1. Health

Discuss in my forum

Wakefield's Study Just One Element in Autism-Vaccine Worries

By January 13, 2011

Today's New York Times is running an article called "Autism Fraud," about the recent fracas over Andrew Wakefield's fully, utterly and repeatedly debunked 1998 study which linked the mump-measles-rubella (MMR) vaccine and autism.  This is just one of many articles, radio shows and TV "bites" which wonder why, now that Wakefield's study has been absolutely trashed, parents still worry about vaccines as a possible cause of autism.

I'll take the question one step further: while it's true that Andrew Wakefield's 1998 study was a catalyst for vaccine fears, the study's conclusion never actually pointed to the MMR as a direct cause of autism.   And many, many studies make it clear that vaccines really couldn't possibly be the cause of an autism epidemic.

So why are there still fears about vaccines and autism?

Here are a few of the reasons:

  • Like every medical intervention in the world, from aspirin to antibiotics, vaccines carry risks for some people.  In point of fact, vaccines - very rarely - can cause serious neurological injury.  The Vaccine Court was specifically set up to ensure the public health while also compensating injured families.   Recent articles regarding Wakefield's study suggest that vaccines are risk free - but anyone who looks into the issue can see that there are both serious and relatively benign exceptions to this rule.   When parents, reassured by physicians, learn that vaccines really do carry risks of real and significant injury - no matter how slight the risks - trust begins to erode.
  • Last year, the Poling family received a settlement of over $5 million from the Vaccine Court.  The case involved Hannah Poling, a little girl who received multiple vaccinations in a single day, and had a reaction which led to neurological damage.  While Hannah's injury related to an underlying, asymptomatic mitochondrial disorder, the family and their lawyers state that Hannah received an autism spectrum diagnosis after damage from vaccines.  There is plenty of controversy over the precise details of the Poling case, but it raised many families' awareness of the possibility of vaccine injury.
  • Logic and common sense can trump science when the issue is a child's safety.  While science can, and does, tell us that the risk of vaccine injury is far less than the risk of contracting potentially deadly disease, parents find the science hard to swallow.  Parents must make an active decision to have their children vaccinated, and when media figures tell them (despite no evidence to support the idea) that their children are receiving "too much, too soon," it makes emotional sense.  Injecting a tiny child with multiple antigens is a scary thing to do, even when science tells us it's far safer than the alternative.
  • We first world parents have forgotten what it means to contract some of the diseases from which we are presently protected (measles, mumps, rubella, whooping cough, Hib, etc.).  And even as the vaccine rate drops and these diseases become slightly more prevalent, they are still rare.  While pediatricians in hospitals may speak and write about deadly infections, very few parents have ever seen such diseases in person.  Parents do, however, see autism all the time - and of course they see far, far more diagnosed autism today than they did when they were children.
  • Researchers are actively searching for the causes of autism, and new studies come out all the time linking autism with one or another environmental factor - ranging from television to mercury emissions from factories to pesticides.  Even the CDC's information sheets cite possible environmental factors, saying "We do not know all of the causes of ASDs.  However, we have learned that there are likely many causes for multiple types of ASDs.  There may be many different factors that make a child more likely to have an ASD, including environmental, biologic and genetic factors."   When even top federal agencies can't tell us what does cause autism - but do say that environmental factors may play a role - parents are reasonably concerned not only about vaccines, but also about a whole range of possible issues.  The same parents who eschew vaccines are also likely to select only organic foods, avoid use of pesticides, and so forth.
  • There was, is, and will continue to be a very vocal community ensuring that the idea of a vaccine-autism link will not die.  Organizations like Generation Rescue, led by Jenny McCarthy and JB Handley, are specifically dedicated to this issue.  Their voices are amplified by the media; Jenny McCarthy wrote an article in the Huffington Post, and Handley was recently a guest on CNN.
  • Anyone who visits the Generation Rescue site (or the websites of many other like-minded organizations) will find long lists of research studies which appear to support the idea of an autism-vaccine link.  Some of these studies really have little or no relationship to vaccines, diet, etc., and seem to be included only to bulk up the list.  And many of the studies  were authored by individuals such as Mark and David Geier, whose work is refuted by many top researchers.  But the fact remains that the studies were conducted, and many of them are listed in the NIH's PubMed, a site that includes studies published in peer-reviewed journals.

If the medical establishment and media really want to understand parents' concerns - or want to help parents make smart decisions for their children's health - it's important that they understand where those concerns come from.  While it's true that one study did have a significant impact on public worries over vaccines, it's no longer the sole foundation for parents' fears.

January 13, 2011 at 10:31 am
(1) Rob Jones says:

After the media frenzy erupted last week it’s become apparent that the story is about Brian Deer’s 12-year obsession with taking down Dr. Andrew Wakefield. The Wakefield article published in the Lancet never stated that MMR caused autism, nor that further study was not warranted. The article was nonetheless used as a tool to demonize anyone who asked perfectly reasonable questions about vaccine safety and belittle parents whose children had become autistic. Nothing is perpetuating the fear of vaccines more than the pharmaceutical industry and their media friends’ war against progress in vaccine safety. Until the government steps in to fully research the difference in rates of autism in vaccinated vs. unvaccinated children _worldwide_, your parroting of the statement that the vaccine-autism question has been settled shows a clear lack of true journalism on your part. Have you truly researched this story? Do your readers a favor and dig a little harder.

April 15, 2011 at 2:30 am
(2) TubTadeImmump says:


[url=http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~saekow/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=2512]viagra online[/url] fgfdgpretre ert ertrett et rtre

January 13, 2011 at 10:43 am
(3) Roger Mills says:

Just want to say that Rob Jones said what needed to be said in regards to this article. I agree with you Mr. Jones and thanks for your comment.

January 13, 2011 at 10:44 am
(4) Malia says:

Very good article Lisa (IMO).

I would add one point further… Wakefield’s study was never the sole foundation for parental fears; therefore, it can’t really be said that it is “no longer the sole foundation” for those same fears. A technicality… but worth pointing out that there were parental concerns over vaccine safety long before Wakefield came along. Wakefield’s study, in part, was undertaken because parents had already been expressing concerns over a vaccine-autism connection before that time… and that too is likely one reason why the de-validation of Wakefield’s work has been insufficient to quell the question of vaccine safety in general and/or vaccine safety in relation to autism in particular.

January 13, 2011 at 11:02 am
(5) brian says:

You wrote, “the study’s conclusion never actually pointed to the MMR as a direct cause of autism.”

Of course the study was not the end of Wakefield’s public statements. Wakefield is quoted in a conference report as stating in September, 2000, “the widespread use of MMR immunization is a major determinant of the apparent (now substantiated) increase in rates of autism.” [Pediatrics 2001;107;e84]

January 13, 2011 at 11:05 am
(6) Sandy says:

Although Wakefield never did say the MMR was the cause, all 12 was said to have autism per Wakefield, which then led to that media frenzy. It was a simple power of suggestion. It’s rather odd how things change. Wakefield was loving that media attention back then, but this media frenzy isn’t so enjoyable now. There’s no doubt Wakefield knew why those attorneys were paying him. It’s not a common place to have research funded by attorney’s. There’s no mistaking the patents Wakefield had for his own measles vaccines, either. Both a major conflict of interest.
There has been parental concerns about vaccines long before Wakefield, however those concerns had nothing to do with autism. Only maybe about 12 parents had concerns about vaccines and autism, but then since attorney’s were involved, one now wonders if those parents were in fact taken advantage of. So Wakefield is in fact the sole foundation, but only to the extent of autism. Even if one only was to look at the GI findings of Wakefield, no other GI doctor in any country can find or have seen such a mysterious intestinal disease as described by Wakefield.
You have defenders for Wakefield, like McCarthy. She has stated many times she disagreed with the diagnosis so she took her child some where else and within 20 minutes in the office of no other than Dr. Sears, her son was diagnosed with autism.
Neither vaccines or autism needs research as such. What we all need is accurate, trustworthy doctors and we need to expose those who are not.

January 13, 2011 at 11:21 am
(7) Sandy says:

Also, in reference to the first point, the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act was created in 1986, which acknowledged that vaccine injuries and deaths are real and that the vaccine injured and their families should be financially supported and that vaccine safety protections were needed in the mass vaccination system.
If there is any doctor giving any medication RX or vaccine and reassures little to no risk or says there is none at all, it’s time to get a new doctor, vaccine related or not. However the important thing to remember no matter what a doctor advises, no one yet knows included a doctor, who might be in that risk factor for injury then or now.

January 13, 2011 at 8:33 pm
(8) White&Nerdy says:

Hi Sandy,

One important factor in the passing of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act was the success of lawsuits won based on the interesting concept of liability without fault.

Does any other country have a similar law? It seems like this is a uniquely US law in response to US lawsuits.


January 13, 2011 at 11:26 am
(9) Malia says:

This statement is from the website of the http://www.nvic.org/Vaccines-and-Diseases/Autism.aspx

“The debate about whether vaccines can cause regressive autism began in 1985 with the publishing of the landmark book DPT: A Shot in the Dark by Harris Coulter and Barbara Loe Fisher. Among the more than 100 cases of DPT vaccine induced brain inflammation and immune system dysfunction detailed in the book were children who had developed regressive autism after suffering a brain inflammation and encephalopathy following DPT vaccination.”

Wakefield’s study was publishing in 1998, I believe… so, is it that this book was not published in 1985? Or, that it contains no references to autism within it? Or, that only 12 parents bought the book?

January 13, 2011 at 11:37 am
(10) Sandy says:

The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act was in fact created due to known injuries and deaths of the very DPT vaccine. Brain inflammation, encephalopathy and immune system dysfunction may had been a injury of that vaccine, but a book doesn’t always reflect public fear nor would had proved autism via that vaccine.
An interesting note about the date of the book is the date, and it’s relation to autism being present.

January 13, 2011 at 11:47 am
(11) Anne McElroy Dachel says:

The truth is that Andrew Wakefield never produced a “study.” He wrote a paper. He never said that the MMR caused either bowel disease or autism. He simply called for research to be done. Parents came to him with their sick children and he wrote about what he was seeing. He never concluded any association.

Right now, the media is blaming all of this on Wakefield. Supposedly, one doctor in Britain had a paper published 13 years ago in a British medical journal and it changed the thinking of parents across the world. In the stories I’ve read over the years in the American press, the issue was overwhelmingly THIMEROSAL and autism, not the MMR and autism. The MMR was always the British contoversy.

Why single out Andrew Wakefield?

Why not blame Dr. Bernadine Healy, David Kirby, Robert Kennedy Jr, Peter Fletcher-former Chief Scientific Officer in the UK, or Dr. Richard Halvoren-another outspoken British doctor? Why not condemn the actions of the medical experts at HHS who conceded the Hannah Poling case?

Finally, where’s the simple study that would end the debate? Why doesn’t anyone want to look for the one percent of never-vaccinated kids who are supposed to have autism?

Anne Dachel
Media editor: Age of Autism

January 13, 2011 at 8:38 pm
(12) White&Nerdy says:

Hi Anne McElroy Dachel,

The AoA readers would be very well served if you had a writer that actually understood how to design experiments that addresses the debate.

And since you asked, Healy, Kirby, RKJ, Fletcher, and Halvoren etc have all received lots of blame for their misconduct.

You just don’t read about it on some sites.


January 13, 2011 at 11:51 am
(13) Malia says:

Sandy – I agree, the book PROVED nothing; but it is sufficient verification for my statement that parents (and more than just 12 parents) had concerns about vaccines and autism PRIOR to Wakefiield.

January 13, 2011 at 11:57 am
(14) Sandy says:

Since when is a “paper” not a “study” when there’s 12 children involved and tests performed on those 12 children? Regardless, who funded it is certainly an eye opener along with his own measles vaccine.

Unless Wakefield outright lied to Matt Lauer, Wakefield did state his study bowel disease. Wakefield is also the one responsible for getting seperate jabs of the MMR, based on his paper/ study, which was his preparing for his own single vaccine.

It did start with Wakefield, beyond any thing previous to his study/ paper. And Wakefield did little to stop it.

January 13, 2011 at 12:00 pm
(15) Sandy says:

Mary, it doesn’t verify parental concerns about autism and vaccines. The book verifies concerns from the authors only.

Again, there was concerns about the DPT, which is why National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act was created: directly due to injuries and deaths to that one vaccine. My mom had concerns about vaccines when we were kids, but autism was no part of that concern. People have always had concerns over vaccines, however linking it to autism at a world-wide effect was Wakefield.

January 13, 2011 at 12:08 pm
(16) Tony Bateson says:

Rob Jones puts the voice of reason quite crisply into this debate. Of course in response to another point vaccine safety issues in the mass market date back to at least 1976 if not before. At that time both the USA and the UK experienced significant rejection of DTP vaccinations because of the effect ‘it was said’ that the Pertussis toxin was having upon children. I am sure that the pharmacy industry was delighted when soon afterwards MMR started to get all the flak. Had it not been for that ‘red herring’ parents and others would perhaps have continued their scrutiny of DTP with its Thimerosal and we would be much further down the road to safer vaccines.

Tony Bateson, Oxford, UK.

January 13, 2011 at 12:17 pm
(17) JB Handley says:


You seem to become more biased on this topic as time passes.

Two points for you:

1. Our kids get 36 shots. 2 (MMR) have been tested for their relationship to autism, 34 have not. Do you agree w/my point? If not, please provide evidence to the contrary.

2. Generation Rescue was founded to help parents recover their children w/autism. The reason I keep this idea “alive” is because every day we get a new story from a parent who watched their child regress after a vaccine appointment.

Perhaps if you were in my position you wouldn’t be so convinced by science that hasn’t even been done. The devil is always in the details. Anyone who asserts that all the work has been done to refute the vaccine-autism link is simply ignorant or repeating what others tell them.

Which are you?

JB Handley
Generation Rescue

January 17, 2011 at 9:16 am
(18) John Best says:

JB, Is your oversight of the Verstraeten study from 1999 just neglect or intentional? You do recall that he studied the DPT shot, don’t you? That study is the reason you had the knowledge to start curing your son.

I also don’t see why you couldn’t figure out the math regarding the flu shot with mercury in it. No study needed, just arithmetic. When pregnant women were being advised to have three flu shots last year, they risked giving their fetuses up to 48 times as much mercury as newborns used to receive with the HepB shot. I guess someone who wants to deny the fact that mercury causes autism would conveniently ignore this fact.

January 13, 2011 at 12:25 pm
(19) Maurine Meleck says:

Wakefield’s study was NEVER the catalyst for questions about vaccine safety. When my grandson was diagnosed with autism in 2000, I had never even heard of Wakefield.
The main fire was set by the thousands of parents who saw their normally developing children suddenly regress into autism. Then there were the doctors who saw their own children do the same and turned to studying the whys and whens.
It’s convenient for blame to go to one or two persons-like Wakefield and McCarthy b ecause not to do so would give credence to the tens of thousands of parents who report regression following vaccinations. Just like scapegoats of the past, and Jewish people in particular, blaming one person or a groups of people takes away from the real dangers that those who perpetrate the lies want to hide.
Maurine Meleck, SC

January 13, 2011 at 8:42 pm
(20) White&Nerdy says:

Hi Maurine Meleck,

One of the reasons that the courts have been so damning of the vaccines cause autism crowd, is that the kids are not “normally developing” and the antis have been flagrantly dishonest about this and actively attempted to suppress this fact.

Sadly dishonest sites censor information like this.


January 13, 2011 at 12:26 pm
(21) Sandy says:

whole-cell vaccine: A vaccine composed of suspensions of whole bacterial cells that have been killed.
Acellular vaccine: A vaccine that may contain cellular material but does not contain complete cells.

Regardless of thimerosal being removed in the USA, other countries even sooner, the autism rates have not reflected any drop in the rates.

It’s also key to remember, thimerosal was in no way part of Wakefield’s now absolutely trashed study. The “statement that the vaccine-autism question has been settled”, is true (Wakefield-wise) and of many other studies however vaccine injury still remains a valid posibility, and it always has.

January 13, 2011 at 12:38 pm
(22) Sandy says:

1) Of those 36 shots include prenatal and the flu vaccines, so it is untrue to state “our kids get 36 shots unless someone has some insider medical info of every child on the face of the earth. That ad was for shock value only. All anyone had to do at the time and count their child’s vaccine records to see it’s not true.

2) The public keeps hearing about thousands recovered, and if that is the case the public would want to know where they are, and then what’s the big deal if it’s not a life long effect of vaccine injury?

3) Regardless of anyone position, it’s also unfair and out of line to call anyone ignorant and repeating what others tell them.

Finally, Wakefield and McCarthy can only give credence to their own children, unless they can provide anything else other than word of mouth. Nothing is ever proved just because either says it’s so. It’s also insulting to compare Wakefield to the Jewish people. As Lisa stated, Wakefield’s study as been absolutely trashed. So get past it and produce his findings else where. Going on and on about Wakefield’s absolutely trashed study doesn’t make and never will make it less trashed.

January 13, 2011 at 12:45 pm
(23) Maurine Meleck says:

I don’t give credence to anyone’s comments who cannot identify themselves with a full name.
Wakefield and the Jewish people–insulting to whom?

Maurine meleck

January 13, 2011 at 8:51 pm
(24) J.B. Handley says:

Hi Maurine Meleck,

This is a very thoughtless argument.

First, anyone can use any name/handle online and you have no way of knowing if it is true. We can’t know that your name is Maurine Meleck.

Second, the reality is that we have years and years of most violent rhetoric from the anti-vaccs–including death threats to scientists, their families, and people in media.

It is not at all unreasonable to fear violent retribution in defense of the multimillion dollar fraud.


January 13, 2011 at 12:49 pm
(25) Sandy says:

Then I guess that leaves me and a few others out. What a mean and rude thing to say to anyone, and then ask them a question. I wonder if this whole topic will soon be deleted too.

January 13, 2011 at 1:06 pm
(26) autism says:

JB- children receive varying numbers of individual jabs and vaccines.

you’re certainly correct that we don’t have a complete understanding of the impact of vaccines – or any other environmental/biological factor – on autism.

A 1998 danish study (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12421889) does compare vaccinated vs unvaccinated children and suggests that MMR is not responsible for autism – but I don’t know whether you would consider that study to be definitive. It certainly can’t tell us whether individual children might be impacted by the vaccine, or whether particular groups are more or less vulnerable.

what’s more, we have nothing like a complete understanding of the genetic factors related to autism. And we’re at the earliest stages of understanding how brain structure differences relate to autism.

I have no doubt that GenRescue hears from parents all the time with stories of improvement and recovery. Separating the wheat from the chaff is a very tough project indeed, especially since many children with autism improve dramatically with AND without various types of treatment.

I wouldn’t rule out vaccines in any individual case as a possible issue. But at this point in history, I find it impossible to believe that vaccines can be blamed for an autism epidemic.


January 13, 2011 at 1:24 pm
(27) JB Handley says:


As I said, the devils is ALWAYS in the details. I can’t tell you how many times people have incorrectly cited the NEJM Danish MMR study you refer to as looking at unvaccinated children, which it doesn’t remotely do.

Your confusion is understandable, because they use the word “unvaccinated” in their study, but their definition of unvaccinated means the following: didn’t yet get MMR.

This is my whole point about the devil being in the details. Worse, the autism rate of all the children in the NEJM study you cite was 7.7 per 10,000 vs. US rate of 100/10,000, making results somewhat hard to compare…

This is my point about details. You are satisfied that a NEJM study looked at unvaccinated kids because of an understandable error in reading the work – are you still certain vaccines have been exonerated, or just hopeful they have?

JB Handley

January 13, 2011 at 1:34 pm
(28) autism says:

JB – you say “are you still certain vaccines have been exonerated, or just hopeful they have?”

I don’t suppose ANYthing has been exonerated as a possible cause of autism in individual cases. But I am quite sure that the explosion of autism diagnoses is NOT attributable to vaccines.

IMO, “autism” is a collection of disorders and differences. I am hopeful that we will discover a variety of causes for many different “autisms” over time. It may well be that, in some cases, prenatal and neonatal interventions are responsible.


January 13, 2011 at 1:52 pm
(29) JB Handley says:


The sole study you cited was cited in error, as I pointed out.

Exactly one vaccine, MMR, has been studied for its possible relationship to autism, yet children are given 6 vaccines at one time.

Vaccines are known to cause brain damage. $2 billion has been paid out for vaccine injury. If there’s a more obvious “environmental trigger” for all this autism, I’d welcome knowing what it is.

