– had ASD (134)
– did not have ASD (860)

By doing this I can already tell you there is a statistically significant relationship. Unfortunately the full data set would be needed to prove this and getting that may be difficult.

This is not to say the paper is not true, it just does not tell the whole story and is misleading. A more accurate conclusion should be, ¨For the population of children that are at risk of autism there is a statistically significant risk of autism.¨

So here is why that study should not end the debate once and for all. Statistical studies can exclude groups, include groups and make all sorts of adjustments so that outcomes can be manipulated. Additionally these studies are only in regards to MMR and autism. The MMR is not the only vaccine implicated in autism or reported to have resulted in autistic spectrum disorders. This is a very narrow view that does nothing to actually disprove a causal link. These are simply numbers. Contrast that with multiple studies linking not only the MMR, but Hepatits B and combination administrations of various vaccines with abnormal anomalies found in autistic children as well as increased rates of autism.

So red flag number one would be: This study only focuses on MMR vaccine and does not indicate what vaccine or vaccines were implicated in those that received an autism, PDD, or Aspergers diagnosis.

Red flag number two: While it makes sense to speculate that the potential for increased susceptibility to ASD would increase among siblings with potential similar genetic predispositions, there is nothing in this study that narrows down who has similar genetic predispositions. If genetics are implicated in ASD (vaccines aside) then this study does nothing to even prove a genetic link regardless of vaccination. Yet we know from other studies that there are specific gene mutations more prevalent in children with ASD.

Red flag number 3: The categorization of children with autism in this study is based on having at least two ICD codes. These codes include diagnosis for autistic disorder, specified pervasive developmental disorder and unspecified pervasive development disorder. This is quite a broad categorization that encompasses a vast array of symptoms, severity of symptoms and most important causative factors. By this vague method of categorizing “autistic” children the study can very well be including children with developmental delays or cognitive dysfunction where vaccination was never implicated as a causative factor. A more accurate study would be of children with regressive autism, in which the regression followed closely after vaccination. If you read up on those reporting ASD as a result of vaccination, there is a very common story and pattern that occurs very shortly after vaccination including, inconsolable high pitched crying/screaming, arching the back, loss of eye contact, loss of speech, inflammatory bowel disease with chronic diarrhea and foul stools, seizure disorders, toe walking, stimming, sensory issues etc. While issues with social skills, speech, coordination can all be developmental disorders, the vast majority of those reporting vaccine induced autism encompass the former symptoms listed above.

Red flag number 4: If you read the discussion, you will see there are variables that can potentially effect the accuracy of this study. Variables that can alter study outcomes are present in all studies, especially statistical studies such as these.

Red flag number 5: No information on gender in relation to siblings etc. is present. Autism is 5x more prevalent in boys.

Red flag number 6: This study used children not only administered MMR trivalent but monovalent vaccines AS WELL. It is well known among doctors conscientious about vaccine injury that administering monovalent (single antigen) vaccines greatly reduces the incidence of vaccine adverse reaction. Many of those with a previously injured child were known (prior to Merck discontinuing distribution) to opt to use monovalent vaccines with subsequent children.

While we have studies, evidence, and successful court cases showing plausible METHODS of causation between vaccination and autism, we are being told to rely on questionable statistical data as our proof of no link. These studies do nothing to disprove the known issue (and valid reason for compensation) of vaccine induced encephalopathies. They don’t disprove that vaccines interfere with gastrointestinal bacteria. They don’t disprove known mechanisms of vaccine induced autoimmune disorders. They don’t disprove the evidence of abnormally elevated titers of vaccine antigens in autistics. The list goes on and on…..This study addresses one vaccine, one adverse event and a questionable sample group. I find it very timely that this study is plastered everywhere the night before the education committee vote. The media always focuses on this one vaccine, this one condition and always brings up Jenny McCarthy and Andrew Wakefield (who’s study btw has been replicated and never directly implicated MMR). They never address the long list of other adverse conditions and deaths attributable to vaccines. They never address the lack of safety studies on the full childhood schedule, nor the lack of true placebo in pre-licensure studies. The issue here isn’t just autism. The fact that this one issue is the sole focus of the entire complex issue of vaccines should also be a red flag to anyone seeking the truth.

