Secret British MMR Vaccine Files Forced Open By Legal Action

Read here what will be discovered and more.

[Another World Exclusive Below Purple [ 22/Jan/2009]
[World Exclusive - 17 Jan red below - New revelations - 15 Jan  blue]
[Later Updates in Green including January 2010]

This is the story the UK media have steadfastly not been publishing and of the contrasting unprecedented new developments in the US politically and in the US Federal Court.

The UK’s Daily Mail newspaper reported [13/Jan/09] the British government was refusing the public release under the UK’s Freedom Of Information laws of confidential files on a proven dangerous MMR [measles, mumps and rubella] vaccine.  A recent legal case has forced the files open: [Confidential MMR vaccine files should be opened in the public interest, watchdog rules - The Daily Mail - Jenny Hope - 13th January 2009]

And do vaccines cause autistic conditions? In the US Federal Court children have been compensated after findings they developed autism and other injuries. If you read nothing else we strongly recommend you read this: PDF Download – Text of email from US HRSA to Sharyl Attkisson of CBS News].  In it the US Health Resources Services Administration [HRSA] state to CBS News reporter Sharyl Attkission

We have compensated cases in which children exhibited an encephalopathy, or general brain disease. Encephalopathy may be accompanied by a medical progression of an array of symptoms including autistic behavior, autism, or seizures.

The British government has prevented its child citizens being compensated and treated. Money and politics override child health safety. 20 years on children continue to be injured. Starting in 1986 Canada, to 1988 Japan and the UK to the present this previously unpublished account is definitive carefully researched and accessible.

Despite all the lies and deceit by health officials worldwide, the question “do vaccines cause autism” was answered when the Hannah  Poling story broke in the USA [see CHS article here].  Hannah developed an autistic condition after 9 vaccines administered the same day.  Under the media spotlight numerous US health officials and agencies conceded on broadcast US nationwide TV news from CBS and CNN. Full details with links to the original sources can be found in this CHS article: Vaccination Causes Autism – Say US Government & Merck’s Director of Vaccines. [Blue Text added 10 April 2011]

The problem is not just autism and not just the MMR vaccine [see USA developments and Federal Court decisions below]. What else are we not being told?

[Copy to others: Secret British MMR Vaccine FilesForced Open By Legal Action]

Contents

British Government’s Reckless Disregard for Child Health Safety

British Government & Establishment’s Efforts to Deny Compensation to MMR Vaccine Child Victims

AUTISM – US Court Decisions and Other Recent Developments – It’s Not Just MMR

Vaccine Risks Outweigh Risk of Disease

Vaccines, Autism and Your Child’s Allergies

In Whom Can You Trust?

What You Can Do – [click for action you can take]

To Contents

British Government’s Reckless Disregard for Child HealthSafety

The UK’s Department of Health and others appear to have been reckless as to the safety of British children over the manner in which Glaxo company, Smith Kline & French Laboratories Ltd’s Pluserix MMR vaccine was introduced and used on British Children in 1988

  • the problems with Pluserix MMR were known to the supplier, Glaxo company Smith Kline & French Laboratories Ltd from the experience of its introduction to Canada, in 1986, where Pluserix was marketed under the name “Trivirix”
  • Trivirix (Pluserix) was withdrawn from use in Canada in 1988 because it was dangerous, causing high levels of adverse reactions in children
  • the high levels of British adverse reactions to the vaccine were apparent and known about at British Ministerial level in 1990, as shown by ministerial correspondence
  • Pluserix/Trivirx are the identical vaccine manufactured in the identical Smith Kline factory in Belgium and with the exact same component parts and constituents
  • despite the Canadian position and contemporaneously with the final withdrawal of Pluserix/Trivirix in Canada the UK signed the contract to purchase Pluserix MMR from Glaxo company, Smith Kline & French Laboratories Limited in July 1988, even though it was known by then to be too dangerous for use on our children
  • SK&F was provided with a blanket indemnity in that contract by the NHS Procurement Directorate
  • the contract was signed up by the backdoor through the North East Thames Regional Health Authority as agent for the NHS Procurement Directorate rather than being a contract directly entered into with the NHS Procurement Directorate which negotiated the contract or the NHS Executive of the time
  • there was no Parliamentary scrutiny of this and it seems to have been effected in a manner Ministerially deniable
  • similar problems were experienced in Japan with the Japanese MMR vaccine which, in common with Pluserxi/Trivirix, contained the Urabe strain of mumps virus
  • the Japanese MMR was also withdrawn by 1992 on safety grounds having caused high levels of adverse reactions
  • the British government continued the licence for Pluserix MMR after 1992, which enabled it to be supplied overseas
  • even today, because it is cheaper than safer alternatives, organisations like UNICEF continue supplying urabe strain containing MMR vaccine to the more adverse reaction vulnerable and less well nourished third world children
  • since 1998, statistical papers claiming no evidence of an association between the MMR vaccine and autism have been published in a blaze of publicity, but when all the noise has died down, on subsequent careful examination, each one has been found to be flawed. These are the same kinds of statistical studies [epidemiology] used by the tobacco industry in the 1940′s and 50′s to claim smoking did not cause lung cancer
  • other than the Royal Free’s paper, no clinical studies of the MMR child litigants were undertaken or published
  • after being put under financial pressure by the British Government, in 2005 the Oxford based Cochrane Collaboration published a systematic review of all prior papers and its authors claimed to conclude the MMR vaccine was safe:-
    • it was shown the authors had violated the standards of evidence-based medicine [ref] and
    • their conclusions were not supported by the body of the review [ref]
    • and it later was discovered that the British Department of Health had increased the funding for Cochrane’s Oxford administration by £1 million per annum and extended the contracts of its British groups

To Contents

British Government & Establishment’s Efforts to Deny Compensation to MMR Vaccine Child Victims 

Legal Aid funded claims by children started as early as 1991 and well before Dr Andrew Wakefield warned the British public about the vaccine.  His efforts were met with the full force of the British establishment to discredit him and proceedings before the General Medical Council resumed only yesterday, which have been going on for three years.

The main false accusation levelled in February 2004 was that Wakefield made his disclosures in a medical paper published in The Lancet medical journal because he wanted to make money being an expert witness in Court.  But few people know the following [and there is naturally full documentation on this].

Crispin Davis, the Chief Executive of Reed-Elsevier, the owners of “The Lancet”, had a few months earlier in the July [2003] been brought onto the Board of Directors of MMR litigation Defendants’ parent company GlaxoSmithKline.

[Global publishing giant Reed-Elsevier owns 2,460 scientific journals, including the magazine New Scientist and earns substantial funds from the drug industry in advertising revenue.  Corruption in medical publishing is rife.  Elsevier was paid by drug  giant Merck to publish a fake medical journal with articles favourable to Merck’s drugs: [Merck published fake journal - Bob Grant - The Scientist - 30th April 2009].  Drug maker Wyeth flooded medical journals with some 40 ghostwritten articles penned by prominent physicians who sold their name for cash, in an all-out effort to offset the scientific evidence linking its female hormone replacement drug, Prempro, to breast cancer: [Judge orders Wyeth papers unsealed– Associated Press – July 25, 2009].  Reed-Elsevier’s former chairman, Jan Hommen, attended the secretive annual Bilderberg conference in 2007 and 2010.  Bilderberg was described to senior British politician Lord Ashdown as ‘fifty people who run the world and twenty hangers on’: The Ashdown Diaries – Volume One 1988-1997; Penguin – 2000 – ISBN 0 14 029775 8 – pp.42-44]  [Blue text added 29 May 2011]].

Brian Deer, a freelance journalist was commissioned by The Sunday Times two months later in September 2003 to write the stories attacking Wakefield.

This was about two weeks before the Legal Services Commission final decision was due on withdrawal of Legal Aid from the MMR children’s UK litigation and which did withdraw legal aid.

The person who commissioned Deer was Paul Nuki, Sunday Times’ sometime Head of Newsroom investigations and “Focus” editor.  Paul Nuki is son of Professor George Nuki. Professor George Nuki in 1987 sat on the Committee on Safety of Medicines when the CSM was considering Glaxo company Smith Kline & French Laboratories’ Pluserix MMR vaccine for safety approval.  The CSM approved Pluserix MMR but it caused very high levels of adverse reactions and was withdrawn by the manufacturers on very little notice in late 1992 leaving the Department of Health in an embarrassing position.

Large numbers of British children were injured and legal aid claims had already started from as early as 1991, five years before Wakefield became involved and contrary to The Sunday Times’claims that this was all a scam set up by Wakefield and solicitor Richard Barr.

Sitting on the CSM with Professor George Nuki was Professor Sir Roy Meadow and Professor Sir David Hull.  Professor Sir Roy Meadow is now notorious for his evidence falsely condemning mothers around the world for killing their children. This includes the Sally Clark case where vaccines are directly implicated in the cause of death, as revealed by Neville Hodgkinson in The Spectator, (What killed Sally Clark’s child? | The Spectator 16 May 2007 ) but which were specifically discounted by Professor Meadow in his evidence, despite sitting on the joint CSM/JCVI vaccine safety sub-committee with the UK Department of Health’s Head of Immunisation Professor David Salisbury and others to approve the MMR vaccine.

It was Professor Sir David Hull in 1998 who, as chairman of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, started the attacks on Wakefield’s work.  The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation advises the Department of Health on vaccination issues and the childhood vaccination programme.  As Chairman of the JCVI, Professor Sir David Hull could have taken action to deal with the issues over the MMR and protect British children.  Despite his attacks on Wakefield’s work, alleging unethical research on children for no clinical benefit, two years later in 2000, it was Professor Sir David Hull who rewrote the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health ethical guidelines to permit research on children where there was no clinical benefit (albeit in The Royal Free’s case all the investigations were clinically justified).

The Sunday Times’ freelancer was assisted in his efforts with free advice and assistance from the Association of British Pharmaceutical Industry funded and controlled company Medico Legal Investigations Limited.  Medico Legal Investigations Limited speciality was in getting medical doctors on charges before the General Medical Council. So we know that before a single word was published by The Sunday Times, it was already being planned with the involvement of interested parties that Wakefield and colleagues were to be taken before the GMC.

Another free of charge helper to Sunday Times’ journalist Deer was Glaxo Wellcome funded Fellow and active British Medical Association member, Dr Evan Harris MP.Harris has advised and assisted Deer up to the present, including attending the Wakefield GMC hearings with Deer.

The Sunday Times’ freelance journalist was also assisted by The Royal Free’s Strategic Health Authority which in early 2004 passed Deer confidential documents ‘in the spirit of openness’.  These included documents relating to the confidential medical treatment of the MMR child litigants. The SHA at first denied providing documents until it was pointed out the fact was disclosed by Dr Evan Harris MP, in Parliament on 15th March 2004.

In 2003 and later the freelance journalist was also being given illegally unofficial access [by a currently unconfirmed source] to confidential internal Royal Free documents.  Deer had also by 2003 been provided illegally [by another currently unconfirmed source] with copies of documents from the British MMR litigation including detailed medical notes and histories and expert reports [text added 24/Jan/2010].

On Saturday 21 February 2004, Lancet Editor Richard Horton pre-empted the Sunday Times’ stories. Horton was reported in The Times claiming he would not have published the MMR part of The Royal Free’s Lancet paper had Wakefield’s paid involvement in the MMR litigation been disclosed.  The Sunday Times had waited until Sunday 22 February 2004, 5 days before judgment in the MMR child litigants’ High Court challenge to the withdrawal of legal aid, to publish its stories attacking Wakefield.  Prime Minister Blair was reported in the press on the issue as was Health Secretary Reid.