The fact that you are “quite sure” is not very convincing to me, because you’ve done nothing to refute my position that vaccines have barely been studied (2 of 36 shots).

If vioxx were studied, does that make Viagra safe?

Your logic, in my opinion, leaves much to be desired.

Respectfully, JB

January 13, 2011 at 9:40 pm
(30) White&Nerdy says:

Hi JB Handley,

I very much like how your posting ended.

The rest of your postings here simply demonstrate that your sources are wrong and thus your conclusions are wrong.

(1) JB wrote: “.. Exactly one vaccine, MMR, has been studied for its possible relationship to autism.”

In fact a keyword (autism +Hib or DTP or DTaP etc) search at Pubmed demonstrates that this is false and one can quickly find other vaccines that have been studied for possibly causing autism.

Comment: The 14studies site is total rubbish. It completely fails to understand the science or even get the most basic facts correct.

(2) JB wrote: “… NEJM study you cite was 7.7 per 10,000 vs. US rate of 100/10,000, making results somewhat hard to compare.”

In fact you have grossly miss-represented the numbers. This is clearly explained in the last paragraph of the discussion.

Comment: GenerationRescue is of even lower quality then 14 studies. Their report comparing autism in different countries isn’t just wrong, it systematically miss-represents the most basic facts.

We can keep going here for quite a while.

Bottom-line: logic dictates that if after more than a decade the medical/scientific/legal rejects everything you argue and in fact determines some of them to be fraud, then you should reconsider your beliefs.

Despite the rhetoric, AoA, 14studies, GenR are batting about zero in science department.


January 13, 2011 at 11:04 pm
(31) JB Handley says:

White & Nerdy:

Please, cite even one study that looks at any other vaccine than MMR and its relationship to autism.

I have met your time, talk is cheap. JB Handley

January 13, 2011 at 2:39 pm
(32) Aaron says:

I agree with everyone here to some extent.

It is likely both sides of the debate are exaggerated.

I seriously doubt that there is irrefutable proof against the the numerously claimed negative effects of vaccines of all kinds (or proof that those claims are true). If there is. I would *really* like to see such proof. I would be relieved to see such evidence because then I would not have to worry about possibly harming my children, while at the same time, I could keep them protected from disease. But as a parent, autism, has never been my primary concern. In fact, I rather disregarded the MMR-autism link when I first heard of it years ago, as some rare, unlikely side effect. It is not until just recently, with all the controversy over the Wakefield study that I am taking the possibility of this connection seriously. I had never heard of Wakefield before now, but after reading some of the completely one-sided media reports against him, I’m seriously starting to question the motives of the media.

January 13, 2011 at 2:42 pm
(33) Malia says:

The polarizing pettiness the vaccine-autism topic seems to draw out of the woodwork never ceases to amaze me… “paper” then, not “study,” Sandy, if you insist.

January 13, 2011 at 2:42 pm
(34) Aaron says:

I’ve read a lot of material arguing that vaccine’s are completely (theoretically) safe. Including those by vaccine evangelist Dr. Offit. The problem with these works is that they keep on repeating the same arguments; listing the same questionable studies, and fail to address parent’s real and continuing concerns about vaccines. I find much of these works insulting to a parent’s intelligence – because they try too hard to convince the parent of an opinion; while failing to addressing the real questions parent’s have in an unbiased manner. Instead of using scare tactics to convince parent’s into vaccinating their children, why not use open and honest reason? Why not be more transparent and list all studies for and against vaccination as well as discuss possible studies that could be done to remove further doubt about the safety of vaccination. Instead, many of these books promoting the use of vaccines insist that vaccines have already been proven safe and that there is no need for further study.

People keep insisting that there is irrefutable proof that vaccines are safe. If that was *really* the case then we would not be having this conversation. At least *I* would not be here with this plea to show me the proof. Proof that cannot be refuted.

January 13, 2011 at 2:43 pm
(35) JB Handley says:


All reasonable thoughts. I tell parents this: treat each vaccine like a surgery, do just as much research as you would for a surgery, and things will be OK.

Vaccines can save lives, and cause harm, like every other drug man has ever invented.

It’s very sobering to watch your kid regress.


January 13, 2011 at 2:44 pm
(36) Malia says:

Profound apology Sandy… I completely misread your post. I’m sorry. Please ignore my last comment.

January 13, 2011 at 2:55 pm
(37) Malia says:

As a parent, one of my concerns is that things are so polarized that there is no way ANY side of this is being calmly and rationally studied by anyone anymore. Probably there is somewhere out there someone on either or even both sides of this debate who is studying this; but that doesn’t prevent or address or alleviate my concerns really.

January 13, 2011 at 2:56 pm
(38) Marc Rosen - Editor of Perspectives: Poetry Concerning Autism and Other Disabilities says:

Just one question: How can Age of Autism be considered an organization that’s “reliable” or “dedicated to the public good” when they’re Lee Silsby’s corporate blog? To those who don’t know what Lee Silsby is, they’re a corporation that manufactures biomed products for use on autistic people, most of which are not FDA-approved and thus have unknown risks. Honestly, I’d rather get the vaccines than that crap, and I’m PROUD to say that when Google For a Cause had their charity campaign in December, ALL of the funds I raised from browsing went to Doctors Without Borders to FUND VACCINATIONS FOR THE NEEDY!

January 13, 2011 at 2:58 pm
(39) Aaron says:

JB Handley,

My wife was literally attacked (over the phone) by a nurse working for the local healthy authority when my wife told her we were still researching and deciding whether we should give our 6 month old a DPT vaccine ( he had already received the first one). She literally told her that she doesn’t care about our baby and must want him to die.

Does such a nurse *really* think she is going to convince parent’s with such tactics? I mean really. They are not helping children to become vaccinated. Health authorities are the one’s who are causing parent’s to question vaccination with their heavy-handed and one-sided campaigns. If the health authorities were more reasonable in their presentation of the issues, parent’s would be more likely to trust them.

January 13, 2011 at 3:16 pm
(40) Sandy says:

Mary, thanks. Lisa referred to it as a study, Maurine was the one which called it a paper. Who really cares which it was. Bottom line is, whatever it was, was published in a medical journal, it did have great long term effect and in the end, whatever it was, is absolutely trashed (debunked).

The study only had 12 to it. It’s also not the first study to disappear, either. Any other study that small, that’s the first thing many mention and disregard it’s contents. Aside from the recent fraud and anything else brought to light recently, Wakefield hardly contributed much and because he first stated his whatever it is had nothing to do with autism, then why is he so much in the autism community since then? Going to DAN! conferences… he himself put himself there, leading the world to believe that then media hype connecting the MMR to autism was real, off of his findings.
Not sure why so many cling to Wakefield, for many reasons. It just makes sense to find another doctor to rely on for results.

January 13, 2011 at 8:58 pm
(41) White&Nerdy says:

Hi Sandy,

Paper, study, publication–call it what you will, the name just doesn’t matter, this is all just a diversion.

What does matter is that–even ignoring the outright lying about the kids medical conditions–it is still archetypal fraud.


January 13, 2011 at 11:05 pm
(42) Sandy says:

That’s right, regardless if it’s a paper/study, the end result is still the same: Fraud. I was only attempting to make everyone happy by terming it both ways.

January 13, 2011 at 3:37 pm
(43) Aaron says:

The impression I get from health authorities is that it is wrong for a parent to do his own health research because parent’s are unqualified and too gullible and could potentially be convinced of a fallacy. Obviously, if a parent comes to a conclusion that runs contrary to the health authority, the health authority will be of the belief that the parent is wrong and has been convinced of a fallacy. Therefore, from a health authority’s perspective, independent parental research is redundant. The parent will either decide that the health authority was correct, which will negate the value of the research or the parent will decide that the health authority was wrong, which will render the parent ill-informed in the eyes of the health authority.

The problem I see with the policy and perspective of the health authority is this: health authorities hold firm *beliefs*. And they promote those *beliefs*. No health authority should be allowed, by government policy, to hold a belief or an opinion. This would prevent a conflict of interest. All health policies could then be established through policies which are put in place through an unbiased process governed by established principles.

This would remove this internal conflict created when a health authority has to fight against its own opinions in order to seek truth and would remove its conflict with the interests of the general public. Just as a reliable scientist should not hold an opinion or belief, nor should a health authority.

January 13, 2011 at 3:45 pm
(44) Sandy says:

The impression I get from health authorities is that it is wrong for a parent to do promote their beliefs onto others via websites and so on, and to rely on those who have no medical training is dangerous, for instance McCarthy. She is unqualified just as GenRescue is for making the statment all children get 36 shots.

Wakefield is a clear example how the media power of suggestion got way out of control, but was effective in the 1990′s. Finding reliable sources then or now isn’t all that easy to do but I can say for myself of my own child, I have no idea what caused my sons autism. I heard about Wakefield prior to knowing anything about autism, and I had also seen specials on TV about ABA. None had the effect wakefield did. Now I can easily go along with McCarthy, but I choose not to due to she is no expert and is making financial gain as well off of autism.

January 13, 2011 at 3:45 pm
(45) Rachael says:

Out of Africa and into autism. Welcome to America, our Somali friends:

There are an estimated 15,000-40,000 Somalis living in Minnesota, which has the largest Somali population outside of East Africa. The rate of autism in the general population is 1 in 110, but amongst the Somalis of Minnesota it is 1 in 28. An unusually large proportion of Somali children born in Minnesota have autism. Somali immigrants call autism “the American Disease,” because they did not see it back in East Africa. You have to question, why?

Autism has always been rare in Africa, with low rates that have surprised researchers.

We have to account for the relationship between environmental factors as well as genetics. This is not an either/ or. The genetics and too many vaccines may be the trigger for some susceptible children.
“Our research of the literature has convinced us that infantile autism appears to be an illness of Western Civilization, and appears in countries of high technology, where the nuclear family dominates.”

“We also saw that the illness seems to be quite infrequent in Latin American countries, Africa, and India, while the rate is high in Japan, but only in westernized families.”


January 13, 2011 at 9:02 pm
(46) White&Nerdy says:

Hi Rachael,

So how many people in Somalia are trained to diagnosis autism?

How many kids in Somalia ever see a pediatrician or get any sort of relevant work-up?

Since you clearly know about Pubmed why don’t you try doing a keyword search for autism and environment and tell us what you find?


January 13, 2011 at 11:23 pm
(47) Sandy says:

Hopefully this link goes through

The Contribution of Diagnostic Substitution to the Growing Administrative Prevalence of Autism in US Special Education

Additionally, the higher rates of autism in Minnesota’s is based not on medicine but on education policy. More than a few children classified under the autism educational code wouldn’t be diagnosed with autism if a full diagnostic assessment was done.

January 13, 2011 at 3:52 pm
(48) Maurine Meleck says:

Mark Rosen

I am a SC poet and was curious to see that you are the editor pf Perspectives-poetry on autism and other disabilities. I hope you keep an open mind when it comes to poetry you receive on autism.
Sounds like an interesting journal.
Maurine Meleck

January 13, 2011 at 4:12 pm
(49) Aaron says:


People should not listen to the opinion of anyone, expert or not. Instead they should listen to pure reason. Through reason alone will they increase their understanding of a subject, not through personal bias, expert or not.

Any factual claims made by an individual, whether true or not, can always be verified.

It would be a mistake ( and unconstitutional ) to silence those who you do not agree with, simply because their course of education is not accepted by the main-stream. Instead, ensure the population is educated enough to reason for themselves and verify all facts for themselves. Education is the only sure way to prevent a population from being deceived, one way or the other.

January 13, 2011 at 4:18 pm
(50) Joe says:

The NEJM MMR study was criticized for questionable data collation. It was implied, although not actually
written that it compared prevalance rates for
unvaccinated and vaccinated children, but that was
not the case.

There were five scenarios in the data Madsen looked

Vaccinated with MMR, subsequently developed autism.

Not vaccinated with MMR, subsequently developed autism

Vaccinated with MMR but determined to have been
autistic prior to the receipt of MMR

Vaccinated with MMR, did not develope autism

Unvaccinated with MMR, did not develope autism.

It is important to note that Madsen did not actually
examine any children, but simply took records from the
Danish Registry for Autism and accepted the data as

For reason unknown to any but the Study’s principles,
the data was not collated into 5 categories to see
what prevalance rates would be determined, but into
only two: vaccinated and unvaccinated with MMR. And
here is the part that remains critical to this debate
those children who did indeed receive the MMR but
were determined (by whom?) to have been autistic prior
to the administration of the MMR at 12-15 mos were
placed into the unvaccinated category.

This had the effect of goosing the prevalance rate for
the unvaccinated category upwards till the difference
between the two would have fallen below the level
deemed to be statistically significant.

Madsen has subsequently refused to release his raw
data when asked so his findings could be confirmed.

January 13, 2011 at 9:11 pm
(51) White&Nerdy says:

Hi Joe,

Again, the whole point is that fraud requires deceiving people.

If you think about it a bit, it is illegal for Dr. Madsen to release this data. Notice the deception? Ask him to doing something illegal and then criticize him for not doing it. Clearly this is not a valid criticism of him.

Same thing with the paper. It states right in the methods how the diagnosis of the kids was validated–again the criticism that he “simply accepted the data as accurate” is just wrong.

There is also this nonsense criticsms propagated by the antis–but it just doesn’t hold up to verification.


January 13, 2011 at 4:39 pm
(52) Aaron says:

Are there any investigative journalists looking into this Madsen report?

Seriously people, where are the scientists all gone? I’ve talked to many graduate students in a number of disciplines who were appalled by the level of data doctoring their profs do to make the data fit their hypothesis. The profs don’t actually “change” the data…. they just, well, maybe disregard the odd data set here and there because it was “clearly wrong”. In other words, if data doesn’t agree with my hypothesis, there must have been something wrong with the test that produced that data set, and that data must be invalid.

January 13, 2011 at 4:43 pm
(53) Aaron says:

Someone should do a scientific study evaluating how cultural preconceptions affect the outcome of science. Science is not the unbiased search for truth that it is supposed to be or often made out to be.

January 13, 2011 at 4:55 pm
(54) autism says:

Aaron – I think you’ve taken your thinking around in a circle… if pure reason and logic were really “objective truth,” then scientific researchers who are using reason and logic would always come to reliable conclusions – and those conclusions would be identical from study to study.

My sense is that the scientific method, while very valuable, is by no means infallible. Scientists are people, too!

What’s more, as I mentioned in the blog, common sense and logic don’t always provide the same answers that science provides. Common sense told us that the Earth is flat – and it was just plain wrong!


January 13, 2011 at 5:04 pm
(55) Sandy says:

The Somali population in MN, which is where I live, does not at all point to vaccines. One has to realize what schools do here and that they can term an IEP autism without a diagnosis. Most other states can only then term that IEP DD if there is no diagnosis. That the main population of those with autism are in Pre K. It’s totally controversial and has been on the news many times. The Somali population isn’t the only ones who are a large population who migrate/ immigrate to MN, either yet those autism rates only show higher in this ethnic group. It’s also difficult to compare any autism rates in that country, being their culture practices are far different than ours and so is medical intervention to even diagnose.

It also isn’t so dark in MN in the winter. I hardly ever took my son out side at age 2 and 3. I’d link it more to the freezing temps causing a long term brain-freeze.

January 13, 2011 at 5:52 pm
(56) Aaron says:

autism, your comment is riddled with assumptions and fallacies.

To start with, nobody said pure reason alone leads to objective truth. Obviously, empirical observation confirmed by repeatability is a necessary component, which you seem to have outright disregarded.

Furthermore, you fail to acknowledge in your first statement that scientific researchers do not always use pure reason. Sometimes their reasoning is faulty.

Lastly, you have equated common sense with logic, which is outrageous. I suggest you study logic if you wish to understand what it is, because common sense and logic are a far cry from one another.

January 13, 2011 at 5:55 pm
(57) Matt says:

I count myself as lucky that I never got sucked in by Andy Wakefield, JB Handley, Jenny McCarthy and the rest of those promoting the fear and myths they do. It was a lot harder to get good information back then.

I am hopeful for the future parents and their children. Hopeful that they can avoid the pain caused by the misinformation of the past decade. Hopeful that they will be part of the force to make a real difference.

I feel sorry for JB Handley and Andy Wakefield for having invested so much of himself in this story, I really do. I feel much more sorry for the many parents who were drawn into his story. I know too many who wish they could have that time back, that pain removed.

January 13, 2011 at 7:30 pm
(58) Maurine Meleck says:

and there are so many of us that owe so much to Dr. Wakefield and are so grateful for his work. He gave us so much understanding of what was happening with our chidlrens’ guts, along with the DAN doctors who started treating their gastrointestional problems. And with that we learned the connection between the gut, the immune system and the brain. I have recovered one of my granchildren(had many fewer vaccines) and my oldest is improving more every day and I hope to reco ver him too someday.
And we’re thank-ful to J.B. and Jenny for putting all that information out there for everyone to hear.
So no need to feel sorry for all theparents and children.

January 13, 2011 at 7:45 pm
(59) Matt says:

Andy was wrong. Simply put. He really offered nothing in the way of therapies and nothing in the way of real understanding. He offered a lot of misinformation about vaccines.

There may be no need to feel sorry for Andy and JB, but I do. On many levels. I feel much more sorry for those who have followed them. I really do.

I talk to parents every day that feel the same.

January 13, 2011 at 9:51 pm
(60) White&Nerdy says:

Hi Maurine Meleck,

Ignoring for the moment Wakefield’s con job on kids guts, the reality is that we have moved into the final stage of the saga–lawsuits against DAN doctors.

One of the most egregious forms of misconduct is lying to parents about the prognosis of autism. Most kids improve with time: some a little, some completely recovery.

However, since the parent has been lied to, they attribute the normal progression of autism to the snake oil they have been sold.

Sad, but the good news anyone that bothers to look can see through this deception.


January 13, 2011 at 6:01 pm
(61) Aaron says:


In addition to my last comment, and most importantly of all, you appear to be making the assumption that objective, absolute, truth is even attainable and you are putting such an assumption into my own mouth!

Objective relative truth is attainable, that is what moves science forward. But objective absolute truth is another story. A scientific experiment can only prove, based on reason and empirical data, a causal relation for which factors were controlled. In the universe, factors could potentially be unlimited and there is no way to ensure all factors required to substantiate an absolute conclusion about reality have been controlled.

January 13, 2011 at 6:07 pm
(62) Aaron says:

Also, I’m tired of hearing unconstructive, emotional comments like Matt’s.

January 13, 2011 at 6:20 pm
(63) Sandy says:

Aaron, if no one else will say it I will: what ever your own opinion is, you have no right to to attack or call any one else’s opinion anything. Wasn’t it you who mentioned “It would be a mistake ( and unconstitutional ) to silence those who you do not agree with” ?

January 13, 2011 at 6:29 pm
(64) autism says:

Just so you know, “autism” is me, Lisa Rudy, the About.com Guide to Autism.

Aaron – I certainly didn’t mean to insult you; I was reflecting on the philosophical difficulties of attaining an objective understanding of a muddy, hard -to-define human condition. And I have always thought of “reason” and “logic” as being pretty close to synonymous – though you’re welcome to dispute that!

Anyway, yes, scientific method has a lot to offer. But going by what we have available on pubmed relating to autism, there’s an awful lot of disagreement within the scientific community!


January 13, 2011 at 8:16 pm
(65) White&Nerdy says:

Hi Lisa,

Well, I am happy to say I didn’t win the wager….

I very much disagree with the last paragraph of your blog entry.

I don’t think the issue is understanding, but rather communication.

Facts tend to be rather dry and take some time to work through.

Sadly many people won’t spend the (something like) 2 hours listening to a boring 50 year-old statistician work through how the autism epidemic has been fabricated.

But many people are happy to listen to a nude-model–who can’t even correctly count the number of vaccines given–argue by assertion.

Often pure BS can be easily articulated and wrapped by a pretty face. Truth can take a whole lot more work and be not nearly as pretty.


January 13, 2011 at 8:26 pm
(66) White&Nerdy says:

Hi Rob Jones,

The essence of running a multi-national, multimillion dollar fraud is lying to people.

For example, there are countless millions of people that have made it through stats 101 and understand that the vacc vs unvacc study you suggest won’t give valid data.

More to the point, this error has been pointed out for years and years…

So this is just part of the business model. Suggest a stupid experiment and then complain when no one will do it.

Like most of the anti’s arguments, if you research it the absurdity becomes obvious.