Why Not Being Able to Sue Vaccine Companies Violates the U.S. Constitution and is Leading to More Constitutional Violations

At the base of the ethical issue that we must face is what “Informed Consent” means. If it means you cannot say “NO!” for any medical intervention then it has no meaning.

Those who demand the use of force to deny anyone the right to Informed Choice are condoning a clear violation of international law. They ought to read the Nuremberg Code.

When the world was reorganized after the horrors of WWII, one of the most important legacies left to us by the Greatest Generation was revitalized law forbidding medical tyranny. The hanging of the Nazi doctors for crimes against humanity settled the question:

DOCTORS & NURSES ARE NOT PROTECTED FROM ETHICAL CONDEMNATION BY “JUST FOLLOWING ORDERS.” IF YOU STICK A NEEDLE INTO AN UNWILLING PERSON, YOU ARE ASSAULTING THEM. ANY POLITICIAN WHO SUPPORTS FORCED VACCINATION IS AN ACCOMPLICE TO A CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY.

When Congress unlawfully abrogated our First Amendment right to redress for vaccine injuries, the United States became an accomplice to this crime against humanity.

I discuss the legal precedents here: http://drrimatruthreports.com/forced-vaccination-is-a-crime-against-humanity/

Response to the Autism Holocaust Epidemic Deniers

In spite of what is plainly obvious to anyone who has friends family and acquaintances, the rate of autism has skyrocketed and we now face a national crisis of how to care for all the autistic individuals approaching adulthood.  Here is a good response to these naysayers. 

Vaccines’ risk-reward ratio has not yet truly been accurately determined, because adverse reactions are:
(1) grossly under-reported — perhaps 1 in 10, or less;
(2) range from severe or fatal to moderate or subtle;
(3) often conveniently discounted as coincidence, though social media acts as an ever-growing repository of significantly similar post-vaccination empirical observations.

“Risk vs. reward” is merely a sterile restatement that an undetermined percentage of infants, children and results are considered acceptable collateral damage in the government’s mismanaged war on disease. If you or your child fall victim to a vaccine “risk,” incurring lifelong health damage and/or disability, you might in hindsight decide that taking the remote risk of enduring a week-long disease would have been a much better choice. Particularly when you learn that the CDC and vaccine manufacturers do not perform any research on medically treating vaccines’ adverse effects or learning how to prevent more people from becoming injured.

Apropos of the obfuscatory “better diagnosis” hypothesis, here’s a study to consider — in addition to realizing that:
(A) society is scrambling to accommodate the huge new wave of autism cases because no systems are in place for the “hidden horde” that exists only in corporate and government-funded PR;
(B) physicians, educators and parents cannot have been so dull-witted to have ignored the painfully evident symptoms of autism.
UC Davis M.I.N.D. Institute study shows California’s autism increase not due to better counting, diagnosis
http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/welcome/features/20090218_autism_environment/

Misinformation Being Spread in Media About California Measles Outbreak - No-One Died Contrary to News Reports

This was reported by journalist and former CBS news reporter, Sharyl Attkisson.  In an attempt to force parents to vaccinate their program and justify an unsafe vaccination program, recent media reporting has implied or stated that the California measles outbreak resulted in many deaths. Further, many reports and blogs have implied there have been many U.S. measles deaths in recent years.

One notable example is an article published in Examiner.com by Paul Hamaker who is described as a “chemist and mathematician” (and also is referred to as “Bryan” Hamaker on the applicable web page).

In an article dated April 21, 2015, Hamaker writes “The point of the [MMR] vaccine is to prevent deaths from measles, mumps, and rubella like the recent episode of child deaths in California.” [emphasis added]

But were there actually any child deaths in California?

It was a fact that we easily checked by consulting the Centers for Disease Control. According to CDC, there have been no deaths associated with the California measles outbreak; neither children nor adults.

Furthermore, CDC reports state there have been no deaths associated with any of the dozens of measles outbreaks in the U.S. in recent years.

comments powered by Disqus