As Dr Horton records in his book ["MMR Science and Fiction: Exploring the Vaccine Crisis,"], he was the next day exchanging notes over dinner and liqueurs with a member of the UK’s medical regulatory body, The General Medical Council on possible bases for GMC proceedings against Andrew Wakefield: ["The confusion": Richard Horton - a remarkably frank passage' John Stone BMJ 2 November 2004].  Despite being consulted on the charges to be brought Horton was also later to be called as a witness for the GMC prosecution. [Added 25/1/2010]

After years out of government it was politically important to UK Prime Minister Tony Blair’s New Labour government to have become and to remain electable to  demonstrate it’s new credentials as friendly to UK business and commercial interests and “pro science”.  The British drug company and vaccine manufacturer GlaxoSmithKline was also significant economically achieving annual worldwide drug sales by 2005 of £18.5 billion.  Over one third of sales was for vaccines [£1.4 billion] and respiratory drugs [£5 billion] for treating asthma a chronic allergy condition which vaccines play a large part in causing [see further below on Vaccines, Autism and Your Child’s Allergies].  [Added 24/1/2010]

That MMR is solely a political and money issue was given away by journalist Jeremy Laurance’s The Independent’s story of 24th February 2004.  Laurance reported there was “delight” in Whitehall as “Ministers temper their triumphalism” and that “joy” was “unconfined at the discrediting of Andrew Wakefield“.  ["Ministers temper their triumphalism but delight spreads at Whitehall" The Independent - Jeremy Laurance, Health Editor Tuesday, 24 February 2004 ].

This was bizarre if the issue was just which measles vaccine might be given to children.  There was an acceptable, cheaper and more effective measles vaccine.   This was hardly stuff for Prime Minister Blair to involve himself in but even he jumped in with both feet.

However, in the light of the British government’s financial indemnity to Glaxo, the potential damage to billion pound sterling Glaxo’s financial interests from a scandal over the vaccine and the British government’s liability in negligence to large numbers of children, it starts to make sense.  This also puts into clearer perspective why the choice of which measles vaccine children received became a major political issue.  It had and has nothing to do with protecting your children from disease or child health safety. [blue text 15/Jan/09]

Legal aid was withdrawn on 27th February 2004 in a secret judgment by High Court Judge Nigel Davis.  The reasons remain unpublished today.  Evidence given in open court at a different hearing included the allegation from a parent that an official admitted to her that legal aid was withdrawn after government pressure.

It was discovered in 2007 that Judge Sir Nigel Davis is the brother of Lancet owner’s CEO and main Glaxo board member Sir Crispin Davis.  When challenged a statement was issued on Judge Davis’ behalf to The Telegraph newspaper’s legal correspondent Joshua Rosenberg and stated “The possibility of any conflict of interest arising from his brother’s position did not occur to him.

The outcome of an investigation by the Office for Judicial Complaints  found no impropriety and resulted in no action taken regarding the relationship between Judge Davis and his brother Crispin Davis’ GlaxoSmithKline board position.

On 15th March 2004 Dr Evan Harris launched an unprecedented and defamatory Parliamentary attack on Wakefield and his Royal Free colleagues and to which not one of Harris’ Liberal Democrat colleagues contributed.  This was based on material in documents Sunday Times’ freelancer Deer had obtained and passed to Harris. Harris used the opportunity to raise the allegations The Sunday Times chose not to publish after being dismissed by Lancet Editor Dr Richard Horton.  This occurred following a meeting at The Lancet’s offices on 18 February 2004 at which Harris was present with Brian Deer and attended by Andrew Wakefield, John Walker-Smith and Simon Murch.  Horton wrote of this in his book “The tension had been heightened…. by the shadowy presence of Evan Harris, a Liberal-Democrat Member of Parliament” and “Evan Harris, the MP who had mysteriously joined Brian Deer at the Lancet’s offices …” [Richard Horton,'MMR: Science and Fiction - Exploring the Vaccine Crisis' Granta Books 2004, pps 3 & 7] [added 25/1/2010].

Harris later attended with Deer at the subsequent GMC hearings [added 27/Jan/2010].

Crispin Davis was awarded a knighthood June 2004.

Sunday Times’ freelance journalist Brian Deer confirmed numerous times on his website [later removed as reported in The Spectator online by journalist Melanie Phillips] that it was he who had made the submissions to the GMC which led to the present GMC proceedings against Wakefield. Wakefield’s lawyers had reported in November 2004 that Deer had made a statutory complaint to the GMC and freelancer Deer reported in the Sunday Times in December 2004 that the General Medical Council was investigating the complaints against Wakefield.  In 2004 The Sunday Times journalist wrote three letters of complaint to the GMC: 25 February, 12 March and 1 July 2004 [added 24/Jan/2010].

Professor Denis McDevitt was due in July 2007 to chair the unprecedented British General Medical Council hearing of the case of Doctors Wakefield, Murch and Professor Walker-Smith.  McDevitt and the GMC failed to declare McDevitt’s personal involvement in approving the dangerous Pluserix MMR vaccine in 1988.  He only stood down after Jamie Doward of the Observer, Martyn Halle, freelance journalist for the Sunday Express, Andy Wilks of the Mail on Sunday, Jenny Hope of the Daily Mail and Heather Mills of Private Eye challenged the GMC over the matter. ["MMR Conflict of Interest Zone" Private Eye - June 2007]

A British Medical Journal post suggests more troubling conflicts of interest of the current panel Chairman Dr Surendra Kumar. Kumar sits on two committees of the authority which licences the MMR vaccine (MHRA), the Independent Review Panel for Advertising and the Independent Review Panel for Borderline Products. Dr Kumar is also a shareholder in MMR defendants GlaxoSmithKline. “Re: Financial conflicts – shock horror” John Stone – British Medical Journal – 2 October 2008″ [Blue text 15/Jan/09]

Contrary to Lancet Editor Dr Richard Horton’s evidence to the GMC that he did not know of Wakefield’s paid involvement in the MMR litigation, Horton had detailed correspondence in 1997 disclosing that involvement  The correspondence was with Richard Barr, the solicitor who was working on the MMR litigation with Wakefield to help all those seriously injured British children.  This correspondence was considerably in advance of Horton’s February 1998 publication in The Lancet of the Royal Free’s paper containing the interpretation that MMR vaccine is associated with autism cases involving inflammatory bowel disease.

Notwithstanding this, the alleged non disclosure of the legal aid funding to Lancet Editor, Dr Richard Horton and the publication of the 1998 Royal Free paper was the nub of Deer’s The Sunday Times’ February 2004 attacks on Wakefield where it was claimed:-

The investigation has found that when [Wakefield] warned parents to avoid MMR, and published research claiming a link with autism, he did not  disclose he was being funded through solicitors seeking evidence to use against vaccine manufacturers.

Now we know from this that Horton’s claims do not stand up and with them, those of The Sunday Times fall as well.  But of course, not a word in the UK media.

Another key allegation in The Sunday Times’ journalist’s complaints to the GMC was that The Royal Free’s treatment of seriously ill autistic children with serious bowel disorder reported in the 1998 Lancet paper was simply research carried out without ethical approval.  But the journalist was referring to the wrong ethical approval granted in December 1996 reference 172-96 when the applicable ethical approval was granted in 1995 reference 162-95.  Ethics approval 162-95 was produced by Professor Walker-Smith’s defence team lawyers in the GMC. The production of this evidence contradicted numerous  of the GMC’s allegations of  professional misconduct against the doctors.  In the 90 pages of GMC charges there are 113 references to 172-96.[added 25/Jan/2010].

It seems had it not been for the complaints by The Sunday Times’ freelance journalist or the claims of Lancet Editor Dr Richard Horton, there may never have been any GMC case brought: ["Wakefield unlikely to be charged over MMR scare" - By Jeremy Laurance, Health Editor Sunday, 29 February 2004]. [added 25/Jan/2010].

Horton has not returned to the GMC Wakefield hearing this week [13/Jan/09] to clarify his evidence and face cross-examination.  It seems only his statement will be read out.

As for the Legal Aid money, for months in 1996 the Royal Free Medical School prevaricated  accepting it because “Clearly, this  could lead to a case against the Government for damages.” wrote Dean Zuckerman privately to the British Medical Association Secretary on 11th October 1996.

What no one knows and disclosed here publicly exclusively worldwide for the first time is that when The Sunday Times published its allegations against Wakefield in 2004 their journalist already had the documents showing Wakefield – a man accused of doing what he did for the money – was fed up with this and had arranged in May 1997 for all the legal aid monies to be sent back and that he had intended to raise the money himself for the injured children [see copy Freedom of Information memo below - added 17/Jan/09].

970520-tarhan-to-zuckerman-blatch-re-giving-the-money-back_11

It was the Royal Free which instead then reversed its position, decided to accept the money and arranged in July 1997 for it to be paid to special trustees.  Wakefield was never going to and never did receive a cent.

Wakefield’s Recent Summary of Sunday Times’ freelance journalist’s Complaints to GMC

Writing recently in the Autism File magazine [July 2009] Andrew Wakefield summarised the position regarding the allegations in The Sunday Times’ journalist’s complaints to the General Medical Council:-

Myths: The Lancet paper

  • was funded by the Legal Aid Board (LAB)

False – Not one penny of LAB money was spent on The Lancet paper. An LAB grant was provided for a separate viral detection study. This study, completed in 1999, does disclose the source of funding. The Lancet paper had been submitted for publication before the LAB grant was even available to be spent.

  • my involvement as a medical expert was kept ‘secret’

False – At least one year before publication, my senior co-authors, the Head of Department and the Dean of the Medical School7, and the CEO of the hospital were informed by me. This fact was also reported in the national press months prior to publication.

  • children were ‘sourced’ by lawyers to sue vaccine manufacturers

False – Children were referred, evaluated, and investigated on the basis of their clinical symptoms alone, following referral from the child’s physician.

  • children were litigants

False – At the time of their referral to the Royal Free – the time material to their inclusion in The Lancet paper – none of the children were litigants .

  • I had an undisclosed conflict of interest

False – The Lancet’s disclosure policy at that time was followed to the letter. Documentary evidence confirms that the editorial staff of The Lancet were fully aware that I was working as an expert on MMR litigation well in advance of the paper’s publication.

  • did not have Ethics Committee (EC) approval

False – The research element of the paper that required such an approval – detailed systematic analysis of children’s intestinal biopsies – was covered by the necessary EC approval.

  • I ‘fixed’ data and misreported clinical findings

False – There is absolutely no basis in fact for this claim and it has been exposed as false.

  • findings have not been independently replicated

False – The key findings of LNH and colitis in ASD children have been independently confirmed in 5 different countries.

  • has been retracted by most of the authors

False – 11 of 13 authors issued a retraction of an interpretation [that MMR vaccine causes autism]. This interpretation is not provided in the paper. While it remains a possibility, a possibility cannot be retracted.

  • the work is discredited

False – Those attemping to discredit the work have relied upon the myths above. The findings described in the paper are novel and important.

To Contents

AUTISM – US Court Decisions and Other Recent Developments – It’s Not Just MMR

[Blue added 15/Jan/09]

In February 2008, award winning best selling author David Kirby broke the story of the case of Hannah Poling and how the US Department of Health and Human Services secretly conceded [ie. there was no need for a hearing] in a US Federal Court case that Hannah’s symptoms of autism were caused by the nine vaccines [ie. not just MMR] which she received in one day [The Vaccine-Autism Court Document Every American Should Read - David Kirby - Huffington Post - February 26, 2008].