January 13, 2011 at 8:30 pm
(67) Aaron says:


I’m not insulted. I’m just trying to point out your continuous misinterpretation. Nobody said reason and logic are not equivalent. Of course they are. Where did I say otherwise? I think you are again confusing “reason” with “common sense”; which are entirely different.


I apologize to Matt. I am just as bad as Matt for voicing feelings on a subject which should be maintained as a constructive and intellectual debate.

January 13, 2011 at 8:49 pm
(68) Aaron says:

“Andy was wrong. Simply put. He really offered nothing in the way of therapies and nothing in the way of real understanding. He offered a lot of misinformation about vaccines.”

Matt, In the context of the 1998 case-series and corresponding press-release I agree with this statement. Wakefield’s actions could certainly be judged as sloppy and irresponsible. On the other hand; it doesn’t mean Wakefield is not doing any good for science. This is just one report and one incident where he should have been a little more careful in his presentation of the evidence. I would be careful not to banish someone who may be able to do a lot of good for the world over one slip-up. I have my doubts about claims against Wakefield that he was trying to deceive the public; but I remain open to the possibility.

January 13, 2011 at 10:55 pm
(69) Aaron says:

W&N, thank you for coming here to educate our pitiful minds; sadly, mine is so pitiful that I need you to actually explain your assertions to me.

For starters, I am very intrigued by this statement you made:

“If you think about it a bit, it is illegal for Dr. Madsen to release this data. Notice the deception? Ask him to doing something illegal and then criticize him for not doing it. Clearly this is not a valid criticism of him.”

Why would it be illegal for a researcher to release his data to another researcher? I would have thought that this kind of transparency would be necessary to ensure reliability of a study. If it is illegal for another researcher to see his data then how was it legal for him to see the data in the first place? I’m afraid I’m hopelessly unable to understand your assertion. Thank you in advance.

January 14, 2011 at 7:08 pm
(70) White&Nerdy says:

Hi Aaron,

If you follow the story back, they were asking him to release confidential medical records–this is illegal. Then they criticism him when he won’t do it. All just another way to deceive parents.


January 20, 2011 at 1:27 pm
(71) Aaron says:

Hi W&N,

Would it be illegal for him to release these records to another researcher who signed an agreement to confidentiality? How did he manage to legally access the records in the first place?

January 13, 2011 at 11:02 pm
(72) Aaron says:

W&N, regarding your comment:

“What does matter is that–even ignoring the outright lying about the kids medical conditions–it is still archetypal fraud.”

Please elaborate your point here for me W&N. If he told the truth about the medical conditions, how could his report have been archetypal fraud? I really do apologize for being such a nuisance.

January 14, 2011 at 7:13 pm
(73) White&nerdy says:

Hi Aaron,

The fraud is in his miss-representation of how the samples were obtained. This requires understanding data sampling.

No, asking questions isn’t a nuisance.

What does bother me are people that don’t understand the subject, won’t learn the subject, won’t seek guidance from people that do understand, but continue to assert their opinions…this is a nuisance.


January 20, 2011 at 1:34 pm
(74) Aaron says:

Hi W&N. I agree with you. I am only here to learn so I can make better decisions for myself and my family. I have no interest in convincing others.

One thing I don’t understand about this accusation of data misrepresentation is that the report was not just published by Wakefield. It was published by 13 doctors. So just to clarify your assertions… you are telling me that 13 doctors purposely misrepresented the data in the report they published?

Thank you.

January 14, 2011 at 12:45 am
(75) Aaron says:

“One of the reasons that the courts have been so damning of the vaccines cause autism crowd, is that the kids are not “normally developing” and the antis have been flagrantly dishonest about this and actively attempted to suppress this fact.

Sadly dishonest sites censor information like this.”

This is a very well known argument against parent’s who claim the MMR-Autism link. I highly doubt there is *anyone* on either side of the debate who is unaware of it. There are also many reasonable counter-arguments out there to this claim.

January 14, 2011 at 1:01 am
(76) Aaron says:

Elaborating on my previous comment, your claim of censorship sounds somewhat ridiculous to me, because from the sites I strongly suspect you are accusing of censorship are where counter-arguments to your claim originate.

For instance:

1. Yes there are a few cases where children are “not developing normally”, where the parent’s have not acknowledged it, but many more cases where the children *are* developing normally.

2. A child may not be developing normally, but that doesn’t necessarily mean the child is predestined for autism. It could be that the vaccine is what threw them over the edge. It could be that such children are more vulnerable to side-effects of the vaccine.

I’m not saying that I believe the MMR-Autism link. But you will have to provide more proof before I am willing to believe either side of the debate. I’m not so easily convinced of anything without irrefutable proof.

January 14, 2011 at 7:19 pm
(77) White&nerdy says:

Hi Aaron,

If–for example–you were to actually read the court records you would see how kids subsequently diagnosis with autism aren’t developing normally and in fact show symptoms long before recognized by their parents.

You can also see the attempts to hide this fact and to deceive the parents.


January 20, 2011 at 1:52 pm
(78) Aaron says:

Hi W&N.

Of course I read the records.

Of course you would come to the conclusion that the parent’s were being deceived if you agree with Brian Deer’s interpretation of the GP records.

You also missed out the cases where the GP, after the MMR vaccine were not able to confirm gut problems or autism claims. This was also a central aspect to the debate.

But as others have pointed out, the opinion of the 13 specialists at the Royal Free hospital was that the diagnosis’ in the GP records are what should be taken into question.

It has also been shown that those GP records have been misinterpreted by Brian Deer in order to assert these claims that the children had autism prior to the MMR vaccines.

But in any case… it appears that all 13 doctors would have had to have conspired in this to have designed, collaborated on, and published a report which intentionally misrepresents the truth. How do you explain their combined motives?

January 14, 2011 at 1:24 am
(79) Aaron says:

“So how many people in Somalia are trained to diagnosis autism?
How many kids in Somalia ever see a pediatrician or get any sort of relevant work-up?”

Although Rachael’s comment on Somalian immigrants is an anecdotal one and obviously not the final word on anything. Anecdotal reports are a good starting point for any research project.

Clearly, as we’ve seen in the Wakefield case, anti-vacciners are quick to jump on anything before the reports are scientifically investigated; although, it is the impression I get that vaccine evangelists are just as bad as the anti-vacciners in there disregard and avoidance of researching such anecdotal reports.

January 14, 2011 at 1:27 am
(80) JB Handley says:

I’m still waiting for someone to post a study that looks at any vaccine other than MMR to see if it causes autism.

They have studied 2 of 36 vaccines, and some of you are comforted that vaccines are safe?

Because I won’t keep checking here, please feel free to email me the study:


I promise to write a post at AoA called “I was wrong” is someone can find even one, and please don’t send me a study that shows kids who got DTP with more mercury or less mercury as one of your examples!

Thanks, JB

January 14, 2011 at 7:39 pm
(81) White&Nerdy says:

Hi JB,

I guess it shouldn’t be a surprise that you are bailing to more comfortable sites….

Anyone that followed my suggestion and did the keyword search can’t help but find studies that evaluated different vaccines with respect to causing autism.

Here is one example: http://www0.nih.go.jp/JJID/56/114.pdf

I picked this one since it is old (2003) and the full text is available on line.

There is a helpful table #3 on page 116. They looked at the following vaccines and autism:

Measles (alone)
Mumps (alone)
Rubella (alone)
Japanese Encephalitis

The claim that only MMR has been studied in relationship to autism isn’t just wrong, it is silly and it is trivial to demonstrate this falsehood.


January 14, 2011 at 2:05 am
(82) Aaron says:

W&N, since you appear to be so very confident in your stance on the matter of whether vaccines are safe; I expect that you studied both sides of the debate very carefully and eventually came to a bullet-proof argument and set of research studies that ultimately convinced you of the stance you take now. As someone who is yet to decide whether vaccines are safe or not, you could be of great help to me.

Please provide me with your bullet-proof argument and set of research studies that settle the debate once and for all.

If your bullet-proof, irrefutable argument, based on irrefutable research studies turn out to be truly irrefutable then I will be forever grateful to you. But if they turn out to be refutable in any way then I will be forced to question either your intelligence or your motives.

I have been looking forward to the day when someone can reassure of the safety of vaccines for a long time. I look forward to hearing what you have… but I sure hope you have something profoundly spectacular; considering the strong stance you hold, anything short of that would seriously implicate your character.

January 14, 2011 at 7:42 pm
(83) White&Nerdy says:

Hi Aaron,

Sure, but we can’t really have this discussion without you understanding the jargon.

Please let me know once you have looked up what safe means in this context.


January 14, 2011 at 2:38 am
(84) Don't Do the Shot says:

My son got an MMR at 6 months and soon started having night terrors. Waking up in convulsions and stiff as a board once, twice every night. Nothing would console him or snap him out of it. I discussed it with the dr. MANY, MANY times. This was 9 years ago. He has since stopped having the night terrors around 5, when I believe, God intervened! Before that six month MMR he was, and in many ways still to this day but different, was my “sunshine.” After 6 months he changed, he seemed more numb, distant. He also has had speech issues that have taken him to both private and public (blah!) school speech lessons.

I ordered the records about a year ago to see what the dr wrote in her notes about those many visits about his “seizure” like episodes EVERY night. I had to order his records again because the HMO left them out although my other son who was born in 1997 was complete. Call me suspicious but I don’t believe that was a coincidence.

Until things change in the way medical is handle, and no I don’t mean the induction of GuidoCare Government Runned Healthcare. I would refuse MMR if not all or some of the vaccines. It is not worth it for your child’s sake or for the stress it puts on the family. I believe my son’s case is on the milder side but none the less noticeable in how he learns and interprets information received and how he relays it back. Be strong and say no!

January 14, 2011 at 2:40 am
(85) Leslie says:

My son got an MMR at 6 months and soon started having night terrors. Waking up in convulsions and stiff as a board once, twice a night. Nothing would console him or snap him out of it. I discussed it with the dr. MANY, MANY times. This was 9 years ago. He has since stopped having the night terrors around 5, when I believe, God intervened! Before that six months MMR he was, and in many ways still to this day but different, was my “sunshine.” After 6 months he changed, he seemed more numb. He also has had speed issues that have taken him to both private and public (blah!) school speech lessons.

I ordered the records about a year ago to see what the dr wrote in her notes about those many visits about his “seizure” like episodes EVERY night. I had to order his records again because the HMO left them out although my other son who was born in 1997 was complete. Call me suspicious but I don’t believe that was a coincidence.

Until things change in the way medical is handle, and no I don’t mean the induction of GuidoCare Government Runned Healthcare. I would refuse MMR if not all or some of the vaccines. It is not worth it for your child’s sake or for the stress it puts on the family. I believe my son’s case is on the milder side but none the less noticeable in how he learns and interprets information received and how he relays it back. Be strong and say no!

January 14, 2011 at 3:34 am
(86) Twyla says:

One thing I like about Lisa Jo’s article is the title: “Wakefield’s Study Just One Element in Autism-Vaccine Worries”. This is so true. It amazes me when, after unjustifiably trashing the Lancet paper, many writers bascially say, “There! That’s done! Now nobody will worry about vaccines any more!”

This was a little study which should have been the starting point for further research. It’s just amazing how big a reaction it has received. Why? “Methinks the lady doth protest to much.” The very force of the reaction against this paper speaks volumes. One piddly little reporter with no medical credentials writes some idiotic articles, and his words are repeated around the world as if he is a brilliant nobel prize winner instead of a miserable creep. And the BMJ is spoken of as if they are an independent scholarly voice, instead of a pharma-funded protector of vested mainstream medical intersts. JB laid this out so well here:

January 14, 2011 at 7:54 pm
(87) WhiteandNerdy says:

Hi Twyla,

The only amazing thing that I see is the willingness of Wakefield’s supporters to ignore his fraud and the childish attempts to hide this fact.


January 14, 2011 at 3:45 am
(88) Twyla says:

Dr. Richard Deth of Northeastern Univerisity wrote:

“I think it’s very unusual, but at the same time revealing, that the BMJ chose to publish this story. Investigative journalist Brian Deer has been on a mission to discredit Wakefield for years. His report is not a scientific article, but rather an opinion piece that doesn’t focus on the scientific finding of whether or not autistic children have inflammation in their gastrointestinal tract, which I believe is the crux of the original paper. That paper never set out to prove an explicit link between autism and the MMR vaccine. Nobody studying 12 subjects could conceive of proving a link. Wakefield found that subjects had gastrointestinal inflammation and at least some of parents reported that they thought this occurred after their children received the MMR vaccine…”

“Most vaccine safety studies have been epidemiological in nature. They examine large population-based datasets rather than individual autistic subjects. The latter type of study has revealed the central role of oxidative stress and inflammation, which could not be identified in epidemiological studies…

“The British General Medical Council and Brian Deer have conspired to make an example of Wakefield for daring to suggest that vaccination may cause disease in some individuals.

“Wakefield’s identification of gastrointestinal inflammation in autism will remain an important scientific contribution. The magnitude of the effort to discredit him betrays a strong fear that his suggestion of a link to vaccination may be correct. It amounts to a public pillorying that frightens others from investigating this controversial but important issue. ”

January 14, 2011 at 7:56 pm
(89) White&nerdy says:

Hi Twyla,

It would have been helpful if you had also posted the Dr Deth’s expertise isn’t relevant to autism and that his views have already been determined by US courts to be junk science.


January 14, 2011 at 3:53 am
(90) Twyla says:

The Lancet paper is now 13 years old. It has already been retracted, and Dr. Wakefield has lost his license to practice medicine. Why are these peope bothering to further villify Dr. Wakefield? I think it is because of this ongoing study comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated monkeys:

Per AoA, “The results indicate that multiple vaccine exposures during the previous 3-4 months may have had a significant impact on brain growth and development in ways that are consistent with the published data on autism.”

Dr. Andrew Wakefield is not a listed author but he provided support in the design of the study. What better way to discredit this important study than to accuse Dr. Wakefield of falsifying data?

January 14, 2011 at 8:08 pm
(91) White&Nerdy says:

Hi Twyla,

Because fraud is wrong and his fraud has done great damage to many families.

The monkey study is completely bogus and in absolutely no way supports the idea that vaccines cause autism.

The study was widely viewed as incompetence…
but since the authors are making money off parents believing that vaccines cause autism, and since they didn’t disclose this fact in the paper,
and since Wakefield has faked data,
and since one of the problems with the paper is that something is very, very wrong with the “controls”
The possibility that it is outright fraud has to be considered.

Not that it really matters all that much, since all it takes is middle-school science to see that it is bogus.


January 14, 2011 at 3:59 am
(92) Twyla says:

Brian Deer’s character and some parent’s perspectives can be seen in this video:

I find it hard to trust a man’s judgement in medical matters when I see him talking with a woman holding a photo of her son’s abdomen with a colostomy bag hanging out, and he says repeatedly, “That’s not bowel disease! That’s diarrhea! That’s not bowel disease!”

January 14, 2011 at 7:30 am
(93) Sandy says:

It’s interesting why a monkey study done in the USA would then publish it’s results in a medical journal in Poland, and is this not the same study that disappeared from that journal? Or is this a different study in another way out country, once they removed Wakefield’s name? Anyone know why these studies are published out of this country? Any study linked at all to Wakefield will raise eye brows and this recent news media may effect his plans to do a study on the Somali’s in MN, based on his trip here last month. What’s interesting is making public he plans to do a study on these MN children, yet he cant actually treat children, only monkeys.

January 14, 2011 at 7:35 am
(94) Sandy says:

Leslie~ my son had night terrors, started at about age 2. They are scary to see your child have these, and there’s literally nothing you can do to get them out of it. If one tries to, you incorperate yourself into that terror. The worst was non stop screaming for 2 hours.
Night terrors are not so uncommon, and kids do grow out of them and my son did as well at about age 5. I believe it happened at that age due to when he started talking. There after, he had no dreams at all and when he did, they were always scary dreams for him, about eyes.

January 14, 2011 at 8:10 am
(95) Lisa says:

Wow – you guys sure keep late hours; I can see some of you were posting at 3:00 in the morning (at least, 3 am EST!).

I just wanted to respond to the note about “normally developing” kids.

It seems to me that, with autism being such a spectrum, it can be hard for parents to know if their child is developing normally.

That is, unless a child has very obvious issues (refuses to be held, develops no spoken language at all, responds overtly to very slight sensory overloads, has dreadful GI symptoms), the issues may be virtually invisible to the average parent. And even a typical pediatrician who sees the child once when he’s well and twice when he has the flu, for a total of an hour a year, is unlikely to pick up on subtle signs.

I look back at photos of my son as a toddler (he was my first), and I still don’t see anything obvious – even when he was three and already diagnosed. He was smiling, engaged, learning… but while his language was hitting “milestones” it was pragmatically disordered, and his social skills were already way behind.


January 14, 2011 at 11:44 am
(96) Aaron says:

Lisa, I want to thank you for your article and your comments on the matter. You’ve made some of the most well-balanced and revealing points that I’ve read anywhere.

January 14, 2011 at 11:47 am
(97) Aaron says:

“Wow – you guys sure keep late hours; I can see some of you were posting at 3:00 in the morning (at least, 3 am EST!).”

Which is 11pm PST ;-)

January 14, 2011 at 11:50 am
(98) Twyla says:

Yes, Sandy, a paper on the initial phase of this study was accepted for publication in the journal Neurotoxicology, passed peer review, was approved by the editor, and was actually pre-published online, but then it was quashed. The online paper was withdrawn, and the publication on paper was cancelled.

“Both journals [the Lancet and Neurotoxicology] are published by Elsevier, a division of publishing giant Reed Elsevier, a multi-billion dollar corporation… Reed Elsevier’s CEO, Sir Crispin Davis. Davis, who retired in 2009 as CEO of Reed Elsevier, has served since July 2003 on the board of directors of GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) a major vaccine manufacturer (also recently appointed to the board of GSK is James Murdoch, publisher of News Corp., which owns The Times of London, the newspaper which launched the media attack on Wakefield). In 2008, vaccines accounted for 12.5% of GSK’s worldwide revenues. And although Reed Elsevier has no known vaccine liability risk, GSK has been directly exposed to two of the most prominent autism/vaccine controversies. GSK manufactured Pluserix, a version of the MMR vaccine introduced in the UK in 1989 and withdrawn in 1992 due to safety concerns. GSK also produced a thimerosal containing vaccine similar to the one examined in the primate paper (which was a Merck product) named Engerix B, for hepatitis B. GSK lists its financial exposure to thimerosal litigation in the U.S. under the ‘legal proceedings’ section in its 2008 Annual Report.”

We turn to our government agencies and medical journals hoping for impartiality, but there are all these close relationships with business. The former director of the CDC now works for Merck.

January 14, 2011 at 11:52 am
(99) Twyla says:

Sandy said, “Any study linked at all to Wakefield will raise eye brows…” Yes, exactly the purpose of the recent barrage of criticism. The whole point of his research — to study seriously ill children — is lost in the midst of mud slinging.

Lisa Jo, sometimes there’s just no time during the day! (Plus, it wasn’t 3 a.m. in my time zone.)

January 14, 2011 at 11:59 am
(100) Twyla says:

P.S. Intersting to note that initially, when the primate paper was scheduled for publication, Joan Cranmer, the editor-in-chief of Neurotoxicology, had this to say to critics:

“As Editor of Neurotoxicology this is to inform you that the referenced manuscript has been subjected to rigorous independent peer review according to our journal standards. If you have issues with the science in the paper please submit them to me as a Letter to the Editor which will undergo peer review and will be subject to publication if deemed acceptable.”

After the paper was withdrawn, Cranmer declined comment and instead referred Lyn Redwood’s questions to an Elsevier executive named Elizabeth Perill, who wrote this note to Lyn:

Dear Dr. Redwood [sic],
Aside from any authorship concerns, on reflection the paper is not suitable for publication in this journal. The decision was based on the fact that the paper should not have been accepted in Neurotoxicology and the paper is not suitable for the audience of Neurotoxicology.
Kind regards,
Elizabeth Perill
Publisher, Toxicology,
360 Park Av. South, New York, NY 10010

Interesting chain of events… What a shame that vax research is such a hot potato.

January 14, 2011 at 12:05 pm
(101) Sandy says:

Actually Twyla, some of Wakefield’s more recent studies disappeared even from ‘out of the country’ medical journals long before this recent barrage of criticism. That’s why they tried removing his name from the study, such as the one you listed, but it’s still in a medeical journal lacated in Poland. I think now they’ve tried 2 ‘out of the country’ medical journals now.