The official HHS position is that they conceded [whether frankly or spin] that vaccines caused Hannah’s autistic symptoms by exacerbating an underlying mitochondrial disorder. The case put the issue high up the US political agenda and continues to receive coast-to-coast media coverage in the USA [but almost total silence in the UK]. CNN lists the autism issue in its top ten US health stories of 2008:-

#2 – Autism  – “Debate over the causes of autism continued to rage after a court decided to compensate a family whose daughter developed the disorder after receiving childhood vaccinations” – Autism in CNN’s 2008 top ten US health stories

But Hannah’s case is not isolated and her “underlying” mitochondrial dysfunction appears not to be as rare as the US HHS would like us to think [Explaining Vaccines Autism & Mitochondrial Disorder].  And other cases have been made public [see below for details of another three involving MMR - but we do not know how many cases have been settled quietly, as Hannah's case was before it became coast-to-coast news in the USA throughout 2008].

US Autism prevalence was put on the US presidential political agenda by all US presidential candidates in 2008:-

Obama Climbs On The Vaccine Bandwagon” – April 22, 2008 – David Kirby, Huffington Post]

You do not want to bring your children into the world where we go on with the number of children who are born with autism tripling every 20 years, and nobody knows why,Bill Clinton said.

In addition to the Hannah Poling case, the US Court also ruled last year in favour of a little boy Benjamin Zeller, deciding that as a result of the MMR vaccination received on 17 November 2004, Benjamin, suffered persistent, intractable seizures, encephalopathy, and developmental delay [US Court Rules In Favour Of Family In MMR Vaccine Case Ben Zeller J].

  • the judgement states the US Department of Health and Human Services had no alternative explanation beyond “Unconfirmed  speculation by a few treating doctors, as with Dr. Wiznitzer’s hypothesization
  • the standard of proof being applied in this US Court is identical to that in the English Court.
  • just like the English Court, these cases are decided by judge alone sitting without a jury [and that means better decisions on fact and evidence - no decisions from jury sympathy for the claimant]

In Banks v. HHS (Case 02-0738V, 2007 U.S. Claims LEXIS 254, July 20, 2007) MMR vaccine administered in March 2000 and the child was diagnosed with Pervasive Development Disorder [ie. Autistic Spectrum Disorder] secondary to acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM).  There have also been other reported cases.  Michelle Cedillo’s case was one of the first three test cases.  Michelle’s was a test case of whether Thiomersal and/or MMR vaccines were the cause of her autism and panapoly of other disorders. 

The three test cases were unsucessful with judgements given in early 2009.  Michelle Cedillo’s MMR case is under appeal.  Just as The Sunday Times Journalist Brian Deer published stories in the UK immediately before the English Court judgment by Judge Davis  [brother of Glaxo Director and Lancet CEO Crispin Davis]  Deer published again, visiting the USA the week of the US Court decision.  He had been also selectively passing documents about the UK litigation to the attorneys for the US defendant the Department of Health and Human Services. [Amended red 18/Jan/10].

The high and rising prevalence of autism brings into stark question the risk-vs-risk ratio of disease-vs-vaccines.  In a recent authoritative peer refereed study [January 7, 2009] researchers at the UC Davis M.I.N.D. Institute has found that the seven-to-eight-fold increase in the number of children born with autism in California  since 1990 cannot be explained by either changes in how the condition is diagnosed or counted — and the trend shows no sign of abating: [Press release "UC Davis M.I.N.D. Institute study shows California's autism increase not due to better counting, diagnosis"  - full text of study found here - "The Rise in Autism and the Role of Age at Diagnosis" Epidemiology 20:1 January 2009].  This authoritative new US study shows:-

  • the substantial increase in autism is real and
  • must be caused by environmental factors and cannot be genetic
  • cannot be explained away as better diagnosis and greater awareness

New figures from the US show a doubling of autism in 5 years [ie. 2002-6 - see Table 1].  This represents US government tax dollars paid out.

TABLE 1 – USA SOCIAL SECURITY AUTISM FIGURES 2002-6

SSI RECIPIENTS
COUNTS FOR ADULTS AND CHILDREN
RECEIVING BENEFITS
FOR AUTISTIC & OTHER PERVASIVE DEVELOPMENT DISORDERS
AS OF DECEMBER IN 2002 – 2006
As Of December In Year Children 21 and under Adults 1/ All Recipients
2002 38,324 7,360 45,684
2003 44,076 9,282 53,358
2004 51,581 11,450 63,031
2005 59,479 13,647 73,126
2006 68,050 16,190 84,240
1/ INCLUDES PERSONS AGE 65 AND OVER WITH CLAIM TYPE = DISABILITY.

The US Inter-Agency Autism Coordinating Committee (IACC) has voted to recommend earmarking millions of dollars in research funds from the Combating Autism Act of 2006 to study the possible role of vaccines in the causation of autism – ["Top Federal Autism Panel Votes For Millions in Vaccine Research" - David Kirby – The Huffington Post - January 5, 2009].

Further recent news from the USA indicates US President Barak Obama is serious on the vaccines-to-autism  issue ["TV's Gupta Chosen for US Surgeon General" - By Ceci Connolly and Howard Kurtz - Washington Post Staff Writers  - Wednesday, January 7, 2009].

This CNN interview by Dr Gupta openly discusses vaccines causing autism – if this was BBC Panorama everyone would be shocked – CNN’s Dr. Sanjay Gupta interviews Dr. Jon Poling.

And in another interview, Gupta interviews the Director of the US Centers for Diseases Control on the same issues: CDC Chief Admits that Vaccines Trigger Autism

And what is the British Department of Health doing about this?  It seems nothing whatsoever, even though at the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee 17th June 2008 MPs and Peers heard Cambridge autism expert Professor Simon Baron-Cohen concede to a questioner that more research into the vaccine/autism connection is needed and that a recent study indicates autism costs the UK £28 Billion pa.  The £28 billion figure includes hidden costs, like costs of people taken out of the economy, whether those affected or their carers.  [LSE "Economic Consequences of Autism in the UK" - Study by team led by Professor Martin Knapp [Executive Summary] [NB. The main defect in the research is the assumption there are 433,000 are adults (aged 18 and over) who have autistic spectrum disorders.  We have the research to show there are approximately 107,000 children but there is not such a number of adults, the 433,000 being a projection based on the numbers of children.]

Here are some of the politics and cronyism of Labour’s approach to burying the autism problem. Surprisingly, we do not have any official “body count” of autistic children and adults. All we have is the “first ever” prevalence study commissioned by the DoH in 2008 [announced by Ivan Lewis] but seemingly involving “Tony’s Cronies”.  “Department of Health announces adult autism strategy” – Thursday, 8-May-2008.

The study is to find all the adult autistics who should exist [to prove autism has always been this high] and is not due to report until this year. Minister Tessa Jowell’s first husband and New Labour stalwart, Roger Jowell’s old company, NatCen is involved.  NatCen (The National Centre for Social Research) is billed as a “not-for-profit” company and works almost exclusively for government and governmental organisations. : ["University of Leicester to lead audit of adults with autism" Eurekalert - 9-May-2008].

To prove autism has always been this high the authors must find approximately 400,000 adult autistics in the UK and their assumed approx 400,000 carers. But there cannot be that many.  Office for National Statistics figures show the total number of adults caring for a dependent adult or relative in September 2001 for any reason was 326,000: [Data source: "Census figures Table 1-7 "The economically inactive who look after the family or home"]

Measles Comparison

See here how the risk to children in Western economies from measles is now insignificant for the vast majority MEASLES MORTALITY UK & USA.

To Contents

Vaccines, Autism and Your Child’s Allergies

[New Exclusive Worldwide Revelations 22/Jan/2009]

In addition to the new MMR vaccine, in 1990 infants were also “hit” with the “accelerated” DTP vaccine schedule – receiving three DTP shots – one each at 2, 3 and 4 months.  Prior to this the intervals were 3, 5 and 9 to 12 months of age. The DTP vaccine contained a highly neurotoxic ingredient.  The ingredient was an organo-mercury excipient called “Thiomersal” ["Thimerosal" in the USA].   Thiomersal is toxic in parts per billion – in extremely small dilutions. The vaccine was The Wellcome Foundation’s Trivax AD DTP vaccine. The Wellcome Foundation is now GlaxoSmithKline.Thiomersal was first introduced by pharmaceutical company Merck in the 1930s and was not clinically trialled for safety in use in vaccines.

Research shows that children with autism appear to have deficient mechanisms for expelling toxins like mercury and it accumulates in the body.

Revealed here exclusively worldwide for the first time, information obtained under  the UK’s Freedom of Information law confirms the British MHRA [Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency] has no data on how much Thiomersal was in Trivax AD DTP vaccine. Although the British DoH [Department of Health] claimed publicly to have known, that claim therefore appears incorrect.

Video: University of Calgary Faculty of Medicine – How Mercury Causes Brain Neuron Degeneration

To Contents

Your Child’s Allergies and Vaccines

Thiomersal is also known to induce allergy. Many children, in particular those with regressive autism, have serious problems with allergies.  Some have exceptionally high levels of IgE, [the allergic antibody immunoglobulin E].

Since the introduction of the accelerated DTP vaccination schedule in 1990 the prevalence of life-threatening food allergies in British children has also increased exponentially “Time trends in allergic disorders in the UK” R Gupta, A Sheikh, D P Strachan, H R Anderson, Thorax 2006;000:1–6.  Big rise in patients with deadly allergies – Jamie Doward, The Observer 16 Apr 2006.  Number of children treated for nut allergies soars Daniel Foggo, The Sunday Times April 2, 2006.

The date of the rise can be tracked back to 1990 using publicly available data. This increase has occurred in parallel with significant increases in other disorders like autism, asthma and childhood diabetes.

Thiomersal is a well recognised cause of allergies: [The European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products - Medicines Evaluation Unit - Safety Working Party Assessment of the Toxicity of Thiomersal in Relation to Its Use in Medicinal Product SCPMP/SWP/I898/1998 - 8 September 1998].

980908-emea-report-downloadable_1

980908-emea-report-downloadable_3

Thiomersal is not the only component of vaccines which causes allergy. Adjuvants are an ingredient in almost all vaccines and cause allergy. US biotech company BioSante’s CEO, Steve Simes said on the launch of their new adjuvant:-

The problem with most adjuvants is that they can cause allergies,” said Simes. “Ours might not be as potent as others, but it is safer.”

Last Update: 3:45 PM ET Apr 24, 2006

[Text added 24/Jan/2010]

And again revealed here exclusively worldwide for the first time is the recent British 2006-7 Parliamentary session House of Lords Science and Technology Committee Report “Allergy” [6th Report of Sesssion] makes no mention whatsoever ofany vaccine or of Thiomersal in vaccines or as being a cause of the exponential rise in childhood allergies which has occurred since 1990 in the UK [Amended 18/Jan/10].

The use of Thiomersal in other pharmaceuticals [eg. contact len cleaning fluid] has been strictly controlled in Europe: CPMP Position Paper on Thiomersal – Implementation of the Warning Statement Relating to Sensitisation. The European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products London, 21 October 1999 CPMP/2612/99]

Thiomersal contains 50% by weight of mercury.  There is no safe limit – only a “permitted daily/weekly tolerable” limit.  This is measured in parts per million per kilogramme of body weight.  Those limits apply when ingested in food]. This neurotoxic organo-mercury compound was injected directly into infants’ bodies at a time their bodies and nervous systems were developing the most rapidly at any time in their lives. The amount of thiomersal claimed to be in Trivax AD DTP vaccine was 50 millionths of a gramme injected directly into the body.