I am sure I wouldn’t want an unlicensed doctor studying my child. I’m pretty sure by law he can not treat children, or study them without being licensed.

January 14, 2011 at 12:30 pm
(102) Twyla says:

As Dr. Bernadine Healy (former head of the NIH) said:
“There are unanswered questions about vaccine safety. We need studies on vaccinated populations based on various schedules and doses as well as individual patient susceptibilities that we are continuing to learn about. No one should be threatened by the pursuit of this knowledge. Vaccine policy should be the subject of frank and open debate, with no tolerance for bullying. There are no sides — only people concerned for the well-being of our children.”

As Mary Holland, JD, said:
“The Center for Personal Rights is confident that the world will look back at the prosecution of Drs. Wakefield, Walker-Smith, and Murch with shame and remorse. Dr. Wakefield has joined in a long honorable tradition of dissidents in science and human rights.”


January 14, 2011 at 12:34 pm
(103) Rachael says:

Is Infantile Autism a Universal Phenomenon? An Open Question

“An intensive reading of the literature has convinced the writer that infantile autism is an illness of modern civilization and it is therefore to be found in countries of high technology, where there is extensive geographical and economic mobility coupled with the dominance of the nuclear family.”



January 14, 2011 at 1:35 pm
(104) Sandy says:

Rachel~ Both those links are from 1984. That was 26 some years ago and now know autism doesn’t just pick on one ethnic group. We also now know autism isn’t caused by countries with higher use of technologies.

January 14, 2011 at 4:14 pm
(105) Rachael says:

Sandy: I’m never going to buy into this it’s just better diagnostic capabilities crap! “The new study, led by Dr. Robert S. Byrd, section chief of pediatrics at the Univ. of California at Davis Children’s Hospital, issued its report on 17 August 2002. It concludes there is “no evidence that loosening in diagnostic criteria contributed to an increase in the number of children with autism, and that, therefore, “some, if not all, of the observed increase represents a true increase in cases of autism in California.”


January 14, 2011 at 4:34 pm
(106) Twyla says:

Matt, there’s really no need to feel sorry for so many people. That’s actually very condescending. Feel sorry for someone who tells you they had a really difficult experience, not for people who simply have different beliefs from yous.

January 14, 2011 at 4:36 pm
(107) Twyla says:

oops, typo – from yours

January 14, 2011 at 4:56 pm
(108) Sandy says:

Rachael~ The study you provided was from 2002, the one I provided was from 2005. It seems the M.I.N.D didn’t look at the MR dropping as autism climbed. There’s studies out there to counter act any other study, people have the option of concluding what they may from any study. I do disagree with any site called ‘our stolen futures’. Even those with a disability have a future.

As I said in the past- in MN schools can term an IEP autism without a diagnosis. There’s also the issue of how the get the autism rates, from educational and county- the potential to be counted twice is there, and my son would be one of them counted twice.

January 14, 2011 at 7:42 pm
(109) Sandy says:

W&N~ This is true for many and there was a study observing video’s parents had, and the infants showed signs of autism but those signs are easy to miss by a parent since babies generally don’t do much but eat and fill up diapers. The parents within the study did miss the earlier signs.
Then you’ll hear all about the Hep B vaccine, however not every baby get’s that at birth; my child didn’t.
My child showed signs right after birth, and continued to only I didn’t know it could be autism. There was always an easy way to explain away these odd things, but after a while you get tired of hearing not to worry; you just know it’s something. My son was developing physically at a typical rate however developmentally he missed it all. So depending, it is true a child with autism isn’t developing normally.

January 14, 2011 at 9:46 pm
(110) Twyla says:

W&N, you make up a lot of stuff.

January 14, 2011 at 10:23 pm
(111) Sandy says:

Twyla~ It’s not true W&N is making anything up. These are always a good read, they go right on down the list of ‘experts’. Interestingly, Haley was one of them.
“However, it is significant to note that Drs. Haley, Deth, Mumper and Siebert are not epidemiologists, and were not proffered to the Court that they were qualified in the field of epidemiology.”
“Dr. Richard Deth teaches pharmacology at Northeastern University. He was
offered by the plaintiffs as an expert in the areas of physiology, neuropharmacology and the
effects of thimerosal in the human brain. Dr. Deth is clearly qualified to testify as an expert witness in the areas of physiology and neuropharmacology. However, there is no recognized field of science in the third proposed area of expertise, namely “the effects of thimerosal in the
human brain.”

January 16, 2011 at 7:14 pm
(112) White&Nerdy says:


Don’t you know the rules?

The Blackwell decision has already been posted here. So the issue isn’t ignorance of its existence.

To the contrary, since part of the fraud has been lying to parents and claiming that court rulings like this don’t exist, some people seem to what to pretend that they don’t exist.

How many times do courts have to rule that all the vaccines cause autism arguments are junk science before people wake up?


January 14, 2011 at 11:35 pm
(113) Sandy says:

Since all of a sudden this month Deth is getting much attention as well, here’s his stusy, so far it’s a hypothesis. If he has any newer work, it’s hard to find any where.

Molecular Psychiatry (2004) 9, 358–370. doi:10.1038/sj.mp.4001476 Published online 27 January 2004

Activation of methionine synthase by insulin-like growth factor-1 and dopamine: a target for neurodevelopmental toxins and thimerosal

January 15, 2011 at 12:57 am
(114) JB Handley says:


I took the time to actually read the study from japan
Alan you sent me. Of course, I’ve read it before.

It compares:

- vaccinated children who received MMR


- vaccinated children who received the monovalent M, M, and R

In no way does it disprove my point – you are smart to post without your real name, feel free to try again. Of course, I’m plain with a stacked deck, I know the studies don’t exist, but feel free to keep asserting they do and then not producing them upon request, it’s very compelling.


January 16, 2011 at 7:06 pm
(115) John Stone says:

Hi JB,

I agree the point is proven.

The second last sentence: “In conclusion, the former Japanese MMR AND OTHER IMMUNIZATIONS…”

The list of other 9 immunizations tested for an association with autism are posted above.

Your claim is wrong exactly in the sense that you miss-state the basic English meaning of the words in the paper.

Same thing with the NEJM paper above–you miss-represent both the words and the numbers in the paper.

AoA, GenR, Safeminds, NAA etc get everything wrong since not only do they not understand the science–they can’t even get the basic facts correct.


PS the complete intellectual and moral failure of the not using one’s name is addressed above in a posting to Maurine Meleck

January 15, 2011 at 5:39 pm
(116) Dee says:

Lisa, thanks so much for having the courage to write this piece. It represents my sentiments exactly. Unfortunately moderation is a rare commodity in today’s world. In this situation both sides have gotten in the way of the work that needs to be done. I applaud Generation Rescue for helping families who feel they have no where else to turn. But at the same time I applaud Paul Offit for working to eradicate some of the worlds worst and deadliest diseases. Your piece speaks to the complications that need to be researched. Unfortunately the reactive screaming on both sides, both passionately believing in their cause to be saving lives, has caused the other side to get louder.

Meanwhile the real work and research won’t be done for another ten years because the media has now decided it’s in the public’s best interest to combat some of the misperceptions of vaccines, therefore ignoring the possibly that the current vaccine schedule may not be in the best interest of all.

Thank you!

January 15, 2011 at 8:11 pm
(117) Miles to go B4 I sleep says:

Somebody should offer a $10,000 reward to any Somali parent who publicly blames her child’s autism on vaccines. I bet that’s never been done before!

January 15, 2011 at 8:30 pm
(118) Twyla says:

I don’t think “screaming” on either side of the debate is any excuse for not addressing the needs of vaccine injured children, nor for the media (including NPR news and the NYT) providing such one-sided stories which don’t address the very real problems with our current vaccine program.

Our government agencies (such as the CDC) and the pharma companies and mainstream medicine have a responsibility to investigate and understand the thousands of parental reports of vaccine reactions followed by regression into autism, rather than summarily dismissing them as “anecdotal”.

Dee, I don’t think those advocating for better understanding of vaccine problems have “gotten in the way of the work that needs to be done”. Vested interests have gotten in the way.

I agree that civil discourse and rational debate are terribly important, but to the extent that breaks down it’s no excuse for failure to address these problems.

Basic research has not been done on vaccine injured children. And comparison of long-term health issues in vaccinated and unvaccinated children also must be done.

January 15, 2011 at 9:30 pm
(119) Sandy says:

An easy way to fix the current vaccine schedule is to make parental choice. There has been studies on both sides, depending on which conclusion one agrees with. Studies are on-going, released almost every month. All of them may one day keep adding a piece to the puzzle. If one can say basic research has not been done on vaccine injured children, then that excludes all studies done in the past.

I don’t believe “screaming” on either side makes the other side louder. People have a choice on how they communicate and some are just loud and rude by nature and one-sided in studies they wish to see. The focus shouldn’t be the media or scare tactics or always using the word “thousands” (which is odd since you hear “thousands” report autism after a vaccine, but you also hear “thousands” recovered) to educate parents. This blog or either side of some debate of course has no bearing on if a study is done or can be done.

It should not have taken an autism controversy for parents to wake up have concerns about vaccines. Those concerns, along with any other medicine and medical care should had naturally come with questions and concerns and second opinions. That in itself will take away from the answers for autism to ever come forth.

January 15, 2011 at 10:44 pm
(120) Toady says:

An apparent JB Handley poser wrote…

“1. Our kids get 36 shots. 2 (MMR) have been tested for their relationship to autism, 34 have not. Do you agree w/my point? If not, please provide evidence to the contrary.”

I’m skeptical that this is from the real JB Handley. It doesn’t seem like an anti-vaccination adovocate with the experience of Handley (and someone who claims that detail is important) would claim “36 shots”, especially in with any relationship to autism.

As opposed to this obvious amateur, the real Handley would know that Rotavirus vaccine is not a shot. He would also know that the number of doses with the 9 different shots (immunization for 13 different diseases) that are given in the autism onset-relevant age group of 0-36 months in the U.S., is closer to 25 at the most, not 36.

January 15, 2011 at 11:25 pm
(121) Sandy says:

Aside from noticing JB Handley as an anti vacciner, sorry, it was JB Handley. His site put a huge full page ads in the USA Today and New York Times stating 36. Those ads can still be found right on the Generation Rescue web site http://generationrescue.com/pdf/ads/080212.pdf

Rotavirus is included in their full page ad as well as Antifreeze.

January 16, 2011 at 7:21 pm
(122) White&Nerdy says:

Hi Sandy,

I very much like this advert from GenR.

As you already stated, they don’t correctly list the ingredients in vaccines.

However, it is much, much worse than this:
The schedule isn’t mandatory
The autism rates for 1983 and 2008 are both wrong
They don’t understand that prenatal occurs before birth
They can’t count the number of vaccines
Don’t understand what toxic means
Vaccines are tested in combination

This isn’t just wrong, it doesn’t make it through middle-school science.


January 16, 2011 at 2:32 pm
(123) barbaraj says:

Parental choice sounds like a nice idea, however, what information do we have to make those “choices”. Should we cower when we find porkine wasting disease in a roto vaccine, or bacillus cereus is in hib, retroviruses in polio, and occasional hits with errant bacteria? The area of vaccine is in a disturbing state of neglect, much like the food industry but without benefit of timely recall. Sure I would love to have a safe single jab measle vaccine, especially since the three jab booster is required because of lack of efficacy, more importantly I’d love there to be a safe tetanus vaccine. What risk am I willing to accept? Well I’d really not want my kids to become asthmatics after a shot, done that one, not have ASD after a shot, checked that box as well, really didn’t like crohn’s after measles, or Kawasaki, or a newborn sent to the nicu after hepb , but gee I’m only one parent of six, with five down, should the risk be one on one with expectation of some life threatening, brain altering or debilitating illness as acceptable? I have ONE unvaccinated child, he turned three in December, anyone want to send me a questionaire I’d be willing to post all answers right here up front, with videos of him singing at 19 months and still singing at three. No regressions, no asthma , no tummy upsets, but no I am not doing this happily, I’d like the vaccine industry to put their money into protecting the children with a quality product, the best money can buy not some inferior chemical and pathogen laden soup of crap not suitable for third world science. We spend our time purelling little hands yet slip things we can’t spell, dirty little diseases into their bodies by injection out of nothing short of drug company sponsored ignorance. Who needs to COUNT? 36 24 it only takes ONE!

January 16, 2011 at 3:21 pm
(124) Sandy says:

What information do you think anyone had in the 1950′s and 1960′s to make that ‘choice’? What information does one find before they give their child an RX for strep throat? What information does one find before their child is sedated? I think we live in a time where a lot think “it’ll never happen to me” so many never gave medical choice a thought, until ‘it’ did happen to them. Even still, until one day there’s a way to detect which is at higher risk, people will either make a ‘choice’ with gaining info or not. But the info has always been there to find.

That’s the thing with vaccines and the info obtained, is it valid or not. PCV-1 doesn’t cause disease in pigs, let alone wasting disease, nor does is cause disease in humans and can in fact be found in meat. The key thing about PCV-1 is the vaccine manufacturer was the one to find it, announce it and recall the vaccines.

One also doesn’t need a vaccine to still have asthma, allergies, GI issues, diabetes and so on. All of those things were inflicting people before vaccines. Everyone would love a world without those, but so would they without pollution, and manufacturing plants. As the industrial world progressed, so did everything else.

All it takes is one is true, but there is a big difference in 36 and 24. It goes along with what truth is being said to parents and if no one likes it from the Pharma, why is it then ok from a web site? All it takes is one unvaccinated person to spread it to many others. Those who do have asthma, some of those diseases could kill them.

January 16, 2011 at 7:17 pm
(125) Toady says:

Who needs to COUNT? 36 24 it only takes ONE!

Not even the real JB Handley would be likely to say that. His concern, as communicated recently in a CNN interview, is “the potential risk of all those vaccines at once”, and “six shots in 10 minutes”.

It’s easy to do the complete CDC/ACIP recommended schedule in the autism onset-relevant age appointments in 18 shots total over 3 years, with no more than 3 shots at each of 6 appointments, if the right vaccines are chosen.

January 16, 2011 at 7:44 pm
(126) autism says:

Barbara – I agree that “choice” is a tricky issue, especially when it relates to medical issues.

I can look at info about over-use of medical imaging, for example, and say to myself “boy, if I’m ever asked to have multiple X-rays or CAT scans, I’ll just say no.” But it’s not so easy when your doctor says “it could save your life.”

I’m not advocating an anti-vaccine perspective. But I do understand the anxiety and uncertainty!


January 16, 2011 at 8:06 pm
(127) Sandy says:

W&N~ Had the Blackwell decision previously been posted, I missed it when this site change the format again. I don’t know why the ability to ‘reply’ under a comment is there, then it isn’t.
It was well worth seeing it again, just that one case and who the expert people were. I really was surprised to see Haley. I agree it isn’t an issue of not knowing, but more an issue of denial.

As for JB Handley and any recent CNN interview, there’s no denying his full page ads. How do we know the real Handley was in that interview or on this blog? The one thing we know to be true, is the site of Generation Rescue. As for six shots in 10 minutes, who can say of their child’s vaccine records that would be true of their child? It certainly isn’t of mine. Unless someone has full access to the medical records of every child, no one has any idea how many ‘shot’ a child get’s.

January 16, 2011 at 10:32 pm
(128) Twyla says:

White & Nerdy should not be allowed to post under JB’s and John Stone’s names. Yes, anyone could get away with posting under someone else’s name without our knowing it. But in this case W&N is deliberately using false names which are names of some of the most prominent advocates in the vaccine safety arena.

January 16, 2011 at 10:42 pm
(129) Sandy says:

I guess proving the point is even better with seeing it visually. Funny how they always ended it with their name though, so was it really false?
Suggesting people use full names was way out of line and some one should had put a stop to that comment way back at 18 so others wouldn’t feel their comments weren’t valid unless they used their real full names. I guess anything goes for those “prominent advocates” no matter how rude they are to others.

January 17, 2011 at 7:21 am
(130) StillNotBonnieOffit says:

Hi Twyla,

Again you choose to post about me rather than to deal with the important issues:
(1) The absurdity of the anti’s on-going criticisms about use of names
(2) The failure of the anti’s to be able to get the most basic facts correct from studies

Pretty simple idea here. If you mix irrational arguments with falsehoods you come to incorrect conclusion.

Final thought. It takes about 11 years to become a scientist.

A person with a sincere desire to understand the epidemiology of autism would get epidemiologists to explain the situation.

To understand the toxicology of thimerosal, they would consult toxicologists. For neurology a neurologist…etc, etc.

The idea that a lay person can skip all this education and make informed arguments in all these areas–and in particular argue that the rest of scientific community is wrong–is silly. In fact, as demonstrated above, such a person often won’t get even the facts correct.

Such a person is many thing, but not a true safety advocate.


January 17, 2011 at 7:24 am
(131) autism says:

Why are folks thinking that the comments from “JB Handley” are from someone else? I am pretty much certain that at least the first couple of posts are in fact his…

While it’s always possible that someone else is using his name, I have no reason to believe that that’s the case. Seems to me that the “someone else” is awfully subtle if they’re trying to discredit or undermine Handley; so far as I can see, the posts look legit.


January 17, 2011 at 7:37 am
(132) White&Nerdy says:

Hi Sandy,

re your January 16, 2011 at 8:06 pm posting

So I think the logical thing to do is to focus on issues where we can verify the truth. Who cares what handle someone uses or what their real name is?

Instead, when GenR claims in their advert or JB asserts on CNN that vaccines aren’t tested in combination we can all go to the FDA site and see this criticism isn’t true.

We can all go to AoA: http://www.ageofautism.com/2011/01/lisa-jo-rudy-feeds-the-hungry-lie.html

And see the lasted attack job with the standard rhetoric about lying…of course the article incorrectly counts the number of vaccines given to kids.

And includes:
” So, of the first 20 shots given to kids, how many have been studied for their relationship to autism?


Which as we have all seen above is simply not true.

Simple fact checking is all we need.


January 17, 2011 at 7:45 am
(133) White&Nerdy says:

Hi Lisa,

Please see my posting: January 13, 2011 at 8:51 pm

Also if you are interested in psychology, it is fascinating to compare JB’s latest blog at AoA with the comments here.

Funny, he didn’t include a link to this blog. It is almost as if he didn’t want his reads to compare his words there with the postings here…


January 17, 2011 at 8:10 am
(134) autism says:

Oh lord, W&N, I didn’t even see that…I just saw your signature. Please don’t use other people’s names – it’s just confusing, and, IMO, disrespectful.


January 17, 2011 at 7:59 pm
(135) White&Nerdy says:

Hi Lisa,


In this case it was done to make a very specific point.

Some people were struggling to understand the absurdity of the argument about needing to post with a name.

It seemed that a demonstration would make this clear, but no even the best seeds will fail if planted in sterile soil.


January 17, 2011 at 9:44 am
(136) Sandy says:

What was disrespectful is comment 18, which inspired the demonstration. More people should stand up for how other people are treated.

As for J.B. Handley and his recent AOA article referencing this site, I found 4 studies about thimerosal and vaccines quite easily, but the best study is one looking around and seeing the rates of autism has not dropped and even Kirby acknowledged that.

I really dislike being involved in blog wars. It’s really disrespectful to comment here and then attack the person on their blog.

January 17, 2011 at 10:04 am
(137) Sandy says:

Here’s a nice article of a personal experience, and there’s “thousands’ of these stories out there

Family is a case study in vaccine, autism link

January 17, 2011 at 12:29 pm
(138) John Stone says:

Lisa Jo

I would just like to point out that the post using my name above is not from myself. While there are a great number of people who share my name this one looks as if it is an attempt at impersonation.



January 17, 2011 at 12:51 pm
(139) autism says:

John Stone – this is getting very weird… two sets of impersonation in one thread. Sorry about that.


January 17, 2011 at 12:58 pm
(140) Sandy says:

Never yet seen an impersonation of which the person includes their name at the bottom. I’m not sure who didn’t know who was writing it and didn’t get a kick out of it.
The point was made however, which no one did address but the one “impersonator” that not using a full name would result in not giving ‘credence’ to the person who took the time to write it.

January 17, 2011 at 1:48 pm
(141) Twyla says:

Sandy, “W&N” isn’t exactly a name.

January 17, 2011 at 2:00 pm
(142) JB Handley says:


Your constant attempts at misdirection are comical, and misguided. It’s not worth my time to get in a useless debate with an anonymous blogger. My assertion that MMR is the only vaccine studied on the us schedule is true, and your interpretations of studies to show otherwise are both misguided and ignorant. I wrote 14studies to deal with liars like you, so anyone with a sincere interest should simply read the studies for themselves.