A 4 kilo weight 2 month old baby would have received in one injection 63 times higher than the permitted tolerable daily intake in food set by the US Environmental protection Agency and the UK’s Committee on Toxicity.

To protect infants the PTWI set by the UK Committee on Toxicity for intake of mercury compounds in food for women who are pregnant, or who may become pregnant within the following year, or for breast-feeding mothers is one tenth of a millionth of gramme per kilogramme of body weight per day – for a 9 stone woman [57 kg] that is 5.7 millionths of a gram per day.

Calculation of an infant’s daily and overall body burden of toxic mercury must also include the burden from environmental pollution.  [Sources include mercury in the air from power station emissions and in fish as a result of oceanic pollution by anti-fouling applied to ships' hulls.  Mercury is liquid at room temperature and evaporates forming a toxic vapour in the air].

Also revealed here worldwide for the first time under Freedom of Information is that the British Government also had no data on Thiomersal content of many other vaccines around that time and some had more than claimed by the British government was in DTP.  Examples are Duncan Flockhart’s DTP vaccine – 130 millionths of a gramme  thiomersal per millilitre and Lister Institute Pertussis vaccine – 120 mcg/ml Thiomersal.  Accordingly, this brings into question how much was in Trivax AD DTP vaccine.

The British Government also hid this lack of knowledge from Parliament.  A further revelation made here exclusively worldwide for the first time is that British Health Minister Hazel Blears MP misled the English Parliament in 2001 when she said in a Parliamentary answer thatAll childhood vaccines licensed since 1986 which have ever contained thiomersal as an excipient are listed in the table” [to the answer]. [House of Commons Hansard Written Answers for 3 Jul 2001 (pt 19)]. The table contained no such details and listed only those vaccines granted a licence in the UK since 1993.

Julie Kirkbride MP had asked for the “vaccines …. licensed since 1986 which contain thiomersal.

If you are asked have you been licensed to drive your car since 2006, you will answer “yes” even if you have held a licence since 1980.  Blears’ answer was in fact the answer to the question of the “vaccines granted a licence since 1986 which contain Thiomersal”.

But, it seems mercury is not the only problem [See above - US Court Decisions and Other Recent Developments - It’s Not Just MMR].

To Contents

In Whom Can You Trust – [Added 24/Jan/09]

The British Government

The British Government claims Thiomersal was phased out of its childhood vaccines in October 2004 [but vaccine stocks may have taken longer to run down and how safe is what has replaced it?].

A previously confidential 1991 internal Merck memorandum published by the USA’s  Los Angeles Times shows the UK authorities had then known about the problem and were privately expressing concern to the vaccine manufacturer about the presence of mercury in vaccines.  This was along with Sweden, Japan and Switzerland: [‘91 Memo Warned of Mercury in Shots - By Myron Levin - LA Times - February 08, 2005].

So why did they take 13 years to do something about it and why did they and do they continue to tell the British public there is and was no problem when they knew there was and is?  And as vaccines also alter the functioning of the immune system, the removal of Thiomersal may well not be the only factor affecting the increases in autism, asthma, allergies and childhood diabetes.  [see above - US Court Decisions and Other Recent Developments].

To Contents

The US Centers For Disease Control and Drug Companies

On 7-8 June 2000, a confidential private meeting without public scrutiny took place between vaccine manufacturers’ representatives, 51 US scientists, and a representative of the World Health Organization.  This was to discuss a study by US Centers for Disease Control expert Dr Thomas Verstraeten of increasing doses of Thimerosal and neurodevelopmental disorders in children.  Verstraeten used US Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) data, an official US governmental data bank on the children from US health maintenance organizations (HMOs).

Verstraeten’s study showed a dose-response relationship between Thimerosal in vaccines and neurodevelopmental disorders in children that held up to rigorous statistical analyses.  This means Verstraeten’s study showed a causal association between the amount of Thimerosal in vaccines a child received and the extent to which the child developed the symptoms of impaired brain development .  These ranged from tics, speech impairment to symptoms of and full autism. The discussions can be read in the transcript of the Simpsonwood Conference obtained by US organisaton SafeMinds under Freedom of Information.

Three years later Dr Thomas Verstraeten, MD, MSc  [now working for GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals, Belgium] published a different paper in the journal Pediatrics: ["Safety of thimerosal-containing vaccines: a two-phased study of computerized health maintenance organization databases".  Verstraeten T, Davis RL, DeStefano F, et al.  Pediatrics.2003; 112 :1039 –1048].   The new paper included another set of data from a third HMO, reorganised the criteria for inclusion of children and restructured the patient groupings, and  a less than statistically significant link was demonstrated. It was heavily criticised by campaigners and concerned experts. Verstraeten published a vigorous letter in his defence in which he rejected any suggestion of impropriety: ["Thimerosal, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and GlaxoSmithKline"]: PEDIATRICS Vol. 113 No. 4 April 2004, pp. 932.

What can be said about this?  When Verstraeten was a public official working for the US CDC there was a serious problem.  When Verstraeten was working for GlaxoSmithKline there was no problem.

To Contents

Independent Medical Professional Organisations

The US Institutes of Medicine published a report in 2001 on whether MMR caused autism [Immunization Safety Review - Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccine and Autism].

The IOM committee held closed meetings to discuss the report’s content and before considering the evidence.  A transcript of a meeting on 12th January 2001 was disclosed in Court proceedings [US District Court of Texas, Eastern District; Case #5:03-CV-141].

Here are some quotes from the transcript:-

  • [the Centers for Disease Control] “wants us to declare, well, these things are pretty safe on a population basis.” [p33]
  • We said this before you got here, and I think we said this yesterday, the point of no return, the line we will not cross in public policy is to pull the vaccine, change the schedule. We could say it is time to revisit this, but we would never recommend that level.   Even recommending research is recommendations for policy.  We wouldn’t say compensate, we wouldn’t say pull the vaccine, we wouldn’t say stop the program.” [p74]
  • we are not ever going to come down that it is a true side effect,” [p97]
  • Chances are, when all is said and done, we are still going to be in this category. It is just a general feeling that we probably still are not going to be able to make a statement,” [p123]

To Contents

What You Can Do

If you found this information helpful there are two things you can do about it.

Please share this page with others

  • email the links to this page to others
  • post links to this page
    • on your website
    • on your blog
    • in comments on relevant websites and blogs
  • email them to health journalists and journalists from your local newspapers, TV and radio stations – [phone them for details of email addresses or look them up on the internet]

Here is a link for you to copy and paste :-

Secret British MMR Vaccine Files Forced Open By Legal Action

To Contents

UK Residents – Write To Your Politicians – Do It Now!

Write to your Member of Parliament with the link to this page. If you do not write to your MP, and do not keep on writing them, then don’t complain when politicians  do nothing.  Write to your Member of Parliament with the link to this page. It is their job to represent you.

Ask your MP to ask the UK’s Secretary of State to explain why the British Government allows officials of the UK’s Department of Health to cause the human rights of children to be violated.

To email your MP, all you need to know is your MP’s name.  MP’s email addresses are in the form:-

surname.initial@parliament.uk.

To find out who your MP is click on this link:-

http://www.writetothem.com/

_____________________________________________

Notes on terminology:-

In the US the official diagnostic definition of what we call “Autism Spectrum Disorders” or ASD are  instead called “Pervasive Development Disorders” or PDD for short.  That is under the “Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th edn)” or “DSM IV” for short.

“Autistic Spectrum Disorder” is the term applied internationally under the “ICD” or “International Classification of Disease”

Many refer to ASD and PDD as “autism” but “autism” is a subset of the spectrum and is often referred to also as “childhood autism”, “typical autism” and “Kanner autism”.  [The common behaviours like hand flapping, loss of eye contact and suchlike in young children are unmistakable, whereas other spectrum disorders like mild Aspergers Syndrome can be more difficult to diagnose.]

Copyright ChildHealthSafety 2009 – The authors hereby assert their moral rights.  All rights reserved.

Compulsory Childhood Vaccination Costa Rica Style – American Family Told “Sign Here Before You Can Have A Copy To Ask Your Lawyer What You Signed For Your Child”

……. and then he takes the document away so they have no copy at all.

An American family discovers Costa Rica.  Be careful where you vacation or choose to live.

Video 1 of 4

Video 2 of 4

Video 3 of 4

Video 4 of 4

Centers for Disease Control Failure on Autism To Cost Americans US$3.84 Trillion & Using Your Tax Dollars To Do It

This is also what NBC, ABC, CNN, The Washington Post, The New York Times and mainstream journalism across the USA are costing Americans by failing to report the biggest health disaster in history and suppressing the news and evidence about the main known cause: vaccines.  This is what US Health Secretaries like the outgoing Kathleen Sebelius and the former Centers for Disease Control Director Julie Gerberding, [now Merck Vaccines Division President] and many more are costing Americans. This is what Thomas R. Insel, M.D.  Director, National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) and Chair of the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee (IACC), The American Academy of Pediatrics and many more are costing Americans.

But worse, these people and people like them are costing 1 in 68 American children and children worldwide their health and stealing their future of normal healthy lives and blighting around 1 in 25 families in the USA and doing the same to many families around the world.

A Safeminds report CHS republishes below sets out the costs to Americans of US$3.84 trillion.

And US government health officials and agencies are using your tax dollars to achieve this epic fail.

Vote to fire them.  All of them.

If the parents of 1 in 25 families were not misled by a US media which is controlled by just 6 corporations and then used their votes come election time, they could determine the political future of the United States of America in every “swing state” in the USA and who the President of the USA is to be for maybe the next 60 years and at least for as long as the autism disaster continues.  When Obama was up for election the first time he, McCain and both Clintons were banging on the autism drum but once elected did worse than nothing, so they have got to learn that autism is not about one election.  Autism is about every election for the foreseeable future and they all need to know that election success is to depend not on future promises but past performance.

US Autism prevalence was put on the US presidential political agenda by all US presidential candidates in 2008:-

  • You do not want to bring your children into the world where we go on with the number of children who are born with autism tripling every 20 years, and nobody knows why, Bill Clinton said.  Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama returning to Oregon“  – Amy Easley and Tony Fuller, KTVZ.COM,
  • McCain steps into debate over cause of autism” – International Herald Tribune – Benedict Carey – March 4, 2008

The American President as Commander-In-Chief is failing to protect American children from the enemy within the USA.  And it is not Al Qaeda or any extremist group.  The creation of an image of muslims as a terror threat is distracting Americans from the true problems facing US internal security today.  Democracy in the USA is fading and will fade away if Americans continue to do nothing about problems like the international autism pandemic. 

Remarkable warnings were given to the American people by a President of the United States about a few corporations gaining disproportionate influence over the US Government and its agencies.  Back in 1961 from his televised valedictory address to the nation Dwight D Eisenhower warned of the rise of the military-industrial complex and the dangers it spelt for the USA and for every American.  Since that time Americans and the world have seen a parallel rise of the medical-industrial complex.  The same game – just a small number of different players, playing you, The US Congress, The US Senate and The President of The United States, all at the same time, whilst in one way or another owning or controlling the US media.   President Eisenhower in a speech he had wanted to give for two years and had to wait until the expiration of his presidential term in the middle of the 1956-1975 Vietnam War said:

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

The following is a Safeminds Report From 13 Apr 2014 Republished by CHS.