Mr best, the study you refer to looked at dtp with more mercury and less mercury, this is very different from dtp versus no shots at all, which is my point. Get it?c further, you seem to think i’ve backed off the idea that mercury in shots is the reason for all this autism. Truth is, i’ve become convinced shots are far more damaging than just the mercury, an important difference. Is a mercury- free shot safe if it’s loaded with aluminum?

I have grown to believe the problem is bigger than just mercury, asserting that makes me a sell out is ridiculous.

January 17, 2011 at 2:18 pm
(143) John Best says:

JB, While you ignore the mercury in the flu shot to pregnant women, more fetuses are having their brains mangled every day. Yes, the fact that you won’t promote that fact makes you a sellout and a hazard to those unborn children. It’s time for you to pluck your head out of your ass and tell the whole truth, not just your crazy assumption that vaccines without mercury can cause the same damage as vaccines that do have mercury. If you’re not selling us out, then you’ve lost your mind.

January 17, 2011 at 8:07 pm
(144) AutismNewsBeat says:

How is your Presidential campaign coming along, John?

January 20, 2011 at 2:57 pm
(145) JB Handley says:

John: I’m really looking forward to meeting you in person. Here’s what I say:

About that mercury, before we move on

Mercury and babies do not mix. There was a lot of mercury in shots through about 2004, there’s now about half that level if you include flu shots, which were added to our vaccine schedule in 2003. Said differently, children are STILL getting plenty of mercury from their shots, and this is criminal. And, the media always misses this.

Mercury is one of many vaccine components, you could argue it’s the most neurotoxic, but I have no idea how you compare the damage mercury could do to a child’s brain versus the damage from the measles antigen, and no one else does, either. None of the work above remotely proves mercury in vaccines is safe, but moreover none of the 13 studies above even remotely consider if “vaccines cause autism” because not one of them has a control group that received no vaccines. This is the hungry lie!

John, if my position has somehow made us enemies, so be it. I still trying to figure out if the mercury, aluminum, or some other adjuvant or antigen messed my son up the most. If you know the answer for you, rock on.

I have never been called a “sissy” to my face, perhaps you’ll be the first. JB

January 17, 2011 at 8:40 pm
(146) white&nerdy says:

Hi JB,

It is so very helpful to have your continued postings here.

(1) We are all functionally anonymous posters here–it boggles the mind that with all the discussion above you can’t understand this.

(2) The paper speaks for itself.
52% of kids with autism had been vaccinated with Japanese Encephalitis vaccine vs 81% of controls. This is data looking at autism risk relative to vaccination with JE vaccine.

For BCG vaccine the data was 95% of kids with autism vs 93% for controls. This is data looking at autism risk relative to vaccination with BCG vaccine.

Then there is data for 7 more vaccines (not counting MMR) relative to risk for autism. The p-values for the different vaccines are given right in the summary.

No surprise here. AoA has gotten pretty much every scientific publication wrong–often like this case all it takes is to correctly ready the words on the page to see that AoA is wrong.

(3) Middle-school chemistry–there is no such thing as a “mercury-free” vaccine. No surprise here either–AoA gets all the chemistry, toxicology, genetics etc wrong. And again it is trivially easy to verify this.

(4) I agree it is absolutely ridiculous that after all this time you don’t understand what the word safe means or what the word vaccine means, but there you go….

Bottom line, the vaccines cause autism crowd has struck out in every legal/science court and you are left to name calling because of the complete intellectual failure of AoA, GenR, 14Studies.

Not a rational argument among the 3 sites.

All that is left is watch AoA folks make comparisons to Josef Mengele to hide the relatity that their arguments aren’t functionally literate.


January 17, 2011 at 9:47 pm
(147) passionlessDrone says:

Hi White & Nerdy –

For someone who purports to be so big on scientific literacy, you don’t seem too interested in the details. For example, you say:

The paper speaks for itself. 52% of kids with autism had been vaccinated with Japanese Encephalitis vaccine vs 81% of controls. This is data looking at autism risk relative to vaccination with JE vaccine.

What does the paper say about this relationship, however?

In fact, the immunization completeness rate of JE, which is given 3 times between the ages of 3 and 4 was 52.4% in the case group, and 81% in the control group (p <.01). Of the 17 JE-immunized subjects in the case group, only five received JE immunizations after ASD diagnosis. Such a clearly intentional delay in immunization could present another bias

For anyone who wants to know about the strength of the study that White and Nerdy puts so much faith into, there were a grand total of 21 children with autism included. As for the JE vaccine in particular, 12 got the vaccine before they were diagnosed (difficult to say from the paper if they showed signs of delay previous to the JE vaccination or not; those details are not provided).

Whatever the flaws of the arguments of JB and others who believe so passionately about vaccine causation, at the end of the day, the very best study that folks like W&N can crow about, the one that they say “speaks for itself”, included twenty one children with autism.

That speaks for itself.


January 17, 2011 at 3:15 pm
(148) barbaraj says:

To cover the pig virus issue in roto….What you said Sandy is what we are “forced” to believe. The truth is a little harder to find. A private lab found the virus, the FDA stepped in, the suggestion was to stop the rotarix that had the harmless virus and offer the rotateq ..that was a MISTAKE because it was soon found rotateq contained the pig virus that is LETHAl to baby pigs. Now these exposed children are infected with animal dna that could evolve to make them sick in the way many avian and swine viruses have in the past.

January 17, 2011 at 3:40 pm
(149) AutismNewsBeat says:

It wasn’t a whole virus. It was a DNA fragment. The same strand has been found in the bowels of people who eat pork. It was only in the last few years that the technology even existed to detect these strands.

January 17, 2011 at 8:44 pm
(150) White&Nerdy says:



I think that both DNA and virus particles were found. Not that it really matters.


January 17, 2011 at 4:30 pm
(151) Sandy says:

barbaraj~ A private lab did not find PCV-1, and it isn’t lethal. Viruses are every where, and again, no medicine is perfect and vaccines often have recalls.
The truth isn’t hard to find, and unless you can site all this, it simply isn’t true but more scare tactics to create undue fear to the public, which you’re part of spreading.

January 17, 2011 at 4:35 pm
(152) Sandy says:

Fact it, it was signed the way they generally do when they comment. It was no true impersonation but a great example.

January 17, 2011 at 6:26 pm
(153) Twyla says:

Sandy, if I posted a comment using your name you would throw a fit.

January 17, 2011 at 7:01 pm
(154) Sandy says:

Sorry, if you used the name Sandy, and ended it with your name I would not throw a fit (odd you think I would) as long as it was used in contents to comment 18 which is what started this.
You don’t use your full name, either by the way, so I guess comment 18 applies to you as well.

January 17, 2011 at 8:34 pm
(155) barbaraj says:
January 17, 2011 at 8:40 pm
(156) barbaraj says:
January 17, 2011 at 8:54 pm
(157) Sandy says:

From the links above: “Both PCV1 and PCV2 are common in pigs but neither is known to cause illness in humans”
The virus is also in the pork one eats, and as already mentioned, it was a DNA fragment. I still seen no evidence of “Now these exposed children are infected with animal dna that could evolve to make them sick..”. They once made insulin from pigs, I’d imagine both PCV’s was in it. Nothing evolved. Isn’t DNA in plants and meat?

January 17, 2011 at 9:05 pm
(158) barbaraj says:

Yes, but we aren’t ingesting, we are injecting, and it’s an area with no history and full of guesses and assumptions. (on both sides)

January 17, 2011 at 9:09 pm
(159) autism says:

It’s now 9:07 EST, and I’m signing off the computer for the evening.

Since you guys all seem to be enjoying this thread, I’m not going to end it – but do want you to know that it’s up to you to keep it at least reasonably civil.

Here’s hoping the morning will find relatively few of you bloodied and bowed!


January 18, 2011 at 12:01 am
(160) barbaraj says:

I don’t like it when I read ” poorly understood”..we have seen diseases cross species before, note the h1n1, which always sends me back to Genesis and the plan to put enmity between the species..and we screw with this? A fairly new pathogen? another nightmare on the horizon..jmo

January 18, 2011 at 12:22 am
(161) Toady says:

W&N said,

We can all go to AoA: http://www.ageofautism.com/2011/01/lisa-jo-rudy-feeds-the-hungry-lie.html

And see the lasted attack job with the standard rhetoric about lying…of course the article incorrectly counts the number of vaccines given to kids.

And includes:
” So, of the first 20 shots given to kids, how many have been studied for their relationship to autism?


Which as we have all seen above is simply not true.

Simple fact checking is all we need.

Hi W&N, and welcome AoA’ers!

Let’s take a closer, perhaps a little more careful peek at, and fact check some of the dear leader’s most recent rant at the Lisa Jo post.

January 18, 2011 at 12:23 am
(162) Toady says:

JB writes,

In 1983, the maximum number of separate vaccines a child would receive by the age of 5 was 10. Today, that number is 36. By the time a child is 5 years old, if their parents follow the CDC’s recommended schedule, they will have received the following vaccines, many in multiple doses (the doses is what gets you from 11 to 36: you get DTP 4 times, for example):

1. Hepatitis B
2. Rotavirus
3. DTP
4. Hib
5. Pneumococcal
6. Polio
7. Flu
8. MMR
9. Varicella
10. Hepatitis A
11. Meningococcal (only for certain groups)

That’s hilarious. He’s had to add in the Meningococcal to get to 36. Meningococcal, which is pretty irrelevant to age of onset for autism (as JB likes to describe onset), is rarely recommended unless a child has a persistent complement component deficiency, doesn’t have a working spleen, or some other rare high-risk conditions. Most parents who follow the schedule will never ever see it. And the only way they’ll see a full set of childhood scheduled vaccines “by” age 5, is if all the 4-6 year-old vaccines are given when they’re 4, and and they mistakenly get two flu shots (not recommended) when they’re 4 and a half.

January 18, 2011 at 12:24 am
(163) Toady says:

JB also writes,

So, in a single two month-old visit, the average American child will receive 6 separate vaccines in about 15 minutes:

No they won’t. The average American child will receive combo vaccines, and a two month-old visit looks more like this:

Rotavirus (Oral)

Two months later, at 4 months of age, most children in America will again receive the same 6 vaccines, all administered at the same time:

No, they won’t. The average American child will receive combo vaccines, and a 4 month-old visit looks more like this:

Rotavirus (Oral)

Two months later, at 6 months of age, most children in America then receive 7 vaccines, all administered at the same time:

No, they won’t. The average American child will receive combo vaccines, and a 6 month-old visit looks more like this:

Rotavirus (Oral)

January 18, 2011 at 12:24 am
(164) Toady says:

And just a little more from JB,

So, by 6 months of age most American children receive 19 vaccines through 3 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.)

Actually, no. The reccomended schedule is for the recommended age attained. “At the recommended age” does not mean “before” or “by” the recommended age.

“By” 6 months of age, most American children receive 8 vaccines through 2 visits to the doctor. Shortly after age 6 months, most American children have received 13 vaccines. If they got a HepB shot at birth, it doesn’t necessarily bump that up to 14 (depending on vaccine selection), but it could, and is permissible according to the schedule.

So, of the first 20 shots given to kids, how many have been studied for their relationship to autism?

20 shots?

Does JB really still believe Rotavirus vaccine is a shot? Most American kids actually receive 10-11 shots through their 6 months of age vaccines. Of course, that doesn’t sound half as scary as 20, and nevermind that a kid’s odds are increased for avoiding 7 diseases and the flu with with those 10-11 shots, you know, things like Polio and Diptheria.

Why should those 10-11 shots be studied for a relationship to autism? Why don’t we study them for a relationship to mental retardation and specific learning disabilities? Have those first 11 shots caused the big decreases in prevalence of both? Let’s study them for their relationship to the incidence of Polio, Hib, Diptheria, Tetanus, Hepatitis B, Pertussis, meninigitis, pneumonia, bacteremia, and tympanostomies!

January 18, 2011 at 2:38 am
(165) Twyla says:

There are various ways to count vaccines. Is the MMR one vaccine or three? But endless nitpicking doesn’t change the fact that babies today are receiving more vaccines than ever in the history of mankind, and there has been a tremendous increase during the past 30 years.

January 18, 2011 at 6:03 am
(166) Sandy says:

Toady~ thank you for taking the time to write that all out. It’s not nit picking; anyone can clearly see by the GR ad how they counted the vaccines and compare that to their own child’s to see how inaccurate that ad really is. The GR ads are also incorrect, it’s not a mandatory vaccine schedule; it’s always been a recommended schedule. There is a big difference.

January 18, 2011 at 6:22 am
(167) Sandy says:

I have seen it a few times, where other bloggers make some one, Like Lisa Jo Rudy, the main course topic. It’s amazing to read the feedback comments of such things on AOA and one wonders why those same people still continue to participate at this site when they don’t agree with her view point? One cant even make a comment that wont be deleted in moderation to defend Lisa, unlike this site which allows all comments. I can also say, and I could be incorrect, that of all the time I have frequented this site, I have yet to see an entry by her so negative about another blogger. I think that’s what annoys so many, Lisa Jo doesn’t often bite at such non constructive uncalled for attacks on her. She is a great example of walking away when the conversation fails to be productive and a great example how many can not stand a neutral blog and how many can just jump on the band wagon of attacking another person. This is why I do not visit AOA often and the only major change to this blog I don’t like: How these same people that I avoid invade this safer place of the net.

January 18, 2011 at 7:25 am
(168) White&Nerdy says:

Hi Twyla,

Aren’t you an English major?

Strange that you should be so unconcerned that the anti’s can’t get the definition of the word vaccine correct.

If a person doesn’t know what the words mean, of course they will come to wrong conclusions. This isn’t nit-picking, this is reason.


January 18, 2011 at 8:07 am
(169) 1st-Time Mommy says:
January 18, 2011 at 8:36 am
(170) passionlessDrone says:

Hi White&Nerdy –

I haven’t said anything at all about this been “the best study”.

But it is the best study, because it is the only study that evaluates vaccines other than the MMR.

I have also given a database and the exact keywords to search for anyone interested in the truth.

For someone so interested in diseminated quality science, and seemingly so concerned about people doing a poor job of googling knowledge, wouldn’t it just be more efficient to post links to the actual studies, you know, “the truth”? What are you, Fox Moulder? [sp?]

I find it very telling that you ignore the personally attacks–including the use of the most egregiously evil Nazi– in support of an argument that isn’t functionally literate.

Did someone use Nazi / evil language here? That is preposterous.

Maybe you are embarrassed by the antis?

I’m no friend of the AOA crew; I happen to think that their gross over simplifications and unending focus on vaccines is largely counter productive.

Here’s how I see it; the guys like JB, are supposed to be cranks. I don’t care if they say stuff that is crackpot and crazy. The scary part, is we just don’t have quality evidence about the claim that we’ve really studied vaccination and autism.

That is why, despite what you’d like to show, when the rubber hits the road, you are reduced to using a study that included 17 participants as “the truth” that vaccines other than the MMR have been evaluated for a relationship with autism.

I’m not embarrassed by the anti’s, I’m embarrassed by the quality of our evidence to counteract their claims.

- pD

January 18, 2011 at 8:24 pm
(171) White&Nerdy says:

Hi PD,

(1) there are other studies that look at vaccines that aren’t MMR and autism.

(2) my exact purpose in posting pubmed is so that people can look for themselves rather than accept arguments by assertion.

(3) I have posted above the link to the relevant AoA entry

(3b) please note that after having been given the exact paper, page #, and figure to look at, JB then made the entry at AoA claiming that none of these other vaccines had been studied and use the word lie a lot–you call this being a crank?

(3c) currently there are 30 replies and zero figured out the truth

(3d) replies include we are “evil” from a person that states aluminum is a heavy metal–a remarkably stupid error

(3e) replies include a scientifically literate posting likening us to Josef Mengele

(3f) the entire AoA thread should offend anyone with the intellectual or moral development of a middle-schooler

(4) Just because you don’t understand the science doesn’t mean the issue isn’t answered.


January 18, 2011 at 8:57 pm
(172) passionlessDrone says:

Hi White & Nerdy –

there are other studies that look at vaccines that aren’t MMR and autism.

Post them then. If I understand your position correctly, you believe that statements should be supportable by evidence, as opposed to just declarations.

my exact purpose in posting pubmed is so that people can look for themselves rather than accept arguments by assertion

This is an exceedingly weak position, one that I bet you’d attack if someone tried it out with a position you find unlikely to be true.

Lets see, how about this then: I could assert that chelation cures autism. There’s a study in pubmed that shows it. Don’t take my word for it, just look for it in pubmed. Look, we both have evidence of stuff and neither of us has to worry about accpeting ‘arguments by assertion’.

If you think this is an acceptable format for debate, I’d have to say I’m not surprised if you don’t think I understand science.

I have posted above the link to the relevant AoA entry

I don’t care about an AOA entry.

Just because you don’t understand the science doesn’t mean the issue isn’t answered.

My grasp of science is firm, thank you. Furthermore, for someone with such concern over understanding simple things, capitalization and periods seem to escape you with alarming frequency.

- pD

January 18, 2011 at 9:43 am
(173) Sandy says:

PD~ some one did make mention but not directly saying Nazi. They mentioned the victims of the Nazi’s. The comparison used was preposterous.

There are quite a few studies over the years looking at thimerosal. A lot of attention was put towards the MMR only because so many were side tracked in 1998, until it was debunked no one thought to look at other vaccines until others brought up the contents within vaccines. Fact is, there is no true proof either way you slice it that vaccines do or don’t cause autism. But there are plenty studies out there for either they do or they don’t. If there was proof, none of us would be here, or we would, but we’d be talking about other things related directly to autism.

We have go with what we do know about vaccines, minus autism which is where Lisa was headed. They do come with side effects and reactions and always have, only we do not know who is more at risk for those side effects. Aside from any autism vaccine theory, much should be considered per each family about vaccines or any other health care for that matter.

January 18, 2011 at 1:25 pm
(174) AutismNewsBeat says:

When JB feels dissed, he sues you for defamation. Then he stamps his tiny feet and steams shoots out of his ears.

January 18, 2011 at 3:33 pm
(175) John Best says:

Ken, That’s only when he’s acting for effect. When you have him by the short hairs, he hides like a weasel, same as most of you Neuroinsanity types.

January 18, 2011 at 6:52 pm
(176) barbaraj says:

We clearly don’t know why the mmr keeps rising it’s head in connection to autism, while it is perhaps better understood why those thimerosal laden vaccines “could” well initiate such a syndrome. There are many theories, one being that a thimerosal induced immune disturbance laid the groundwork for live measle virus to infect the intestines of already weakened systems, making the infection a interesting artifact in many of the ASD children. I don’t believe anyone knows why this happened, including Wakefield, however, bringing it to the attention of the medical community for further study was “the right thing to do”. But that’s in the big picture, where often the “right thing to do” goes against the grain of those protecting their “own” interests. A pretty disturbing area, imo.
Counting vaccines is easier..counting injections would best be the measure for thimerosal exposure, with the mmr and polio in the clear. If I count vaccines in this, I see eight, as injections I see 5. With early exposure to thimerosal I see , 4. Without the ability to witness the delivery of these vaccines, I could not measure the amount of thimerosal, I know what it should be, however that , given shaking or forgetting to shake, could be the 4 labeled amounts or five times that amount.
Rotavirus (Oral)cont..

January 18, 2011 at 7:08 pm
(177) barbaraj says:

We have new clues in mitochondrial disease, we know that the body’s thimerosal load is not evenly distributed, with mitochondria taking in 48% of available mercury. A huge clue for a starting point, jmo. Infighting serves no purpose, animal studies are the only viable option and just who is avoiding them, why is the money being spent measuring vaccinated children’s outcomes against other vaccinated children. Before going in, one would not expect measle virus in the gut of autistic not mmr’d children or would they, how much of the live virus is shedding to infect a weakened community of vaccinated children. Why isn’t everyone, on both sides screaming for animal studies. Any guesses?
Parents pull from our personal experiences, my baby was dtap’d, hib’d, pneumo’d, the same day my pre-schooler was mmr’d . The baby regressed..thimerosal alone? viral shedding of mmr?..or another vaccine timed coincidence?

January 18, 2011 at 8:38 pm
(178) White&Nerdy says:

2 steps forward

Salon has “retracted” Kennedy’s article (Deadly Immunity). Apparently so did Rolling Stone some time earlier.

In a feat of profound moral character, Mr. Craig Willoughby actually took the time to read through the documents and changed his mind on Wakefield.

A model more people should follow.


January 18, 2011 at 8:40 pm
(179) Sandy says:

Wakefield never really found measles in the gut; he said he found a brand new mysterious GI disease, of which no other GI doctor in the world has ever found. One also cant assume even if there was measles in the gut, that it came from a vaccine or natural exposure, of which Wakefield could never clarify. One thing with all the MMR studies, we know what it doesn’t cause. One is a mysterious GI disease, the other is autism. For the side effects of that one vaccine, no one knows why there’s such a small number compared to the majority who had no side effects.

There’s also been studies on thimerosal, one that it leaves the body much faster than first thought. What actually needs to be studied is actual every day exposures and then vaccines (but then thimerosal was removed and autism rates still climbed), but then proven that one combo of exposure and vaccines caused something to anyone. I read they’re planning to study those every day exposures.

In relation to counting vaccines/ shots; this is in reference to GR’s huge full page ad and one can only go by that ad and how that ad is presented. There’s two inaccuracies right off the bat, more or less an outright lie. The total number of 36 is also inccurate.

January 18, 2011 at 8:57 pm
(180) Toady says:

“There are many theories

There are none. Only failed hypotheses. Hopefully you understand the difference.

Rotavirus (Oral)

“If I count vaccines in this, I see eight, as injections I see 5. “

Your count is incorrect Barbaraj. Care to try again? Hint: Google “Pediarix”.

Thimerosal exposure? Please.

January 18, 2011 at 9:18 pm
(181) Sandy says:

A handful of studies surrounding thimerosal in vaccines.
*The Lancet November 2002
*American Journal of Preventive Medicine August 2003
*Pediatrics September 2004
*Molecular Psychiatry June 2004
*Environmental Health Perspectives April 2005
*American Journal of Medical Genetics May 2007
*Pediatrics September 2010

January 18, 2011 at 9:20 pm
(182) Twyla says:

Thanks so much, pD, for calling W&N’s bluff. Though I don’t agree with your assessment of AoA/GR, I really appreciate all the knowledge and insight you have to offer.

January 20, 2011 at 2:51 pm
(183) JB Handley says:

I have always enjoyed pD’s posts, I find him/her to be painfully honest and objective. JB

January 18, 2011 at 9:34 pm
(184) barbaraj says:

Take a look, and a “funny thing” happened when looking for info..old info seems more correct..perhaps there has been a dishonest element surrounding research hence quieting this issue for some time?


January 18, 2011 at 10:13 pm
(185) barbaraj says:

Toady..I WOULD NOT give my child pediarix, the risk is higher for sids as compared to other available vaccines as well as unusually high side effects in preemies..and since my last four are preemies I would hope it would be contraindicated.
Your count is incorrect Barbaraj. Care to try again? Hint: Google “Pediarix”.

I was counting the vaccines as given during the thimerosal “time”, and I was correct. I will not agree that autism is climbing, I haven’t seen current counts, the last cdc study included only children during the thimerosal era.

January 18, 2011 at 10:20 pm
(186) Sandy says:

W&N~ I seen that in the news the other day. Wakefield looses license, oddly leaves Thoughtful House, monkey studies disappear, exposed as a fraud and vaccine patent holder, magazine finally pull their articles and actually apologize for taking so long. It’s been an interesting chain of events.

barbaraj~ Crohn’s is not what Wakefield said he found, and it isn’t knew, either. It was known first in 1904 but named by an American doctor in 1932.

January 18, 2011 at 10:54 pm
(187) Sandy says:

There’s that Canadian study which noted that rates of PDDs were higher in the birth cohorts with no thimerosal when compared to those with medium or high levels of exposure. Then there’s that Kennedy Krieger Institute study which did look at those ‘correct’ ages. That study even Kirby retracted his thinking.

In 14 clinical trials, 5 deaths were reported among 8,088 (0.06%) recipients of Pediarix, one of them having a congenital immunodeficiency, two 2 cases of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome.

January 19, 2011 at 9:16 am
(188) barbaraj says:

I understand that Sandy, Crohn’s is far from new, however, it has been found to be related to measle virus both wild and vaccine introduced. I included the studies that evolved , from the mention of the virus to regional enteritis and a connection to autism, it seemed like a natural path for researchers to follow, not at all anything that could be considered “an evil act of one doctor trying to take down the vaccine industry”.

When I read the facts surrounding some vaccines, and some drugs, it becomes obvious that all are not “created” equal. There are huge risks associated with some, less with others. What I find interesting, is that often in the effort to completely release all of these items from scrutiny there is an almost “religious” movement to be accepting of all of these “gifts from pharm”. If one is questioned, if two are questioned, we who do the questioning become “heretics” who must wear the label “antivaccine nuts”. Sorry, there are some vaccines that should be put on a “wary list”, those that CLAIM on their own fact sheets to cause more side effects than those they substitute should certainly be unacceptable, followed by those with huge numbers of vaers reports such as hpv and roto vaccines. Children should be protected according to their own bodies’ reactions, as well, doctors dare not ignore the labeling restrictions,(as they have for years), a child who has a 105 temp for ex. after a pertussis containing vaccine should NOT be a candidate for future vaccines of that type. Simply, following the drug companies’ comments and directions would lessen the morbitity involved with the vaccine program.

January 19, 2011 at 11:11 am
(189) Sandy says:

Again, Wakefield wasn’t looking at Crohn’s. He also wasn’t trying to take down the vaccine industry, his motive was to be a part of it with his own measles vaccine.

Interesting about Wakefield’s newest venture being the Somalian’s. Either there is clearly over labeling by the school or, Wakefield is heading in the direction of genetics. Autism isn’t particular to ethnic groups, except for this one.

VAER’s isn’t worth going into. No vaccine or drug is made equal, and neither is any one individuals body. That’s why for many drugs, they create more than one type. Pysch meds would be a good example of this. When it comes to vaccines, each family should consider it wisely and go over family history. That’s no comparison to some religious” movement, people do happen to make choices for their families without considering these are gifts from some God. Fact is, people do need drugs. Without them my sister and hubby would be dead. People who question are not anti vaxxers. There’s faaaaar much more going on than that. An example would be AOA and the attack against Lisa. Aside from that article, read the comments.

January 19, 2011 at 8:14 pm
(190) White&Nerdy says:

Hi Twyla,
1 of 3

Strange how your English skills failed again.

To call my bluff would mean actually doing the key word searches on Pubmed:

Autism and DTP 4 hits
Autism and HiB 5 hits
Autism and DTaP 7 hits
Autism and Hepatitis B 24 hits

That took all of ten seconds. But you choose not to look.

If you wish to talk about people, then we can go to AoA and find postings that discuss non-MMR vaccines and autism data–including one authored by JB. We can even look at the names of people that have commented on these postings.

Or we could follow Mr. Willoughby’s model and try actually looking at the facts.

January 19, 2011 at 8:16 pm
(191) White&nerdy says:

Hi Twyla,
2 of 3

Like this:

“CDC policy recommends not giving vaccinations at “well-baby” visits when the child comes in with a fever and runny nose….”

From the actual CDC site:
“The safety and efficacy of vaccinating persons who have mild illnesses have been documented (53–56). Vaccination should not be delayed because of the presence of mild respiratory tract illness or other acute illness with or without fever. ”

Another entry that fails the truth test for anyone willing to fact check. Harmless for anyone that is functionally literate.

January 19, 2011 at 8:17 pm
(192) White&Nerdy says:

Hi Twyla,

3 of 3

Like this one:

With respect to the Verstraeten paper:
“The study’s authors, after analyzing the only data ever run on American children…”

Luck for us JB also included a link to the IOM report with data from the states of Georgia and from California….and once again the blog entry is a US Army economy sized cow-pie. I.e. like pretty much everything else written there.

If one were actually an advocate for safety, one would read the IOM report. Where they detail the gross incompetence of the claims that vaccines cause autism and explicitly address many of the criticisms. You know, like the completely bogus claims about the Danish studies being wrong because they added in the out-patient data.

Heck, if one thought a bit one might even figure out why the IOM didn’t reject the claim that thimerosal caused autism, but rather rejected the claim that thimerosal containing vaccines cause autism.

If one cares enough to bother reading…

Personally I am satisfied with the fact that it is impossible make a good-faith effort to evaluate the these two AoA entries and to honestly believe them


January 19, 2011 at 8:49 pm
(193) Whtite&Nerdy says:

Hi PD,

This blog was inspired by Wakefield. Did you notice on CNN that when Wakefield asserted that his work had been replicated CNN asked independent scientists to evaluate the reference he provided?

Surprise, Wakefield wasn’t telling the truth.

That is an important lesson–verify claims. So it is rational to give parents the tool (Pubmed) where they can do the verification for themselves. If you did do the search you will find lots of hits.

Try reading them, you find studies like this:

Please pay attention to the methods before commenting on it.

It is rational to want to discuss the quality of the data.

It is not rational to refuse to search, or to discuss power calculations with someone that won’t even look at the database.

Also, it is not rational to ignore the dishonesty, immorality, and criminal behavior of those that claim vaccines cause autism.

It is rational to look at all the chances (court cases, IOM etc) and ask why everyone of them has listen to scientists and everyone of them has rejected the claim that vaccines cause autism.


January 20, 2011 at 12:05 am
(194) passionlessDrone says:

Hi White & Nerdy -

Your posts are emblemmatic of what I find so troublesome about the narrative about vaccination and autism; they are designed to obfuscate the extreme frailty of our knowledge.

This might take a few 2000 character posts, but I think it is worthwhile to show how bankrupt your arguements are.

To call my bluff would mean actually doing the key word searches on Pubmed:

I tried these searches, and they don’t say what you’d like people to think they do. I am pretty sure that you are smart enough to understand what you are doing, and it makes me question your motives.

Autism and DTP 4 hits

Here they are:

1) Low-level neonatal thimerosal exposure: further evaluation of altered neurotoxic potential in SJL mice — A thimerosal study in mice.

2) A meta-analysis epidemiological assessment of neurodevelopmental disorders following vaccines administered from 1994 through 2000 in the United States A Geier study, which found “significant” risk of autism with TCVs.

3) An evaluation of the effects of thimerosal on neurodevelopmental disorders reported following DTP and Hib vaccines in comparison to DTPH vaccine in the United States, another Geier study with similar results.

4) Thimerosal exposure in infants and developmental disorders: a retrospective cohort study in the United kingdom does not support a causal association, a thimerosal study that had a cohort of 109,000 children, 104 of which had autism.

So, if our analysis stops at simply going to pubmed, typing autism and DTP and determining based on our result count if other vaccines have been studied, we’d conclude that, yes, DTP has been studied; once in a mouse model, twice by the Geiers, who found alarming trends, and once, indirectly, by a study in England. I never would have figured you were such a fan of the Geiers!

January 20, 2011 at 12:06 am
(195) passionlessDrone says:

Continued. . .

Autism and HiB 5 hits

Here they are:

1) Increasing immunization coverage. An editorial about increasing vaccination rates. Abstolutely no analysis performed.

2) Low-level neonatal thimerosal exposure: further evaluation of altered neurotoxic potential in SJL mice. The same mouse model study as found with the DTP search.

3) An evaluation of the effects of thimerosal on neurodevelopmental disorders reported following DTP and Hib vaccines in comparison to DTPH vaccine in the United States Another repeat hit, from White and Nerdy’s favorite authors, the Geiers. “Findings” showing relationships with TCVs.

4) Does vaccination cause disease? An editorial about providing reliable inforation to parents. No analysis was performed.

5) Hypotonic-hyporesponsive episodes reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), 1996-1998 A VAERS lookup that mentioned a single case of autism in the group of 225 children. The study itself was not designed to detect relationships with autism. In fact, the only reason hib showed up is that it was mentioned as a combination vaccine.

So, we’ve listed five more papers, two editorials, two repeats (mousy and Geier), and a VAERS reporting peice. Curious how you didn’t seem concerned with the VAERS data when compiling your list of studies! Are you convinced that the VAERS system has sufficient accuracy to be used to perform retroactive studies?

Out of the nine papers you “listed”, we have seven unique papers, one a mouse study, two by the geiers, two editorials, a VAERS lookup, and our UK study.

You were aware that some of your “papers” were being counted multiple times, weren’t you?

January 20, 2011 at 12:07 am
(196) passionlessDrone says:


Autism and DTaP 7 hits

This is where things start to approach uproarious!

1) Increasing immunization coverage The same editorial we saw above. There is a difference between editorials and clinicla studies!

2) meta-analysis epidemiological assessment of neurodevelopmental disorders following vaccines administered from 1994 through 2000 in the United States Another hit for the Geiers and another duplicate! (also seen in our DTP “search”)

3) A two-phased population epidemiological study of the safety of thimerosal-containing vaccines: a follow-up analysis Another Geier study that “found” a relationship between TCVs and autism.

4) Neurodevelopmental disorders following thimerosal-containing childhood immunizations: a follow-up analysis The Geier’s again! Similar findings as all of their papers.

5) An evaluation of serious neurological disorders following immunization: a comparison of whole-cell pertussis and acellular pertussis vaccines More Geiers! They think DTaP leads to more “serious neurological disorders”. Do you agree?

6) Neurodevelopmental disorders after thimerosal-containing vaccines: a brief communication Your favorite authors return, the Geiers.

7) Hypotonic-hyporesponsive episodes reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), 1996-1998. The same VAERS study we saw above.

So, out of 4 + 5 + 7 = 16 “hits”, we have:

The same editorial listed twice, another editorial, a mouse study listed twice, a VAERS study listed twice, six Geier studies with three duplications, and one study from the UK.

January 20, 2011 at 12:07 am
(197) passionlessDrone says:

Autism and Hepatitis B 24 hits

Here we go!

1) Hepatitis B vaccination of male neonates and autism diagnosis, NHIS 1997-2002 Stonybrook paper finding increased risk of ASD with Hep B vaccination.

2) Increasing immunization coverage Duplicate editorial. No analysis performed.

3) Phenotypic expression of autoimmune autistic disorder (AAD): a major subset of autism Autoimmune study that has nothingto do with vaccination.

4) Olanzapine in the treatment of behavioral problems associated with autism: an open-label trial in Kuwait Drug study that had nothing to do with vaccination. Only shows up as a hit due to serum analysis for “hepatitis B serology”

5) When science is not enough – a risk/benefit profile of thiomersal-containing vaccines Editorial about TVCs. No analysis performed.

6) Vaccine safety controversies and the future of vaccination programs Editorial about the Hep B vacine. No analysis performed.

7) Does vaccination cause disease?. Duplicate editorial. No analysis performed.

8) Immunizations, neonatal jaundice, and animal-induced injuries Review paper on vaccination. No analysis performed.

9) Are parental vaccine safety concerns associated with receipt of measles-mumps-rubella, diphtheria and tetanus toxoids with acellular pertussis, or hepatitis B vaccines by children? Survey study that found parents were concerned about vaccination. No analysis performed.

10) Mercury in vaccines Editorial on TVCs which mentions that France has the Hep-b vaccine.
11) Childhood vaccinations anno 2004. II. The real and presumed side effects of vaccination. Review. No analysis performed.

12) Immunization myths and realities: responding to arguments against immunization Review. No analysis performed.

January 20, 2011 at 12:08 am
(198) passionlessDrone says:


13) Autism and thimerosal-containing vaccines: lack of consistent evidence for an association, TVC study. No access to details.

14) Immunization issues for the 21st century Review paper. From the abstract: “OBJECTIVE: Review and discuss major issues of vaccination and immunization. No analysis performed.

15) Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety, 16-17 December 2002 Meeting minutes. No abstract. No analysis performed.

16) Vaccines, viruses, and voodoo. Review that “briefy discusses the controverisal evidence” regarding autism. No analysis performed.

17) Vaccine adverse events: separating myth from reality Review. No analysis performed.

18) Immunization and children at risk for autism. Review. No analysis performed.

19) Neurological adverse events associated with vaccination Review. No analysis performed. From the abstract: “The present review summarizes data on neurologic complications following vaccination”.

20) Exposure to thimerosal in vaccines used in Canadian infant immunization programs, with respect to risk of neurodevelopmental disorders TVC paper. No abstrat.

21) The MMR vaccination and autism: a lay person’s contribution. No abstract. Presumably the ‘layperson’ performed no analysis.

22) Hypotonic-hyporesponsive episodes reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), 1996-1998 Duplicate VAERS paper we’ve seen twice already.

23) Vaccination and autoimmunity-’vaccinosis’: a dangerous liaison Review. No analysis performed.

24) Pharmacovigilance of vaccines Happens to include the words Hepatitis and autism, but not in a related fashion.

Note: Slightly misordered, #24 should be at #5, but I am not going back and fixing it!

January 20, 2011 at 12:10 am
(199) passionlessDrone says:

Continued and ending!

For my final 2000 characters, I will choose my characters carefully!

Many posts ago, W&N said:
That took all of ten seconds. But you choose not to look.

From the looks of the content of the studies on pubmed, I absolutely could believe that you spent not more than ten seconds at pubmed, returned with a count of “hits” and came back to write your response. That’s the problem!

Were you aware that you “listed” the same editorial three times? Or that the Geiers authored no less than seven of your distinct “hits”? Did you realize that the same VAERS analysis was listed in three separate categories? Did you think that the Olanzapine study that referenced serum Hep B titres was meaningful in a discussion about vaccination? I wonder, what did you take away from the studies which had no authors or abstracts listed?

One of the most common refrains I see in this type of discussion is the accusation of failing to reconsider beliefs, when faced with evidence. Given the actual content of the “hits” you think are so meaningful, I wonder if you will reconsider your positions?

To everyone else: I apologize for psuedo-spamming, but honestly feel that the deceptive nature of the ‘hits’ given by White and Nerdy are illustrative of a problem that need to be disinfected by thoughtful analysis; the hype on our knowledge far outstrips the reality. That being said, you can rationally accept the benifits of vaccines, the reality of herd immunity, and the very real dangers of the return of pathogens while admitting the frailty of our research. I would encourage anyone to goto pubmed and type in the phrases W&N suggested; you’ll see the same titles I have printed here; he has absolutely proven the point: We have not adequately studied the relationship between vaccination and autism except at the most superficial level.

- pD


January 20, 2011 at 12:22 am
(200) barbaraj says:

That showed great “passion” , Thank you:)

January 20, 2011 at 12:37 am
(201) John Best says:

Remaining bogged down in discussing studies is counterproductive. All you need is a little common sense to see the only facts worth knowing. Verstraeten (1999) and resulting coverup proves he was right the first time.

No autism before thimerosal was added to vaccines proves that vaccines don’t cause autism but thimerosal does.

Chidlren who are cured by chelating mercury out of their brains proves mercury is the cause.

That’s all you need to know. The rest is pure propaganda and a waste of everyones’ time.

January 20, 2011 at 12:42 am
(202) barbaraj says:

JB probably correct..but it seems the proof some claim as not to exist, exists ..

Much interesting information packed into this article.. regarding the BELIEF that thimerosal leaves the blood as proving safety……..using radioactive mercury in a rabbit study this was discovered..

after showing blood mercury levels drop over 75% in in six hours post injection it was assumed that the body excreted thimerosal HOWEVER
from hour 1 post injection to hour 6 there were significantly increased radioactivity levels in the fetal brain, liver, and kidney..this study strongly implies that a rapid drop in blood mercury levels from thimerosal injection is due to the UPTAKE by other organs of the body and NOT due to excretion..

January 20, 2011 at 8:14 am
(203) John Best says:

Can someone explain this to JB Handley?

January 20, 2011 at 8:12 am
(204) autism says:

Pd – this is NOT spam. Thank you for taking the time.


January 20, 2011 at 8:38 am
(205) passionlessDrone says:

Hi White & Nerdy

That is an important lesson verify claims. If you did do the search you will find lots of hits.

Quality of evidence isn’t about the number of hits, it is about the details.

Try reading them, you find studies like this:

Please pay attention to the methods before commenting on it.


It is rational to want to discuss the quality of the data.

In that case, lets discuss the quality of the data in the study you referenced, Thimerosal Exposure in Infants and Developmental Disorders: A Retrospective Cohort Study in the United Kingdom Does Not Support a Causal Association

In total, 103,043 children were included in the analysis. According to the paper, “More than 96% of term children eventually received all 3 doses of DTP/DT . In fact, the total number of children who got zero DTP doses was 945, or less than one percent of the total. Next, we might want to know how many children with autism were included in the study. Out of 103,043 children, 106 had autism, or, around one tenth of one percent. (!)