And remember, when you want the real news, you can only get it on the web and not from the likes of CNN, ABC, NBC, The Washington Post, The New York Times and mainstream journalism.

1 in 68 is Only Part of the Autism Story — What the CDC Didn’t Report

Ten Times the Prevalence of Severe Autism over Time, But No Increase vs. 2008

By Katie Weisman, for the SafeMinds’ Research Committee
Thanks to Mark Blaxill and Cynthia Nevison, PhD for the graphs.

Introduction

On March 28th, thousands of media outlets released the new US autism prevalence numbers of 1 in 68 in 8-year-olds born in 2002 and counted in 2010.  These children are 12 years old now.  What was glaringly lacking in the media coverage was any critical thought about that actual data, any sign that reporters had actually read the new report or any sign of urgency on behalf of our children.

The CDC’s take away messages were as follows:

  • We’re reporting a 30% increase in autism in 2 years, but you don’t need to worry because these kids have always been here.  We are just better at counting than we were before.
    Comment: There has been a 37-fold increase in reported autism spectrum disorders in the past 30 years – which would be about 1984, hardly the dark ages.  Do you really believe that there were this many kids with autism around when you were young?  The prevalence was 1 in 2500 in the early 80s or .4/1000; as of this month, it is 14.7/1000.  The CDC has yet to conduct a population-based count of people with autism of all ages and severities which would lay this issue to rest.  We should all be asking why they haven’t.  They continue to say that they still can’t be sure if the increase is real – over and over again – for the past decade.
  • It looks like the kids are getting milder – they have less intellectual disability (ID) – and it’s due to broader diagnosis.
    Comment: Up until the 2006 data, the ADDM reports only stated the percentage with IQ’s below 70, which were stable (on average) in the early reports (see chart 1) but the averages masked a wide spread in the actual percentages by state.  Breakdowns into three categories of ID started in the 2008 data.   The percentage of children diagnosed with autism in the newer reports (see chart 1) is consistent with the percentage with ID in the older reports, but the CDC did not supply data on diagnostic categories in the past.  What is unclear is what is driving the change in the ID of the children.   Are we seeing children who still have autism but are less language impaired?
  • There is no possibility that autism and vaccines are connected because the numbers are still going up.
    Comment: Assuming that there is, in fact, a smaller percentage of ASD children with Intellectual Disability, those shifts do correspond to the beginning of the phase out of thimerosal in vaccines, which is a plausible explanation as well – but one CDC doesn’t mention.  Thimerosal reduction in the recommended childhood vaccine schedule (HepB, Hib and DTaP) started in 1999 and it was phased out over several years.  However, shortly thereafter, in the 2002-2003 season, the CDC started encouraging flu shots (most of which contained thimerosal) for infants 6-23 months and in the 2004-2005 flu season flu shots were formally recommended for all infants starting at 6 months of age.  Meanwhile, the CDC and ACOG also added influenza vaccines (most of which still contained thimerosal) to the recommendations for pregnant women in all trimesters in 2004.  This FDA letter makes clear that thimerosal-containing infant vaccines would still have been administered throughout 2002 – the birth year of the current ADDM report but at amounts, on average, probably less than in the 2000 birth cohort.  The exposure to any particular child is an unknown without checking their history.
  • If you are a young parent, check out our website to learn the signs of autism and talk to your pediatrician if you have concerns. Early intervention is the answer.
    Comment: Where is the interest in prevention?  This approach is letting a child fall off a cliff and then trying to catch him.  Despite the CDC’s “Learn the Signs” program, the average age of diagnosis in this report is the same as it was a decade ago in the 2000 data – about 53 months or age 4.5.  There has been no measurable progress in this area.

Preface – Limitations of the ADDM numbers:

As outlined in the SafeMinds commentary on March, 28th, there are significant limitations to the quality of the data in the ADDM network overall, which I will not repeat here.   My purpose here is to point out important data that was missed, further weaknesses in the reports and to show that there are broad questions regarding what is included and excluded that should arise from looking at the ADDM reports.  The “spin”, deletion and addition of sections and overall characterization of the reports should be questioned by all those who care about someone with autism.

The chart below is a summary of some key information from the ADDM network over the years.  It includes the number of sites included in the ADDM, the average age of first diagnosis with an autism spectrum disorder, the percentages of IQ levels as reported in ASD cases in select states (typically the states in which they have IQ data for more than 70% of the cases), the percentage breakdown of the three primary ASD diagnoses and documentation of regression data.

[Click image to open in new window]

Summary of Population Characteristics in the ADDM Network

Discussion of Intellectual Disability Reporting:

[Click image to open in new window]

the-real-story

The CDC made a big point of promoting the idea that autism prevalence is still going up while the percentage of kids without intellectual disability is rising and the raw numbers on the chart support that trend.  However, here is a quote from the 2008 report that provides a different perspective:

In the four sites with IQ test data available on at least 70% of children with ASDs in both the 2006 and 2008 surveillance years, the estimated prevalence of ASD with intellectual disability increased 12% on average (4.2–4.7 per 1,000), while the prevalence of ASD with borderline intellectual ability increased 22% (2.3–2.8 per 1,000), and the prevalence of ASD with average or above-average intellectual ability increased 13% (3.9–4.4 per 1,000).

In other words, if you actually compare apples to apples in the same 4 states, ASD with and without ID increased about the same percentage – certainly not a compelling shift between the two ends of the range and showing the importance of comparing the same states.

No Prevalence Increase in the With Intellectual Disability Subgroup

Also, notice that the “with intellectual disability” prevalence number just reported for the 2002 birth cohort is 4.7 per 1000 children, which is exactly the same as the prevalence reported for the 2000 birth cohort in the quote above, 4.7 per 1000.  It is only 12% (5.8% annualized) more than the 1998 birth cohort prevalence of 4.2 per 1000. Unfortunately, the 1992 and 1994 birth cohort reports do not give prevalence statistic for just those with ID so we cannot compare farther back.  However, the data that we do have suggests that, after a long period of annualized 8.5% increases, to get from .4/1000 to 4.7/1000, the prevalence of the most severe autism may be flattening – though at a level too high for anyone’s comfort.  It is critically important that we look at actual prevalence comparisons in subpopulations and not just at the percentages of the whole population with ASD.

[Click image to open in new window]

addm trends in autism

Removal of South Carolina and Alabama

This year, after being included in all previous ADDM reports, South Carolina data was not reported due to “not providing suitable data in a timely manner”.  No further explanation is given.  It seems a little unusual that an experienced team would suddenly be unable to produce the work that they had been doing for a decade.  Given that SC had the highest percentage of ID in 2008 at 54% that would have decreased the percentage disparity in the ID categories.   Also, Alabama, which despite only 10% access to education records had recorded a high percentage of ASD children with ID in the past, is not part of the current reporting.   See Chart 1B below.

[Click image to open in new window]

States Included in ADDM Intellectual Disability Data

 Change in States Reported Over Time for Intellectual Disability Analysis

To further complicate comparisons of intellectual disability over time, consider the above chart of which states were reported in each birth cohort.  The percentages are for those with ID.  For each birth cohort, I have indicated the percentage of intellectual disability (IQ<70) in bold if it is mentioned in the report specifically.  For some reports, the only source of a percentage is a bar graph so I have put those percentages in regular font as they are taken from the graphs with an approximate adjustment for the ratio of boys to girls in the typical cohort.  N/A in the chart means that the state was included but due to the limited nature of the 2004 report (actually an addendum to the 2006 report and issued at the same time), there was no bar graphs to pull approximate percentages from.

Note the following:

The percentage of states included in the ID analysis has varied from 50-64% of the states included for that year.

There has never been a year when the same states were included so one needs to look at “apples to apples” comparisons.

There is huge variation state to state (13-63%) in the percentage of children with ID, which has yet to be explained or investigated.  Since we are looking only at cases with ID, there should be less effect of “broader diagnosis” and these variations may reflect actual differences in severe autism due to environmental exposures.  This area is ripe for more research.

Here is the direct quote from the 2010 report:

Over the last decade, the most notable change in characteristics of children identified with ASD through the ADDM Network is the growing number who have average or above average intellectual ability. This proportion has increased consistently over time from 32% in 2002, to 38% in 2006, to 46% in 2010, or almost half of children identified with ASD. Concurrently, the proportion of children with ASD and co-occurring intellectual disability has steadily decreased from 47% in 2002, to 41% in 2006, to 31% in 2010. This shift in distribution of intellectual ability among children identified with ASD during 2002–2010 indicates that a large proportion of the observed ASD prevalence increase can be attributed to children with average or above average intellectual ability (IQ >85).

Given the above, do you feel that the CDC has accurately reported the situation?  Or is this “spin” to say the numbers are still going up, but you don’t need to worry?

Elimination of Regression Reporting

In the early years of the ADDM network, regression was reported consistently in about 13-30% of the children counted.  They also reported a plateau in development in an additional 3-10% of the cases.  The relative consistency is noteworthy (compared with much of the data reported) in the 2000, 2002 and 2006 collection years (see Chart 1). Then in the past two reports for the 2008 and 2010 data, the entire section of the study reporting regression breakdown was eliminated.  These numbers were based on actual documentation in the case files and a quote in the 2002 report states, “Therefore, these results should be considered a minimal estimate of plateau and regression among ASD cases”.  In 2009, the ADDM team did a separate study looking at regression in the network and reported the following:

This study evaluated the phenomenon of autistic regression using population-based data. The sample comprised 285 children who met the autism spectrum disorder (ASD) case definition within an ongoing surveillance program. Results indicated that children with a previously documented ASD diagnosis had higher rates of autistic regression than children who met the ASD surveillance definition but did not have a clearly documented ASD diagnosis in their records (17-26 percent of surveillance cases). Most children regressed around 24 months of age and boys were more likely to have documented regression than girls. Half of the children with regression had developmental concerns noted prior to the loss of skills. Moreover, children with autistic regression were more likely to show certain associated features, including cognitive impairment. These data indicate that some children with ASD experience a loss of skills in the first few years of life and may have a unique symptom profile.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19535466?log$=activity  Why was the reporting of regression eliminated in the most recent reports, given the finding that these children might have a “unique symptom profile”?

Timeliness of Reporting the Surveillance

In a 2007 study (Braun et al.) of the 2002 data collection, CDC made the following statement:

Although the ADDM sites participating in the 2002 surveillance year represent multiple grant cycles, the estimated time required for this surveillance year, from start of funding to reporting of results, was approximately 3–4 years. Once the surveillance system has been instituted at a site, these limitations to timeliness are greatly reduced for future surveillance years. As ADDM Network surveillance methods have evolved, the time required to make data available has decreased. Multiple surveillance years can now be conducted concurrently, and clinician review has been restructured to increase efficiency.

So, if the time to actually make the data available has decreased, why are the 2010 data only being reported in the spring of 2014?  There has been no improvement in a decade of the timeliness of the reporting of the autism surveillance.   Our children deserve better.

Where is the Study of the 4 Year-Olds?  The 2010 surveillance funding included collection of cases in 4 year olds with ASD in 6 states.  The states included are Arizona, Missouri, New Jersey, Missouri, Utah and Wisconsin.  Missouri and Wisconsin are states that don’t access education records, but this should be less of an issue in a 4 year old population since they are not school age yet.   It will be interesting to see if the South Caroline data for the 4 year-olds is included or not.  The primary question is when that data will be published.   With fewer records to collect, shouldn’t it have been published ahead of the 8 year-old numbers?