That being said, if we assume that DTP doses and autism are both randomly distributed in the 103,043 children; i.e., there is no association; i.e., the position you presumably take, it is overwhelmingly likely that zero children with autism were also in the no DTP group. In fact, it is just as overwhelmingly likely that of the 945 children with no DTP, none of them had autism! From this standpoint, getting no DTP shots would seem to be protective of an autism diagnosis.

Of course, this wasn’t a study about DTP doses, it was a study about thimerosal using DTP doses as proxies. Clapping yourself on the back about the fact that less than one percent of the study group got no doses of DTP may be all that you have, but that doesn’t mean it is quality data.

- pD

January 20, 2011 at 8:55 am
(206) autism says:

Just curious, Pd, W&N, ANB and others: how exactly do you define “quality” studies?

Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that we’re looking at a set of studies that:

*are appropriately sized for the type of study
*carefully define and select cohorts (eg, “children under age 3 who have xyz symptoms as defined by abc test”)
*make use of a double-blind placebo if appropriate (not a statistical study, for example)
*are not directly funded by a source with a vested interest in the outcome
*are peer-reviewed before publication

Would you say “these are quality studies?”

Or would you say, for example, “yes, this study meets the criteria on the surface, but it was conducted by Dr. X, who is a quack” and dismiss it?

Bottom line, is there an objective definition of “quality research” in biology – and specifically in the field of autism? Or are we chasing a snipe?


January 20, 2011 at 9:41 am
(207) John Best says:

Lisa, The only studies that matter are those that are honest.
We know the truth and all the discussion about studies has to stop. Just tell the truth. Mercury causes autism.

January 20, 2011 at 10:11 am
(208) autism says:

John – How do you determine whether or not a study is “honest?”

Is there an objective system for doing so, or are you using a more subjective evaluative approach?

Obviously, different people believe that different researchers are more “honest” than others.


January 20, 2011 at 11:31 am
(209) John Best says:

Lisa, We knew certain studies were honest because we began curing our children based on the information gained in those studies. Curing autism by removing mercury from the brain is the only thing that’s important, not some rigged studies.
Isn’t that what it’s al about, Lisa? Doing the right thing for the injured children?

January 20, 2011 at 10:47 am
(210) AutismNewsBeat says:

Yes Lisa, all those and more. We also want to look at the impact rating of the journal the study is published in.


All things being equal, a study published in Pediatrics has more credibility than one published in Medical Veritas, or Autism Insights.

We can also look at how many times the study has been cited in other journals. That information is available at PubMed. Also, a study that has been peer reviewed and published, then later retracted, has less credibility than a study that has passed peer review and has not been retracted.

January 20, 2011 at 11:54 am
(211) John Best says:

Ken, Your alleged credible sources do not advise anyone how we cure autism by removing the mercury thaat caused it. That means your sources are not credible but are corrupt, as are you.

January 20, 2011 at 1:37 pm
(212) passionlessDrone says:

Hi Lisa –

Great question. For me, unfortunately, I think the answer is, ‘it depends’.

The thimerosal study from England was (I think) a nice study for evaluating thimerosal exposure. [I should have done a better job of saying this above. (2000 chars!)]

But it gets very difficult to try to use results from a study designed to track one thing (range of thimerosal doses) as a vehicle to understand something else (zero DTP exposure vs. autism rates). In this case, I would argue that the very small number of children who a) got no DTP, and b) had an autism diagnosis made this a poor example of a study evaluating a vaccine other than the MMR with autism.

In some instances, I pretty much throw anything out as bogus on an authorship basis; i.e., the Geiers. They’ve just been proven wrong so many times that I don’t think they deserve the benifit of the doubt. Anytime someone links to whale.to.

You have to take lots of factors into consideration when trying to decide if a study actually answers the question someone claims it does; for example, the VAERS system is notoriously full of poor data. This type of problem is brought up plenty by the skeptics when someone like the Geiers perform a retrospective study of VAERS reports. I think they (the skeptics) are correct. But, this turns both ways, for this reason, when W&N counted a VAERS based study that included a single child with autism in several of his “hits”, I felt it was appropriate to point out that this data set is generally considered too dirty to be used for this type of research; especially as it counted only one child!

Peer review is a must, there are problems with the system, and it is no guarantee, but it is our best available option.

Retrospective, statistical studies are, to my mind, are the most difficult to gauge; there are a lot ways for data to be hidden, or appear, on purpose or on accident.

Much like everything in autism, there are no easy answers.

- pD

January 20, 2011 at 4:01 pm
(213) Ken Reibel says:

Mr. Handley, you have a few hungry lies of your own. You are still telling parents, for instance, that Dr. Offit “voted himself rich”, even though you know that isn’t true. You also think that Offit is collecting royalties on Rotateq, when he sold his interest about 18 months ago.

In your “study” that compares autism rates and vaccines schedules, you contrasted out of date (lower) autism rates for other countries with the rate currently found in the US.

And on and on.

Care to respond? Or is Mr. Best correct?

January 20, 2011 at 7:27 pm
(214) John Best says:

Ken, Since I started writing about the corruption involving Handley and Kirby, nobody from either side has dared to say a word about it. You’d think the other side would gloat over them being exposed as liars…that is, unless they’re working together.
No, Handley’s too much of a sissy to respond to either of us. He knows I caught him in a lie and he has no way out.

January 20, 2011 at 5:38 pm
(215) Twyla says:

pD, you rock!!!! Thanks so much for taking the time to do those searches and summarize them all, with insight and detachment!!

JB Handley rocks too!!!

January 20, 2011 at 7:28 pm
(216) John Best says:

Twyla, You must like being used by Handley. Too bad you won’t read the evidence I presented. He sold you out.

January 20, 2011 at 5:41 pm
(217) Twyla says:

Lisa, I don’t think there is one way to determine whether a study is “quality”. It takes examining the methods and how data is used, whether it makes sense. Certainly the reputation of the authors matters too, yet that generally cannot be a conclusive yea or nay in itself. I used to have more respect for certain journals and the peer review process, but that has diminished in recent years.

January 20, 2011 at 7:24 pm
(218) White&Nerdy says:

Hi PD,

Re: your January 20, 2011 at 1:37 pm posting.

This is most excellent.

I would only add that the IOM and Cochrane–as examples–have formal systems for evaluating the quality of studies.

Remember what both of them have concluded about vaccines and autism?


January 20, 2011 at 7:50 pm
(219) White&Nerdy says:

Hi PD,

Re: your recent postings to me

(1) You are off on a tangent, not actually addressing the argument.

There was an assertion made that only MMR had been studied in relationship to autism.

I have exactly said that this is not true and that it is trivial to demonstrate this to be false.

Clearly getting the basic facts correct is a useful foundation for coming to correct conclusions.

(2) I agree that it is much more interesting to talk about the quality of studies such as the Taylor paper.

Again, I think it is great you took the time to try and read the paper.

Then, having told us how good you are at science, you then fail to do the math correctly.

Given your assumptions, it is more likely that there will be kids with autism in the 945 kids with zero doses of DTP. Rather undercuts your position when you get the math so very wrong.

Please look again at Table #3.

From your comments you don’t seem to have understood the experimental design, the results, or interpretation.

Maybe statisticians might be helpful in understanding statistics?


January 20, 2011 at 7:53 pm
(220) Twyla says:

Here’s what Congressman Dave Weldon (who is also a physician) said about the IOM’s 2004 report:

“In my 10 years of service in U.S. Congress, I have never seen a report so badly miss the mark. I have heard some weak arguments here in Washington, D.C., and I can tell my colleagues that the arguments put forward in this IOM report are indeed very weak…

“Now, I had a follow-up conversation on February 3 of this year [2004] with Dr. Gerberding [head of the CDC], and she assured me that the Institute of Medicine’s February meeting was not an attempt to ‘draw conclusions,’ but merely to ‘update the science,’ of where we are, basically. However, it is clear that this report draws conclusions; and what is perhaps the greatest outrage, it goes further to call for the halt of further research…

“The Institute of Medicine bases their decision almost entirely on five epidemiological studies. Epidemiology is essentially the statistical analysis of disease in populations. All of these studies were conducted by researchers with an interest in not finding an association. All of the studies had significant shortcomings, all of which the IOM itself declares would miss the association with autism in a genetically susceptible subset of children…

“The latest IOM report is simply part of a PR campaign, in my view.”

January 20, 2011 at 7:55 pm
(221) Twyla says:

John Best, that’s ridiculous.

January 20, 2011 at 8:02 pm
(222) White&nerdy says:

Hi Aaron,

About the Wakefield records, as I recall the testimony from the GMC hearings, Wakefield had the records and his collaborators were trusting him. If you are really interested, you should go back to the records and confirm my memory. So no, not all would have to have any conspiracy. And the story started with a parent going to Deer and telling him that Wakefield had lied about his kid.

Final thought about Deer/Wakefield. The UK libel laws are very, very strong. There are lots and lots of assertions about how Deer got things wrong. The simple fact is that if there were any material errors, Wakefield would have Deer and BMJ in court already. The fact that he hasn’t sued tells you exactly how valid the criticisms of Deer are.

About CDAs, no a third party can’t sign a CDA with a researcher and then be given access to the patient records. Only the patients can directly give their permission.


January 20, 2011 at 8:11 pm
(223) White&Nerdy says:

Hi Twyla,

Too bad you aren’t willing to actually read the IOM report.

The ten pages of references has many, many important studies that aren’t epidemiological.

There is also many, many sections where they explain how very wrong the standard anti-vacc criticisms are–criticisms that are still being made today.

Which I suppose is why you won’t read it.


January 20, 2011 at 8:58 pm
(224) passionlessDrone says:

Hi White&Nerdy-

Remember what both of them have concluded about vaccines and autism?

Why is it so common that otherwise intelligent people so consistently are unable to discern the difference between a vaccine, the MMR, or ingredients in vaccines, thimerosal, with the act of vaccination, or other vaccines? Why?

In any case, here is what the IOM said:


The committee concludes that the body of epidemiological evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between the MMR vaccine and autism. The committee also concludes that the body of epidemiological evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism. (my emphasis)

Do you think it was an accident that the IOM specifically mentioned one particular vaccine, and one particular vaccine ingredient? Why not mention Hib, or DTP,or Hep B, if our available evidence also supports rejection of a causal relationship? That’s a pretty big oversight!

Here is Cochrane:


Again, this is specifically in reference to the MMR, one particular vaccine. Anyways, here is part of what they said:

AUTHORS’ CONCLUSIONS: The design and reporting of safety outcomes in MMR vaccine studies, both pre- and post-marketing, are largely inadequate. The evidence of adverse events following immunisation with MMR cannot be separated from its role in preventing the target diseases.

It would seem that both the IOM and Cochrane have zero publications regarding vaccination, or indeed, vaccines other than the MMR, or thimerosal containing vaccines.

Keep digging.

- pD

January 20, 2011 at 10:25 pm
(225) John Best says:

Twyla, It’s not ridiculous, it’s a fact. Of course, you’d have to dispute the facts I’ve been ponting out for a couple of years now to give your position any validity.
Don’t you think there’s something wrong when Handley goes on TV and never mentions the hazards of mercury in the flu shot to pregnant women? How do feel about about all of those brain damaged babies who might be normal now if JB had warned their mothers instead of touting the “too many, too soon” crapola? Supporting Handley equates to supporting the poisoning of fetuses. That’s why I resigned from Generation Rescue several years ago.

January 21, 2011 at 12:16 am
(226) ANB says:

Twyla, soon that will be “President Best” to you. Better watch who you are calling crazy.

January 21, 2011 at 12:18 am
(227) John Best says:

JBH, It’s not just the media who misses the facts about mercury. I’ve watched you four times on TV and saw you say nothing at all about mercury. So, tell me, did they put a gag order on you or did you decide to rant on about stupid things like “too many, too soon” all on your own?

Please explain how no vaccine ever caused autism for 133 years without mercury and tell us why that fact isn’t good enough for you to use as a study. It’s not about arguing one bogus study versus another. It’s about jamming the truth down the throats of the liars, the truth about how the mercury in the flu shot is so damn dangerous to fetuses, something you have always ignored in your TV appearances. That’s a fact that David Kirby also ignores, the guy who’s afraid to ever state that mercury causes autsim. He only says “maybe”.

You strongly stated the truth when I first ran into you in 2005. Now you’ve gone off on this wild tangent that makes no sense, unless you’re trying to help the drug companies hide the truth.

GR sponsored that sham with the cheerleader last year, the one who Buttar cured so quickly, except she forgot she was supposedly cured from her fake illness and started acting sick when confronted by a reporter. What kind of crap was that? Was that designed to make everyone associated with GR look like a bunch of idiots? Made me glad I had left GR a few years ago.

January 21, 2011 at 12:19 am
(228) John Best says:

(continued) JBH,
As for your son, did you use ALA with him or did he get worse from following Buttar’s dangerous protocol? I don’t see anyone on AoA touting ALA and maybe you haven’t heard that it’s the only substance on Earth that can transport mercury through the blood brain barrier. If you don’t know that I’d be happy to tell you more about it, aside from the rest of this exchange.

I’ll take back the sissy remark for now since you finally replied. I’ll also have no qualms about using it again if I don’t see some satisfactory answers about the concerns I raised here. “Too many, too soon” is pure nonsense and I hope that dawns on you if you aren’t trying to sell us out.

January 21, 2011 at 1:05 am
(229) rob says:

“fully, utterly and repeatedly debunked” Not true at all.

January 21, 2011 at 7:00 pm
(230) White&Nerdy says:

Hi PD,

The Cochrane review
(1) The report also says:
” No credible evidence of an involvement of MMR with either autism or Crohn’s disease was found.”

(2) Using their quality evaluation process, none of the studies that link MMR to autism were found to be even worth considering.

(3) When quoting the conclusions it is helpful to recall the limitations of their search and what the purpose of the trials are.

(4) Since this blog started with Wakefield’s fraud, this is worth reading. Dr. Jefferson et al basically call Wakefield a liar.


No, if what you are saying were correct, then the IOM would have concluded that thimerosal doesn’t cause autism.

They are very, very clear and precise with their language.

Thimerosal containing vaccines don’t cause autism.

This is because inherent in the thimerosal studies is data on the vaccines.

Why is it so hard for some people to figure out that teams of scientists with years of studying these publications understand them better than lay people?


January 21, 2011 at 7:52 pm
(231) John Best says:

Those alleged scientists are good liars.

How come the IOM was told what their finding would be before they saw the reports? Are you really naive enough to think Pharma hasn’t rigged all of this nonsense? No wonder you don’t use your real name here.

January 21, 2011 at 9:36 pm
(232) passionlessDrone says:

Hi White&Nerdy –

I don’t care about Wakefield. His studies were bogus. The MMR has been appropriately studied in terms of autism. My concerns lie elsewhere. But you still don’t seem to grasp the concept of a difference between one particular vaccine, and the act of vaccination, nor do you seem to understand the difference between studying one vaccine ingredient, and the act of vaccination.

This is because inherent in the thimerosal studies is data on the vaccines

If I study the effect of smoking cigarettes with tar in them, versus the effect of smoking cigarettes without tar in them, do I learn about the effect of tar, or the effect of smoking?

- pD

January 21, 2011 at 10:04 pm
(233) passionlessDrone says:

Hi White&Nerdy –

This is because inherent in the thimerosal studies is data on the vaccines.

Then why include the word thimerosal at all? Why not just use the word, vaccine?

Why is it so hard for some people to figure out that teams of scientists with years of studying these publications understand them better than lay people?

Considering the fact that among your list of “hits” indicating Hepatitis B vaccine had been studied in relationship to autism included a drug study that evaluated Hep B titers, I’m must admit no small amount of amusement that you think you have any ground on which to stand when making these types of claims.

Keep digging.

- pD

January 22, 2011 at 3:51 am
(234) Twyla says:

An interesting interview on Gary Null’s radio show of: lawyer Clifford Miller, Isabella Thomas – mother of two of the children in the Lancet 12 – and Jackie Fletcher, director of the English group Jabs.

Jackie Fletcher’s interview starts about 40 minutes into it. She talks about the problems with the brand of MMR vaccine used in England for several years, which contained the Urabe strain of mumps and had been withdrawn in other countries due to higher rates of serious adverse reactions. She describes some of the problems with this vaccine, which pre-dated the 1998 Lancet paper and were not fictions created by Dr. Wakefield. She describes presenting a list of 1,200 vaccine injured children to medical authorities and asking that these children’s cases be studied, in the hope of understanding these reactions, to identify a problem and perhaps making the program safer, such as by identifying traits in these children that made them more susceptible to reactions – but her request was refused.

In addition, she says that Dr. Wakefield and Dr. Walker-Smith asked that the single (monovalent) vaccines be stockpiled, in case there was an increase in demand after their paper was published. But inexplicably, instead of ensuring a good supply of single vaccines, the govt subsequently stopped paying for the single vaccines — it was MMR or nothing.

And Isabella Thomas reads a statement from her son and speaks eloquently.

Clifford Miller speaks very well, too.

January 22, 2011 at 3:56 am
(235) Twyla says:

From the Jabs web site, a list of research supporting: a link between IBD & autism, between IBD and measles virus, between measles virus & MMR, and broader safety concerns about the MMR.

January 22, 2011 at 4:19 am
(236) Twyla says:

John Best, here’s some advice from the Generation Rescue web site:
“Always ask to see the vaccine insert, and never accept a vaccine that uses the preservative Thimerosal (mercury). For a complete list of vaccines with Thimerosal, see the FDA’s website here. Note: most flu shots today still contain Thimerosal.”

Also see bullets 9 through 14 on this page:
w w w . generationrescue.org/science/science

And bullets 2 & 3 and Michael Wagnitz’s letter on this page:
w w w . generationrescue.org/science/misinformation

And the advice on this page:
w w w . generationrescue.org/recovery/biomedical

It doesn’t seem to me that GR is avoiding mercury. But, this recent media storm has been about Dr. Andrew Wakefield and the MMR, which has never contained mercury. So thimerosal wasn’t the focus of JB’s most recent interviews.

David Kirby and JB Handley have done so much work on publicizing the dangers of mercury; not sure why you’re complaining about them. Maybe you are expecting too much of them? They are, after all, only human.

David Kirby has written a lot about mercury & autism, including in his book Evidence of Harm, and here:
w w w . ageofautism.com/2009/05/david-kirbys-autism-one-presentation-metals-myelin-mitochondria-pathways-to-autism.html

“Too much too soon” makes a lot of sense. One vaccine with thimerosal by itself would affect fewer children adversely than if you give that vacccine at the same time as several others.

January 22, 2011 at 8:17 am
(237) John Best says:

Twyla, Please watch and learn the truth about Kirby. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWhegrFImNk

My criticism is not about GR’s facts but of Mr Handley’s touting the wrong cause on TV. “Too many, too soon” can not cause autism. Only mercury can cause autism, especially to fetuses. The flu shot to pregnant women is now the primary cause and JBH needs to mention that.

January 22, 2011 at 11:01 am
(238) Sandy says:

All Jackie Fletcher is showing is there has always been risks with vaccines. The DTP side effects also predated Wakefield, however the issues with Urabe-based MMR was aseptic meningitis which is not what Wakefield was basing his study on. Wakefield wasn’t looking at seizures, either. Not sure why Jackie Fletcher is trying to link Wakefield to things he was no part of.
Health Minister Edwina Currie first granted a license for a Urabe-based MMR vaccine in July 1988, the UK National Health Service stopped using MMR vaccines with the Urabe mumps strain in September 1992, and withdrew two of the three MMR vaccine then available. They started using vaccines with the Jeryl Lynn strain. Japan used a Urabe-based MMR as well, for about the same number of years as the UK but ended it’s use a year after the UK did. It should also be noted, different makers used different strains of Urabe. In 1998, there were 56 measles cases in the UK; by 2008, there were 1348 cases, with 2 confirmed deaths.
Wakefield’s mention of a single measles vaccine of course we now know had motivation. His vaccine had that ingredient he created to prevent that mysterious GI disease he said he found. Wakefield was prepping the UK for his own vaccine.
Of Isabella Thomas’s child being part Wakefield’s study, he was 5 years old and was given some medicine, no doubt a pharma product. A 5 year old with a disability at that is unable to make medical choices and can easily be influenced by others. I wonder if Jack Piper, then five also, had a statement and what it would say.