Complete Elimination of the Within State Comparisons of Prevalence

In the 2008 ADDM report, there are 3 pages looking at within state comparisons of prevalence of ASDs by sex, race and IQ.  The comparisons are done for various combinations of the 2002, 2006 and 2008 reporting years.  This entire analysis is missing from the 2010 report with no explanation given.

I have created the chart below to try to get a bird’s eye view of the ADDM prevalences over time.  At first glance, the following thoughts come to mind:

Arizona’s growth curve spiked between 2004 and 2006 and has been slowing ever since.

Arkansas’s growth curve spiked between the 2000 and 2002 birth cohorts.  What happened?

Florida’s growth curve spiked between the 1998 and 2000 birth cohorts.  More below.

Georgia’s growth curve doubled between the 2000 and 2002 birth cohorts.  This is the longest running surveillance site and has had very steady growth over time.  What changed?

Missouri’s growth curve spiked between the 1996 and 1998 birth cohorts and has come down to almost flat since then.

New Jersey’s growth curve may be flattening.  However, the fact sheet on New Jersey reports a staggering 1 in 45 children with ASD; 1 in 28 boys and 1 in 133 girls who are now 12 years old.  This was lost in the news reports.

Pennsylvania’s growth curve doubled between the 1998 and 2000 birth cohorts.

South Carolina’s growth curve had a huge spike between the 1996 and 1998 birth cohorts.

Utah reported a decrease in autism of almost 13% over the 2000 to 2002 birth cohorts.  This is the biggest drop reported in ADDM in a state with good access to records.  Yet there was no mention of it in the CDC’s press coverage.  Interestingly, all the press out of Utah reported rates as “holding steady”; none mentioned the actual drop in prevalence.

West Virginia’s growth curve was dramatic from the 1992-1994 birth cohorts but there has been no follow up for 10 years.

All of these changes suggest the possibility of environmental factors, particularly the large spikes in certain 2 year periods.  Again, more research is needed.

Chart 2 – Summary of State Prevalence Reporting in the ADDM Network – 1992-2002 Birth Cohorts

In the chart below, the shaded states do not have access to most educational records and have consistently been shown to underreport autism prevalence compared to states with access to education records.

Bolded percentages are annual percentage changes in prevalence rates.  CDC typically reports two year changes at a time so these percentages are roughly half of what the media reports.  It was necessary to do this to compare 2 year changes to 4 or 6 year changes, though these numbers will not reflect variations within the periods of time.  We would have to have annual instead of biannual collection of data to know for sure what happened in a given state.  The percentage annualized growth rates in prevalence are useful to see how the growth curves are changing in various states over time.

[Click image to open in new window]

stategraph

 What is going On in Florida?

In the 2008 report, there was a glaring signal that the CDC neither reported, nor followed up.   They found 211 children with ASD of which 52.9% were Hispanic (Miami Dade County).  The Hispanic prevalence rate was 8.2 per 1000 compared to a white prevalence of 4.2 per 1000.  This is the only place in the 10 years of ADDM reporting that a Hispanic rate significantly (in this case almost doubled) exceeded the white rate.  Typically, minorities are diagnosed at lower rates than white children in the same areas.  The median earliest age of ASD diagnosis was 3 years, 6 months which suggests a more severe population and is lower than the median age of first diagnosis network-wide.  The chances that this represents an autism “cluster” are strong and it should be investigated.  Florida also reported an enormous prevalence change from 2006-2008 – a 71% increase in 2 years or 31% annually – the largest 2 year change ever in the ADDM reporting.  Yet Florida was not funded for the 2010 cycle so we don’t know what happened next.

Press Involvement at the CDC and the Impact of PDD-NOS Non-Inclusion

Lastly, there is the question I found on the case status of children in the ADDM network.  A January, 2014 study (Maenner et al.) investigating the potential impact of the DSM-5, based on ADDM data, included several interesting paragraphs:

To calculate the potential impact on prevalence, we applied DSM-5ASD criteria to 2 groups of 8-year-old children under surveillance for the years 2006 and 2008: (1) the 6577 children who met both ADDM Network ASD criteria based on the DSM-IV-TR and our operationalized DSM-5ASDcriteria and (2) the 1020 children who did not meet ADDM Network ASD criteria but could plausibly meetDSM-5 criteria. These 1020 children all technically met DSM-IV-TR criteria for PDD-NOS, but the clinician reviewers did not classify them as ASD cases for surveillance purposes; for most of these children, the clinician reviewers concluded that the behaviors were better accounted for by another disorder.

 Children with a history of developmental regression were more likely to meetDSM-5ASDcriteria than those without a history (89.4% vs. 79.0%, P < .001), and children with intellectual disability were more likely to meet DSM-5ASDcriteria than children with an IQ greater than 70 (86.6%vs 82.5%, P < .001). Children with a history of regression remained more likely to meet DSM-5ASD criteria than children without a history of regression after controlling for intellectual disability.

 Since excluding cases would have a significant impact on the prevalences reported in those two years, I wrote to Dr. Maenner with questions about those children.  After a delay, I received an incomplete answer back from Dr. Maenner through the CDC press office.  I do not normally put private e-mails online, but since this one has the press office’s blessing, that e-mail exchange is available here: http://www.safeminds.org/?p=6266

This chart shows the impact on what was reported in 2006 and 2008 of including those children who met DSM-IV-TR PDD-NOS criteria but were not included as cases.

[Click image to open in new window]

totals

This graph shows the potential effect of the culling of PDD-NOS cases (in chart above) on the annualized growth percentages for autism.  Whether or not that culling was present in the earlier and later cohorts is a key question.  The CDC case definition has not changed over time.  Per my e-mails with the CDC, this analysis has not been done for the earlier years. I have sent the question regarding the 2002 birth cohort and I am awaiting a response.  If the culling was not done for the 2002 birth cohort, this suggests two things – that the prevalence growth curve is dropping in the latest cohorts and that the “without ID” percentages may have been bumped up in the 2002 cohort if the same ratio of PDD-NOS kids were not excluded.

[Click image to open in new window]

impact of pddnos

The Bottom Line

The CDC ADDM network reports raise far more questions than they answer and the changes over time make it difficult to answer even the most basic questions about what is going on with autism in the United States.  The changes in the information reported, the states included and the way results are presented to the press should all raise red flags.   If the information is accurate, then there are many opportunities for follow-up research on environmental factors that have been overlooked or ignored.

Overall, there are patterns that suggest CDC is doing its best to maintain that rates are still going up rapidly but can be explained by the inclusion of children with less intellectual disability while at the same time, arguing that vaccines (thimerosal in particular) did not play a role in this change.  The real picture has a lot more shades of gray.  It will be important to see what is happening with the 4 year olds when that data is published and to watch what is reported in 2016 based on the 2004 birth cohort, keeping in mind that the CDC already had that data in 2013, before releasing the current report.

For those interested:  All CDC ADDM reports and community reports are available here:

http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/addm.html

http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/addm-articles.html

Addendum on CDC Autism Spending:

The Centers for Disease Control show no urgency in adding more funding for autism despite their over 11 billion dollar total budget.  I have gone through the CDC budgets as far back as they are available on their website: http://www.cdc.gov/fmo/topic/budget%20Information/index.html

A line item for autism was first created in the CDC budget in 2007.  This chart shows the total autism spending to maintain the ADDM network, some additional research and the Learn the Signs program.  Note that these expenditures are part of the annual appropriations provided to the CDC and are not appropriated under the CAA.  Note that these numbers vary slightly from the CDC’s report to IACC which reports the following:  FY 2010 – $24,710,050, FY 2011 – $23,942,225 and FY 2012 – $23,348,012.  The

IACC numbers show the amount spent on autism slowly declining.  The budget reports show funding basically flat for the most recent 4 years.

[Click image to open in new window]

cdcspending

Even given the 1 in 68 prevalence just reported, there is no urgency around finding out what is happening in the other 38 states.  See page 370 for the CDC’s current plan to maintain only 12 ADDM sites for fiscal 2015

See page 9 for the flat 2015 budget request for autism.

Considering the Costs:

  • The costs associated with a child with autism average $17,000 per year in excess of a typical child.  That increases to $21,000 excess for a child with severe autism. Overall, the estimated societal cost of caring for children with autism was over $9 billion dollars in 2011.  (Lavalle et al. Pediatrics, 2014)
  • The lifetime cost of care for an individual on the spectrum is 3.2 million dollars. Ganz, 2007.
  • In 2005, the average annual medical costs of a Medicaid -enrolled child with autism were $10,709 – about 6 times higher than a child without autism.  Peacock, et al.  J. of Developmental Behavioral Pediatrics, 2012.
  • In addition to medical costs, behavioral intervention for a child with autism can cost $40,000-$60,000 per year.  Amendah, et al., Autism Spectrum Disorders, Oxford University Press 2011.

To put this whole thing in perspective, the cost of monitoring the other 36 states that have never been monitored should be about quadruple the current CDC budget or $92 million dollars.  That would cost about $76 per individual under 21.  However, if you use the Ganz number multiplied by 1.2 million children (not counting adults) then the overall lifetime cost to society of those children is $3,840,000,000,000 – 3.84 trillion dollars.  It seems like a small price to pay to get a handle on the problem

Congressman “CDC Should Be Investigated” – US Centers for Disease Control Vaccine Safety Corruption Compared to Bernie Madoff

Congressman Bill Posey Has Strong Words for Government Agency. Concludes: “I think the CDC Should Be Investigated.”

U.S. Congressman Compares Corruption in CDC’s Vaccine Safety Studies to SEC’s Handling of Bernie Madoff Scandal

Ever Continuing Worldwide Vaccine Failures – Australia Joins UK & USA In the Whooping Cough Vaccine Fail Club [Again]

Just a “quickie”.  Whooping cough [pertussis] vaccine is not working in Australia according to this report published in The Sidney Morning Herald:  Whooping cough vaccine loses its effectiveness April 14, 2014 Lucy Carroll Health Reporter.

And read on if you want examples to show incompetent journalists they are just plain dumb to fall for the false explanation that the parents of unvaccinated children are to blame for the circulation of  childhood diseases. Here you can find links to mainstream sources revealing how the vaccinated are catching and passing on these ages old basic childhood diseases.

And if you want someone to blame, that is the easy bit.  The reason we do not have effective treatments for these diseases are firstly those incompetent health and science journalists or editors who have not made sure they embarrassed the hell out of government health officials [but suck up to them instead].  Then we have the medical professions.  The egos of some of them are huge [but not big enough to see through the haze of pseudo-scientific junk science they have surrounded themselves with about vaccines].  They shelved development of effective treatments in favour of vaccines, swallowing all the mumbo-jumbo pseudo-science.  And next to them we have government health officials to blame. 

That is the “who is to blame”. And what is the “what” that is to blame?  Easy.  Its vaccines, but more and over all that it is the classic example of the wonders of “science” being screwed up by the wonders of scientists, as seen so many times with things like nuclear power, pesticides and all manner of harmful applications of “science” by “scientists”.

So to Australia’s ineffective whooping cough vaccine we can add:

1) the UK.  And the USA [where in California over 80% of cases were in the fully vaccinated]:

Whooping Cough Vaccine – Doesn’t Work – GSK Says “We Never Bothered to Check”

2) CHS’ previous 2012 report of the record-breaking 5 year whooping cough epidemic in Australia:

Major Whooping Cough Epidemics – Vaccine Not Working

3) the US FDA’s own research findings that the whooping cough vaccine does not stop the disease spreading, with no effective herd immunity. [Although that does not stop the vaccine lobby and incompetent journalists blaming the transmission of naturally occurring diseases on the parents of unvaccinated children - when that is clearly wrong]:

Whooping Cough Vaccine Does Not Work – Says US FDA’s Research

And

4) we might as well throw in measles with the failing MMR vaccine in the USA which is also the same one used for years in the UK since 1994: Merck’s MMR II.  And again this shows that measles can be caught and transmitted by fully vaccinated individuals to other fully vaccinated individuals – these are not the unvaccinated but the fully vaccinated, showing it is clearly wrong to blame naturally occurring diseases on the parents of unvaccinated children – when that is clearly wrong:

US MMR Measles Vaccine Failing – Vaccinated New Yorker Causes Measles Outbreak In Other Vaccinated New Yorkers – Not Caused By Unvaccinated Children

5) and we also add the failing mumps vaccine in Holland [Netherland], where of course as vaccinated individuals catch mumps and pass it on to other vaccinated individuals, you should now be realising that it is fairly dumb to blame naturally occurring diseases on the parents of unvaccinated children – when that is clearly wrong:

Epidemic of Mumps among Vaccinated Persons, the Netherlands, 2009–2012

6) and the mumps failure was also already happening back in 2005/6 in the UK:

Government Risks Male Sterility As Mumps Vaccine Fails

7) and then there is the smallpox vaccine which never worked anyway [unless killing the recipient counts, as it was pretty good at that]:

Smallpox Eradication – One of History’s Biggest Lies & How Vaccination Did Not Eradicate Smallpox

Small Pox – Big Lie – Bioterrorism Implications of Flawed Theories of Eradication

8) and then there is the polio eradication which cost India US$8 billion and in just one year 47,500 cases of what was probably called polio back in the 1940s and 1950s, namely what is now called non polio acute flaccid paralysis [NPAFP].   NPAFP is twice as deadly as polio and bizarrely clinically indistinguishable  from polio and occurred in India in proportion to the number of polio vaccines given.  Again, deadly NPAFP disease cannot be blamed on the parents of unvaccinated children – this shows that is clearly wrong – the polio vaccine clearly seems to be the culprit:

New Paper – Polio Vaccine – Disease Caused by Vaccine Twice As Fatal – Third World Duped – Scarce Money Wasted – Polio Eradication Impossible

BBC World News – Bill Gates’ & WHO’s Polio Eradication Plans Under Fire Today – Polio Cannot Be Eradicated & “US$ 8 Billion Spent On This Only Well Spent If We Learn Never To Do This Again”

Bill Gates Polio Eradication Plans – To Cause The Polio Equivalent of 235 Years of Cases Of A Twice As Deadly Disease

Bill Gates – Buying Immortality In History – By Beating An Already Beaten Disease & Killing Kids

9) and of course the flu vaccine in the USA does not work, so again pointless blaming parents of unvaccinated children for the flu:

New York Times – Flu Vaccine Does Not Work – Yet More Research Says

 Piers Morgan Very Sick Days After USA TV Flu Shot Stunt Backfires – Piers Told “Don’t Ever Take A Flu Shot Again”

Can You Trust Known-to-be Corrupt Governments When They Also Push Useless Flu Vaccines – US Talk Radio Dr Michael Savage On The Savage Nation January 11, 2013

10) and flu vaccine in Australia, where it is again pointless blaming parents of unvaccinated children for the flu:

Australia Bans Flu Vaccine – Child In Coma – Many Hospitalised

“Don’t give children flu jab” says chief medical officer

Australian Government Dumps On Sick Kids Injured by ‘Flu Vaccine

11) and flu vaccine in the UK, where it is again pointless blaming parents of unvaccinated children for the flu:

Now UK Recalls Another Novartis Flu Vaccine – Agrippal – Recall Follows EU and Canadian Bans of Agriflu and Fluad Flu Vaccines

New Flu Risk From Vaccine – “a very effective way to spread flu” – New Nasal Spray Vaccine

Most UK Medics Refusing Flu Vaccines – UK’s New Chief Medical Officer Resorts To Bullying

12) and flu vaccine in the EU, where it is again pointless blaming parents of unvaccinated children for the flu:

EU Flu Vaccine Bans Still Unreported – Medics Sick After Vaccine Refuse More

EU Takes Emergency Measures Over Glaxo’s ‘Flu Vaccine – Causes Narcolepsy in Children

Children Get Narcolepsy From Flu Vaccine – Confirmed in British Medical Journal

13) and flu vaccine in Canada, where it is again pointless blaming parents of unvaccinated children for the flu:

EU And Canada Flu Vaccine Ban – Not Reported By Press

14) and flu vaccine worldwide from assessment of clinical trials, where it is again pointless blaming parents of unvaccinated children for the flu:

New Study – Flu Vaccine Doesn’t Work

15) and how dangerous these flu vaccines can be – now you cannot blame parents of unvaccinated children for THAT!:

Flu Vaccine Caused 3587 US Miscarriages & Stillbirths

Flu Vaccine Cripples Healthy US Cheerleader for Life

EU Takes Emergency Measures Over Glaxo’s ‘Flu Vaccine – Causes Narcolepsy in Children

US Drug Company Released Deadly Virus In EU In Vaccine

Children Risk Untested Flu Vaccines In Hyped Pandemic

Australian Government Dumps On Sick Kids Injured by ‘Flu Vaccine

How to Fool a Health and Science Journalist About Health Fraud? Give the Story to Tom Chivers of UK’s The Telegraph newspaper

Hey, wanna good laugh?  Its always the oldest and best known and loved tricks which work on the greenest of newbies. 

Q) How to keep a moron occupied?  A) Give him a sheet of paper with “please turn over” written on both sides.

Q) Hey Tom, d’ya know how to keep a moron in suspense for seven days?  A) We’ll tell ya next week. 

Q) How to get a journalist to write a crap story?  A) Give it to Tom Chivers headed “BMJ” or “Department of Health”.

Maybe its time bloggers took down a peg or two some of the mainstream journalists who take themselves “oh-so-seriously” as important opinion formers in the mainstream media but churn out a daily diet of junk stories about health and science, in the delusion they are behaving with the due care of a professional.

In his piece on Friday in the Telegraph’s print edition entitled “Why weren’t we told Tamiflu didn’t work” Tom wrote one of the sucky type of pieces many of the health and science journalists are writing about right now: how dreadful it is that the UK Government spent US$600 billion stockpiling the near useless snake-oil flu treatment, Tamiflu, supplied by drug giant Roche’s roaches to lighten the wallets of British tax-payers. We emphasise many because it is not just Tom. 

Tom goes on in his piece about how everyone was fooled.  Strangely for an opinion piece he nowhere mentions it looks like yet another massive drug industry fraud, with Roche holding back 20 or so scientific studies showing Tamiflu is a crap drug which is worthless.  Why so shy Tom?  This was a drug which was supposed to save millions from dying horrible deaths in a swine flu pandemic which only later turned out to be a fake, hyped by Professor David Salisbury’s World Health Organisation Committee and started by one of his subcommittee members alleged to have also been solely responsible for starting and financially benefiting from the previous SARS and Bird Flu scams. 

Tom also has not questioned why Inspector Plodder of New Scotland Yard has not been called in to investigate this as a potential fraud. Maybe that has something to do with Government and establishment figures in the medical professions not wanting to upset the freebies and other benefits streaming out of drug companies like Roche and GSK.  [And it was UK£600 million not billion - and if you had not noticed our deliberate error, then look at how easy it is for journalists like Tom to fool you by not checking his facts and getting it wrong.  £600m is roughly US$840m.]

Actually, Tom really believes that what Roche’s roaches did is legal quoting totally uncritically his journalistic colleague Dr Ben Goldacre: “Roche broke no law by withholding vital information on how well its drug works“.  Yeah, well Ben, they don’t break the law breathing either, but its the laws they did break we are interested in, thanks all the same, like potential fraud worth US$840m. A drug was sold on the basis it worked but it was not as safe as it should have been and did not work as it should have and Roche had the data showing that when they were selling the drug and withheld it when people wanted to check and whilst the UK Government was still buying the drug.

Tom, what are you?  Because “journalist” does not come close, does it? Be honest with yourself, it just does not cut it.

The reason Roche got away with this fraudulent behaviour is because one too many “professional” “health” and “science” “journalists” like Tom let them [and a company Tom also wrote about withholding trial data for its flu drug Relenza, is GSK].  These journalists don’t do the job their readers need them to.  Too many journalists lap up the spilt cream dropped for them by the media relations staff of health departments, medical associations, journals and drug companies without looking too carefully, maybe just in case no one in future spills a bit of cream for them, if they did look carefully.

In short, people like Tom let down the people, their readers who buy newpapers, papers filled daily with misleading scribblings and rants.  People like Tom look like they don’t – look that is.  Its not convenient if they and their editors just want to fill the column inches with seeming reliable news, and won’t care too much because tomorrow its wrapping your fish and chip supper and they need to pay their mortgages.

Now what we want to focus on today, is what Tom opened up with in his piece on Friday, because it seems to us over here at CHS that if he were really a professional and if he were really a journalist and not play-acting, he might have looked and then should have known the truth instead of regurgitating crap.  And in this case it looks like that includes crap the BBC also regurgitated on their website without checking.  Children who might have aspired to important jobs, like being an engine-driver, may end up instead in the dumbed-down dead-end journalism is rapidly becoming.

Tom wrote:

Flu is actually a pretty nasty disease.  People say they’ve got ‘the flu’ when they’ve only got a cold, but a genuine bout of influenza knocks you off your feet for several days and is a major killer of the elderly: an outbreak in 2011 killed about 600 people.”

This is crap.  But Tom does not realise it is crap because he has not checked his facts.  And were he a professional journalist, he would have known from plenty of information published over many years that would have ensured he had the information easily to hand to make sure he did not write crap every time a flu story comes up.  Some people get flu and some never do.  Some who get it are asymptomatic and some have symptoms.  But that is not the main reason why it is crap.

Tom should also have known to be more careful and that the UK Department of Health and Health Protection Agency for years were hyping the flu stats, just like the US Centers for Disease Control [CDC] does.  In short if Tom were professional he would have known The UK Department of Health lied about flu deaths.  Why should he have known?  Because they were caught.  But they were not just caught lying but were caught telling a very very big one.  Huge.  CHS covered it here: UK Fakes Flu Death Numbers  So if CHS knew, then Tom should have and he should have been very sceptical of any Government figures, even sensible-looking figures.

The UK Department of Health claimed 12,000 annual flu deaths when the average was 33.  If a Boeing or Airbus passenger plane fell out of the sky killing 300, the way the figures were worked out, those would be counted as flu deaths.  For comparison, the US CDC claimed 36,000 flu deaths annually. 

It was in fact enormous enough to be a major British news story but Tom did not cover it and neither did most if not all of the other “health” and “science” writers who describe themselves as “professional” and “journalists“.  And if Tom had covered it, then he might not have written the crap we quote above and we might not have been able to describe what he writes as crap [but don't hold your breath as Tom never was a journalist we have ever rated and just have not paid enough attention to the quality of his other scribbles. That is something which may need attention in future].