January 22, 2011 at 12:26 pm
(239) Twyla says:

There were already single vaccines in existence. Dr. Wakefield’s mention of using those did not have selfish motives. He had nothing to gain by suggesting the use of those single vaccines while further research into adverse reactions was done. Of course, it turned out that further research into those reactions was suppressed. And the government’s withdrawal of the single vaccines meant that people only had a choice between the triple-vaccine (MMR) or no vaccine. It became very difficult and expensive to get the single vaccines. The English govt shares the blame for people not vaccinating against measles.

You can quote measles stats all you want, but that is only one half of the equation in weighing risks and benefits of a vaccine. The adverse effects need to be tracked, researched, understood, and addressed, not just ignored and suppressed because the disease is dangerous.

Statement from parents at CryShame:

January 22, 2011 at 1:35 pm
(240) Sandy says:

Wakefield did have much to gain by suggesting a single measles vaccine beside the fact that would of course profit the Pharma since they were more expensive than the combined vaccine. Wakefield was trying to set a trend, for his financial gain. Had Wakefield’s single mealses vaccine panned out for him, he’d then had been part of that reaction/ side effect needing to be addressed just as any vaccine.

Vaccines including the MMR did and do need tracking, research, understood, and addressed but Wakefield wasn’t part of that at all. He was in fact part of those measles stats.

As for that link, it is interesting since of that 1998 study which contained only 12 children which were all thought to have autism, it provided little answers and to date Wakefield has provided little. One wonders too, just how many actual children did Wakefield ever physically see and treat while in the UK based only off the MMR. It’s also very sad few recognize the harm caused to Jack Piper.

January 22, 2011 at 7:58 pm
(241) Twyla says:

Dr. Wakefield was just trying to help the children. And the parents of his patients said that he and his colleagues did help their children.

January 22, 2011 at 10:48 pm
(242) barbaraj says:

We don’t hear much anymore about titers. I remember, after my 1996 was doubled over in stomach pain for four months following his mmr, that before allowing a booster I took him in for titers, they were considerably higher than necessary. In discussion with the doc, she said it “probably” meant nothing except ,in his case, perhaps a booster would not be called for. At that time, I wasn’t using “religious exemption” and filed the titers with his vaccine records and was given the right to have the booster waived. Interesting, though, he had no titers to either mumps or rubella, and it was suggested he have a separate mumps vaccine. Just where was I going to get that? Perhaps, because few children have titers drawn, some evidence to efficacy of these multiple vaccines is an unknown? It always seemed odd to me that the single measle shot was withdrawn, what could be the reason, certainly not the safety of the children. They could have given my son another mmr, perhaps he would have gained some titers to mumps and rubella, however, perhaps he would have moved on to crohn’s like his brother, or find a spot on the spectrum like his other brother. Again, the science of multiple vaccines seems to be lacking, with failures getting attention only after diseases reappear.

January 23, 2011 at 12:20 am
(243) Sandy says:

Wakefield didn’t help them anymore than any other doctor could have, with medicine. As far as I remember, Wakefield was a specialist in intestine transplants of course having nothing to do with vaccines or autism. Seems something larger strayed him. That’s right, money did. A doctor helped my child with medicine, all he did was write an RX for it but he certainly didn’t get credit for the medicine itself. I didn’t turn my sons doctor into a god over it. I also wouldn’t stand by the same doctor in a malpractice case based on how my child was treated. No one is beyond mistakes. Wakefield certainly didn’t help Jack Piper, and that same thing could had happened to any of the other 11 within that study. Ever have a colonoscopy? My sister just had one, they’re miserable and painful when done right. Imagine this on young children, and it going wrong. Imagine a colonoscopy order every time a child came in with gut issues? 12 colonoscopies performed on 12 children and in the end Jackie Fletcher makes statements that “Wakefield gave medicine which helped greatly”. Shouldn’t he had tried the medicine first?
Maybe some day Wakefield will come to terms with his mistakes, than making excuses for them. But last I read, he cant treat children and has no medical license in any country. He’s reduced to hiding behind the names of other doctors in studies but I’m sure by now many are watching carefully to be sure he doesn’t violate laws in the USA.

January 23, 2011 at 4:04 am
(244) Twyla says:

Again, that is not what the parents say:

Here’s a good letter from Dr. Jaquelyn McCandless:
w w w . ageofautism.com/2010/02/author-of-children-with-starving-brains-supports-dr-andrew-wakefield-in-letter-petition.html

January 23, 2011 at 12:05 pm
(245) Sandy says:

Again, that’s why we have courts. Parents aren’t always aware of laws and ethic codes, patents, funding and that sort of thing. What the public wants to read now is court records, not parent opinions of Wakefield.

January 23, 2011 at 3:51 pm
(246) Twyla says:

Brian Deer is not a court. He is simply a journalist who has support from govt/medical/pharma sources who have a lot to lose from the airing of vaccine problems. And, my comment was in response to your comment about colonoscopies and Wakefield’s motives. Your comment was not about laws and patents etc. Parents have a lot to say about how their children were treated. The allegations that they were recruited for litigation purposes, did not have bowel disease, and were give unnecessary treatment are all false. Your comment that colonoscopies are painful is contradicted by the parents’ statements that their children did not experience discomfort, that the parents approved the diagnostic procedures, and that their children were helped, not hurt, by the tests & treatments they received.

See more about the parents’ comments here, as well as analysis of this case:

See more about the suppression of science here:
w w w . ageofautism.com/2010/01/naked-intimidation-the-wakefield-inquisition-is-only-the-tip-of-the-autism-censorship-iceberg.html

January 23, 2011 at 4:36 pm
(247) Sandy says:

My comment was/ wasn’t about what? I’m guessing Jack Piper was in a little pain. Those parents were lied to and told 12 holes is a common complication.
A five-member statutory tribunal of the GMC found three dozen charges proved, including four counts of dishonesty and 12 counts involving the abuse of developmentally challenged children. It was they who stripped him of his license.
As for Brian Deer, make no mistake he is no court and his article identifying Wakefield as an “elaborate fraud”, the evidence is there, regardless if 8 of the 12 of that study believe it or not and signed some paper. Wakefield could had appealed. Most any innocent person would.

January 23, 2011 at 7:03 pm
(248) Twyla says:

This writer examines the charges and concludes that:
“My principal focus has been to
examine the charges against Dr. Wakefield
of financial conflict of interest, of having
performed invasive procedures on children
that weren’t ethically approved, and of
questioning the safety of the MMR because
he was secretly trying to devise an alternative
vaccine that would make him rich. In my
judgment, none of the arguments made by
critics stands up to close scrutiny. ”

January 23, 2011 at 8:15 pm
(249) Sandy says:

Continued opinions still doesn’t matter when there’s already been a ruling.

January 23, 2011 at 8:48 pm
(250) AutismNewsBeat says:

Tom DeLay also has supporters. So does Bernie Madoff.

January 24, 2011 at 12:09 pm
(251) barbaraj says:

Continued opinions still doesn’t matter when there’s already been a ruling.

Tom DeLay also has supporters. So does Bernie Madoff.

Maybe there is something that can be done for a man who has lost his lifes work in a questionable ruling?? Something similar to Barry Sheck’s project? How many hundreds of convicted criminals has he exonerated? Those comments seem to call for some action .. a ruling could be a bad ruling..and good people , parents of his patients stand behind him..just who stands behind bernie madoff?

January 24, 2011 at 1:19 pm
(252) Sandy says:

This wasn’t Wakefield’s life’s work for one. Because there was a ruling, anyone can look at the evidence of the (borrowed phrase) absolutely trashed study. Wakefield has no hope of being exonerated, he couldn’t even appeal the ruling. He expected everyone to buy a book to read his appeal. That in itself speaks volumes.

January 25, 2011 at 10:54 pm
(253) barbaraj says:

Yes, being a doctor was his life’s work. To change things, to make a difference, would be to accept the truth, vaccines are known to cause neurological damage, autism is neurological damage, we are holding on to the vaccine damage as a rare occurance, as once autism was, now we need to catch up in our thinking and acceptance that the two are the same. Wakefield did not know why measles was showing up in his patients, he likely continues to be baffled by this, his bringing it to the attention of scientists and doctors should have been a positive step toward unraveling the many vaccine related clues.

January 25, 2011 at 11:37 pm
(254) Sandy says:

Ah, but only in those 12 children and cant be found in any other child, world wide by any other doctor. That is baffling for sure.

Wakefield did bring a positive step towards every scientist, and actually it’s something you learn very young. If you lie, someone will unravel it. The only catching up that needs to be done is not to allow such fraud to start, safe guards need to be in place and watched closely for the sake of those who choose to be in a study and to prevent someone to gain fame off of lies.

January 26, 2011 at 3:25 am
(255) Twyla says:

Dr. Wakefield didn’t lie. His crime was bringing to light some uncomfortable truths.

Others have found measles virus in the intestines of people with inflammatory bowel disease and autism. For example, the study “Lack of Association between Measles Virus Vaccine and Autism with Enteropathy: A Case-Control Study” evaluated 38 children, of whom 25 had autism and GI issues, and 13 had GI issues without autism. Out of this group of only 38 children, two were found to have measles virus in the gut:
“Analyses in all three laboratories found two ileal biopsy samples with MV F gene and H gene RNA: one from a boy in the AUT/GI group, the other from a boy in the control group… Both subjects with positive samples had reactive lymphoid follicles (RLF). In the AUT/GI subject, RLF were present in both small and large intestine; the control had RLF restricted to colon. Endoscopy revealed inflammation in both subjects: the case had nonspecific gastritis; the control had acute distal esophagitis.”
Oddly, the authors concluded that since measles was found in one AUT/GI case and one GI(no autism) control, that meant that the measles virus was not associated with autism. Yet, this study actually confirmed that measles can persist in the gut. In addition, this study used four labs which all had the same results, and one of these labs was the same as the one Dr. Wakefield had used, when measles virus was found in the intestines of the Royal Free patients.

There is also quite a bit of information here, including supporting studies:

And here:
w w w . jabs.org.uk/pages/thrower.asp

January 26, 2011 at 7:00 am
(256) Sandy says:

The 2 was one who had autism, and one who didn’t. GI symptom and autism onset were unrelated to MMR timing, and still I see no where which determines it wasn’t from natural exposure. Interestingly, this that study was used in the Cedillo’s appeal and the court disagreed with it.

Mr. Wakefield brought light to many things, some may be uncomfprtable truths, for instance how a doctor got away with so much fraud before anyone noticed.

January 26, 2011 at 9:31 am
(257) AutismNewsBeat says:

Twyla, Dr. Mady Hornig’s study which you cite is an example of how science works. She replicated Wakefield’s study, even going as far as using his lab, and was still unable to replicate the results.

Of course Wakefield lied. He coached the parents to report what he needed to hear in order to get the results he wanted. How do you explain the discrepancies between the medical records and Wakefield’s data? And Wakefield continues to lie when he says his findings have been replicated in five different countries.

If Wakefield has rock solid proof of his innocence (his latest lie), why didn’t he share it with the GMC? Why didn’t he use it to sue Deer for defamation?

January 26, 2011 at 10:43 am
(258) Twyla says:

She did replicate his results. She found inflammation in the gut, and in two of the children she found measles virus in the gut. These were vaccinated children, not children who had come down with wild measles. The lab restults were consistent between labs, including the lab which Dr. Wakefield had used.

But in the conclusions, the authors seems to act as if this were a large enough study for a comparison of the control group and the autism group to be statistically significant. One child without autism had inflammation and measles virus in the gut, and another child with autism had more inflammation and measles virus in the gut. All this shows is that measles virus and inflammation in the gut does not always result in autism — perhaps because it does not always cause inflammation in the brain.

And, they talked about the timing of the onset of autism. Not everyone becomes autistic right after the MMR. Autism is multifactorial. Vaccines generally begin on the day of birth or at age 2 months. Other factors may be involved in the etiology as well. So, just because the MMR is not the proximate cause for all children, that does not mean that it is not the proximate cause (or a contributing factor) for others.

Dr. Wakefield was looking at a specific group of patients and studying their health conditions. He and his colleagues did not state that their findings could be generalized to everyone with autism. They were looking at what were these patients’ conditions and how to treat them, and raised questions about causation based on parental reports and other information.

January 27, 2011 at 1:09 pm
(259) AutismNewsBeat says:

Twyla, if Dr. Hornig missed a conclusion so obvious that even you got it, does that make her part of the conspiracy? If so, that means her co-authors are also in on it, as well as the scientists who reviewed the study prior to publication. And all the scientists who have commented on the study after publication who failed to raise your concern. Are they all wrong, or just part of the cover up?

You are making some serious, albeit ludicrous, allegations.

January 27, 2011 at 9:30 pm
(260) Twyla says:

ANB, I’m not making any allegations. I’m just expressing opinions, facts, and interpretations of facts.

January 26, 2011 at 11:05 am
(261) Sandy says:

“Not everyone becomes autistic right after the MMR.” Really? The theory was the MMR, not any other vaccines prior. One can not connect that to the MMR when that wasn’t part of Mr. Wakefield’s theory.
At least that study included those without autism, unlike Mr. Wakefield.
The results of that study:
“no differences between case and control groups in the presence of MV [measles virus] RNA in ileum and cecum”, and the results were the same across all three laboratories.”
Doesn’t matter what they found, but the above.

No one knows for sure if someone wasn’t exposed to natural measles, and the immune system/ vaccines did their job. If you’re exposed to the chickenpox, that virus always remains in the body. maybe the measles does too.

January 28, 2011 at 12:45 am
(262) barbaraj says:

It’s obvious that mmr alone can not cause autism, yet it seems to be a marker, the gastro illnesses with the measle virus lurking, likely one day will be explained by a disturbance in the immune system brought about through previous immunizations, and more likely to occur in children who have autism or any other autoimmune illness caused by vaccines. I had “the phone call” tonight, a young mother, with a soon to be two year old, certain he has autism. She said, “how”, he was talking well, relating well, now no language, can’t wave bye-bye..she’s distraught. She said he’s had no vaccines with thimerosal, and his only exposure would have been to her flu shot given three months prior to his delivery. If it’s the dose that causes it she assumes it would be less than getting his own shots. He had an mmr a few months ago, no reactions other than a fever at day ten, pretty normal. I have no idea, nor do any of us, she brought up the flu vaccine, she wondered if he could have seizured in utero given the news this week about fluzone..again, I could only suggest she have him evaluated, but yes, something happened, he was developing fine, and is losing ground. WHY if even a remote suspect, would they continue to give thimerosal to an infant or a pregnant woman under any circumstances, this is clearly not right. Is this how the program can continue, without thimerosal in the schedule? Put these kids in a study and say, look, they have it anyway?

January 28, 2011 at 11:01 am
(263) .. says:

I think that it’s not only thimerosal, and not only the MMR, but the combined effects of so many injections which stimulate the immune system in ways we do not fully understand. It seems to me that in rare cases the MMR alone can cause autism, but that when you add more shots the risk increases — the multiple shots over the years causing gradual changes in the immune system, and the shots which are often given at the same time as the MMR. If there is some concern about the risk of MMR, and some concern about adverse reactions to DTaP, and if flu shots with thimerosal can cause febrile seizures in some toddlers — why give any of these shots in combination? It’s not so simple as to say that one vaccine or one vaccine ingredient causes autism, but it is clear that sometimes vaccines do cause autism. And the rate of autism has increased as our vaccine program has grown. And studies have found immune system dysregulation and neuroinflammation in people with autism — peer reviewed published studies.

January 30, 2011 at 4:47 pm
(264) eileen says:

from your article on MMR, Autism Vaccine:
Recent articles regarding Wakefield’s study suggest that vaccines are risk free – but anyone who looks into the issue can see that there are both serious and relatively benign exceptions to this rule.

In addressing “but anyone who looks into the issue”……….
unless information is provided for the public showing all autism patients and quantifying each patient, specifically, to show whether they recieved one MMW or 0, if they did not receive the MMR, one is unable to even consider putting their child at risk for autism because of the unfactual information that has been presented to the public. Come on now, these are children, our hearts, our souls, with parents absorbing all their rights.

In my opinion, documentation done in this manner will then allow for parents to make a informed decision regarding the MMR vaccine, and at that point, medical too, may want to question the vaccine and consider adding autism as a possible side effect of the MMR procedure, or adding that autism is not a possible side effect of the MMR procedure.

Are you aware of such a report, and if you are, can you share where it may be found. If there is no such documentation to date, can you possibly suggest it?

January 31, 2011 at 5:30 am
(265) Sandy says:

barbaraj~ Last I looked, Fluzone comes in 3 versions that are thimerosal-free and back a few years the recommendations for pregnant women was thimerosal-free flu vaccines. And depending on when that 2 year old was born, H1N1 was killing pregnant women, although those vaccines also came thimerosal-free. If this person had a jab that did contain thimerosal, there’s my point again about not asking questions prior and being proactive in your own medical care. Each year going back some, there’s like 11 million doses of thimerosal-free flu vaccines.

That said, people can wonder all day long and with everything in the news and the anti vaxxers, any one can create some connection to autism and vaccines. Just that alone aside from not being proactive in medical care can cause much guilt for a parent. Kids still get autism and never had any vaccines. Kids get vaccines and never have autism. Some kids die of the flu virus.

Unfortunately, Mr. Wakefield has no theory of the above.

February 1, 2011 at 10:16 am
(266) barbarj says:

You are correct, Sandy, we have options, yet if there are no warnings in the media, how would parents know what questions to ask of their doctors? or…Do you think the doctors will say, “I don’t trust thimerosal, please take the less risky vaccine”.? After the pharms guru gains more attention , and the message “don’t cross us” with the Wakefield incident leaves it’s clear mark, I trust the medical cowards will not “tip us off ” to any possible risks. I don’t believe I, at age 25 give or take, would have thought, before having children , to have concerns over vaccines. I don’t know of any unvaccinated child, in fact, that doesn’t have an ASD brother. I’m not saying they aren’t out there, I just don’t know of ONE , making me think it’s after bad experiences that we act.

February 1, 2011 at 10:51 am
(267) Sandy says:

Do you actually need the media to know what to ask or find out the warnings? There’s a risk to eating strawberries. Some people are allergic to them. Does the media have to inform us, for us to know? Regardless of what the media tells anyone, it doesn’t mean it’s true. By the way, Brian Deer is media. So are we only selective to parts of media we want to believe?

The message about Wakefield isn’t from the Pharma’s, after all they’d had been the ones manufacturing his measles vaccine. Wakefield wasn’t about thimerosal, either.

The last part of what you wrote is interesting. Why a brother, and not a sister?

February 1, 2011 at 11:22 am
(268) Annie says:

Sandy, I used to assume that I could and should rely on the CDC’s advice. This was a reasonable assumption. The CDC advises that pregnant women should get the flu vaccine, and that thimerosal is safe, even though the package inserts for the various flu vaccines say that they have not been studied in pregnant women.

It’s not fair of you to blame parents for not researching something that they assumed had been fully researched by our government agencies. Yes, nowadays there are lots of concerns being voiced in the media and on the internet, but up until a few years ago that wasn’t the case. And even now there are constantly very convincing news stories about how everyone who questions vaccines is ignorant and emotional and all science is on the side of no autism-vaccine link and that the schedule is proven safe — which I don’t believe is true but if I didn’t already know a lot about it from the inside, I would probably swallow these stories hook line and sinker.

February 1, 2011 at 9:22 pm
(269) Sandy says:

Annie~ does the CDC know every person, personally? No. Did everyone assume every medicine and vaccine was safe? If they did or do, I’m not sure why. A brand new car isn’t completely safe and I take offense at being accused of blaming parents. That’s not what I said at all however, there is still a shared responsibility of the parent than the parent solely blaming others. No one knows if you’re allergic to strawberries until you eat one. No one tests prior. No one knew one of my siblings was allergic to penicillin prior to it’s use. Yes, they probably should do more allergy tests prior to the use of many things, but not all allergies can be known other than a gut biopsy and I’m not to aware of many parents who would opt for such a test prior to medications or vaccines even if such a test existed. As for the flu vaccine, there is yet to be evidence that thimerosal harms at all but to be on the safe side, pregnant women get the thimersol-free version but then again, where are the stats as to how many pregnant women even get the flu vaccine? I can speak for myself: It was suggested by the doctor, big deal. I opted for no flu shot.

Leave a Comment

Line and paragraph breaks are automatic. Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title="">, <b>, <i>, <strike>
  1. About.com
  2. Health
  3. Autism Spectrum Disorders

©2014 About.com. All rights reserved.

We comply with the HONcode standard
for trustworthy health
information: verify here.