As recently as 2012 even the UK’s Press Association were as competent as Tom writing “Around 4,700 people die every year in England after getting flu, a Department of Health spokeswoman said.: British Press Association Publishes Known-To-Be-False UK Government Flu Death Figures – In A Story To Promote Known-To-Be-Ineffective ‘Flu Vaccines To UK Elderly.

Oh, but Tom only wrote there were 600 deaths and not 12,000 or even 4,700. So what is wrong with that?  Plenty.  As you will see above the average in previous years was 33 flu deaths.  And with around 600,000 to 700,000 deaths from everything every year, 33 deaths is small beer and nothing to get worked up about [unless you are a close relative of the deceased, which is also a very small number in the big scheme of life].

But is it worse, because had Tom checked up he should have made clear that the vast majority of people are not at risk, but he wrote “Flu is actually a pretty nasty disease. People say they’ve got ‘the flu’ when they’ve only got a cold, but .. genuine … influenza ….. is a major killer ….. in 2011 killed about 600 people.”  Tom wrote as if anyone getting a bout of flu could die and that is totally false and misleading, but he did not qualify it. 

That is Tom’s crap.  But the consumate professional he is. Tom did not stop with just that crap.  There is more.

Tom failed to mention, to put the risk into perspective, that around 600,000 to 700,000 people die every year in the UK and many more from fires, road accidents, other chronic conditions than from flu. In short, Tom failed to make clear the problem for ordinary healthy people is so miniscule as to be practically an irrelevance compared to all the other risks people face every day.

And the 6oo deaths Tom Chivers claimed in winter 2010/2011 were not of deaths caused by flu.  They were deaths with laboratory confirmed influenza, which is claimed as contributing to the death, but not as being the cause.  Moreover, as that shows, the highest mortality in this 600 deaths was not in healthy people at all.  It was in patients with underlying chronic conditions, namely immunosuppression followed by patients with underlying liver disease and patients with neurological disease: Surveillance of influenza and other respiratory viruses in the UK 2010-2011 report HPA. 

In short, most deaths were in people who could have died from anything at any time, and it was not claimed that it was the flu that killed them.

So its not just one bit of crap from Tom.  Nope, Tom has served up a real triple chocolate triple decker crap cookie sandwich and all in one short supposedly newsy science and health comment piece.  The Telegraph used to be such a good paper too.

In our view Tom’s piece on Friday makes him look like one of the new school journalists, who is delighted to be given “opinion-former” stories on a plate, to make him look important and informed so he can churn them out with abandon and with the minimum of thought and care, to fill his daily quota of column inches.  And judging from his photo, he looks like he has recently left school, and to us writes as if that was before he should have sat his GCSE exams [but make your own mind up - that is author bias just us employing dramatic licence].

And sniffy Broadsheet journalists are happy to let their journalism colleagues at the Daily Mail be denigrated, when they are just as guilty and all the Daily Mail do is report on a peer reviewed journal news release on the latest published journal study which one week claims green berry juice cures flatulence, another week boredom and another that is does nothing.  They all do it to one degree or another, but the Daily Mail outsells them by a million copies or three daily, which is not a sniffy matter.

Tom writing in the UK’s Telegraph newspaper in his own words claims to write mainly on science.  “Claims” you should focus on but worth noting as well is what Tom thinks the word “mainly” means and also what Tom seems to think qualifies as “science“.  Tom’s judgement needs to be questioned, as does also his fact-checking and professionalism.  [Tom's pieces are also inset with an "I'm an oh-so-important-journalist" photo, that cracks us up here.]

Poor old Tom is not just a journalist.  Tom is an Editor!!  Thankfully not “The” editor, [not yet at least, but the way mainstream journalism is going, you won't have to hold your breath too long for that].  Fortunately many reliable sites are now on the web for you to read and are making up for the shortcomings of some who make up the not-so-professional mainstream media].  Actually Tom is “Comment Editor“, which is in the second division of online – a bit like being a Second Assistant Tea Stirrer’s Mate, so let’s not worry you too much.

Interestingly, someone else has Tom down as #50 in the 100 worst people on twitter and someone else wrote [our emphasis] “I’ve re-read an old column by Tom Chivers, the Telegraph’s assistant comment editor (a job title I would not have thought existed)“.

If we look like we are being a bit hard on Tom, be wise to this: it is not simply a mistake by a conscientious professional journalist but a failure of a journalist in doing the basics and getting basic facts right.  And just remember this: if it were you, he and his media mates would rip you apart in print unforgivingly like the press do to people daily.

Tom Chivers misled all his readers. Grow up Tom and be a professional or get a job driving a van.

US MMR Measles Vaccine Failing – Vaccinated New Yorker Causes Measles Outbreak In Other Vaccinated New Yorkers – Not Caused By Unvaccinated Children

Well, its not like we didn’t tell you.  And regular CHS readers know to expect it.  But this time – its different. And we are going to tell you why.

U.S. Navy photo by Photographer’s Mate 2nd Class Felix Garza Jr. (RELEASED). This Image was released by the United States Navy with the ID 030106-N-4142G-003

If you really want to drive the vaccine movement up the wall, show them a study showing a vaccine does not work.  If there’s one thing the vaccine movement hate having pointed out to them, it’s when their hallowed worshipped omnipotent symbol of “all-that-is-and-ever-will-be good about medicine, bless its name” the vaccine filled syringe and needle, just plain “ain’t up to the job” and “don’t work“.

And we have got one to show you.  What is different this time is the mainstream are having to admit it is true, vaccines are failing, but trying to excuse it and still blame people who are unvaccinated – it is truly bizarre.

The American Association for the Advancement of Science has a publication called “Science” which publishes online “Science News“.  Science News ran this story: Measles Outbreak Traced to Fully Vaccinated Patient for First Time 11 April 2014, reporting a recent study published in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases ["Outbreak of Measles Among Persons With Prior Evidence of Immunity, New York City, 2011"] writing:

Measles vaccination rates top 90% in high-density cities like New York, but new data suggest even the immunized can catch and spread the disease.  A person fully vaccinated against measles has contracted the disease and passed it on to others. The startling case study contradicts received wisdom about the vaccine and …. could mean more illnesses even among the vaccinated.  ….. she transmitted the measles to four other people, ….. two of the secondary patients had been fully vaccinated. And … the other two ….. both showed signs of previous measles exposure that should have conferred immunity.

Although public health officials have assumed that measles immunity lasts forever, the case … highlights the reality that “the actual duration [of immunity] following infection or vaccination is unclear,” says Jennifer Rosen, …. at the New York City Bureau of Immunization. ….. she says that more regular surveillance to assess the strength of people’s measles immunity is warranted.

If it turns out that vaccinated people lose their immunity as they get older, that could leave them vulnerable to measles outbreaks seeded by unvaccinated people …. Robert Jacobson, director of clinical studies for the Mayo Clinic’s Vaccine Research Group in Rochester, Minnesota, ….. says, “The most important ‘vaccine failure’ with measles happens when people refuse the vaccine in the first place.”

So let’s get this clear, the first mass public measles vaccine programme was rolled out in the USA with the exciting announcement that in 1967, yes just the one yearMeasles was to be eradicated” [and in fact less as the announcement was in March 1967].

Wow!! How amazing.

All doctors in the USA were told in 1967 that measles was to be eradicated in just that year alone with the measles vaccine.  This was in a formally published statement “EPIDEMIOLOGIC BASIS FOR ERADICATION OF MEASLES IN 1967 A Statement By the Public Health Service” by David J. Sencer, M.D., H. Bruce Dull, M.D., Alexander D. Langmuir, M.D. PHR Vol. 82, No. 3, March 1967 253.#

This was going to lead to a “one-shot one kill” measles eradication for life for every man, woman and child in the world.

It failed.

They kept on with different vaccines during the 1970s.

They failed, and failed again.

In 1984 they tried again, rolling out vaccination drives in the USA but this time with the MMR vaccine and this was followed in many other countries in the mid-late 1980s.

This failed.  One shot was not enough.

They tried two shots. So all children got a second MMR shot.

And now this paper shows that is failing as a well, with the prospect of telling adults they need regular boosters.  But if that happens with the MMR vaccine, then it is going to happen with all other vaccines eventually as it must.  Pregnant women are already being given whooping cough vaccine.  Everyone is being pressed to have an annual flu vaccine. It will happen for chicken-pox vaccine and many more.

That is a 51 year history of failure.  But it is still the unvaccinated who are to blame according to these fanatics.  These people are like small children losing a game who accuse the winner of cheating, throwing all their toys out of the baby buggy.  But the winners are not winners but American children the CDC harms daily. 

American children and children worldwide have developed autistic conditions in their millions with the amazing figure of around 1 family in every 25 in the USA with an affected child thanks to the CDC Director and employees.  That is vastly higher than pretty much anything else put together including the diseases the vaccines are alleged to protect against.  Of course they claim that vaccines don’t cause autism. “Its a mystery” they say but bizarrely the one thing they are sure of “its not vaccines“, even when it has been confirmed in the past that vaccines can and by leading health officials and agencies through gritted teeth when publicly embarrassed by media attention: Vaccination Causes Autism – Say US Government & Merck’s Director of Vaccines.

So when the rare paper comes along which tells some of the truth like the one we report here, notice needs to be taken.

CHS readers know its not news that there are frequent outbreaks of measles, mumps, whooping cough and other routine childhood diseases in highly vaccinated populations all the time.

Last year in the UK health authorities distracted the world blaming the unvaccinated in South Wales for measles outbreaks.  What they were really doing was hiding the figures showing large outbreaks in the 90%+ and 95%+ highly vaccinated in the North of England.  The BBC, which was tamed by Tony Blair’s proven dishonest Iraq War Government, and which saw its Director-General Greg Dyke kicked out for doing his job showing up Blair’s Government, has truly turned into the British Establishment’s “Pravda”.  It did a great job as the lap dog of the Department of Health fobbing off the North of England outbreaks in the highly MMR vaccinated population.  Breathtakingly intellectually dishonestly the BBC dismissed the problem in two words: “bad luck“.  But wasted no time but many words and plenty of broadcast resources with repeated reports over months blaming the outbreaks hundreds of miles away in South Wales on a small minority of unvaccinated individuals with the “don’t look here, look there” news reporting style of the propagandist genre of agenda journalism.

And it is not children doing this but adults.  So its time to tell the CDC, its Director and all its pointless employees who waste your tax dollars: “Grow Up” and stop harming and killing American kids with your failed pseudo-science mumbo-jumbo. And it is time to demand of your politicians to ensure some jail time for the employees.  Are they any better than the Taliban?  One thing you can be certain of, it will only ever be the minions who go down and not the big players – they will be protected, but at least someone will go to jail.

And these people should be publicly scorned and disgraced so they can never hold their heads up or walk among you with pride or honour.

So when is the US Centers for Disease Control going to do the decent thing and develop a proper treatment for measles and end its insane love-affair with the failing vaccine policy?  Millions of third world children die every year from measles despite the vaccines and because they are malnourished and do not have decent sanitation and clean water to drink.  Those are lives that could be saved if an effective treatment for measles existed.

Unfortunately, the CDC will never do this.

To put it bluntly, one too many a health official including one too many in the US CDC need to pay their mortgages.  They need to make everyone see disease around every corner, and then make believe they are controlling and fixing the problem.  The CDC was officially castigated by the US Senate in an official report CDC Off Centeras an agency which “cannot demonstrate it is controlling disease“  but which was managing to spend US$11 billion in tax dollars every year not doing what even its name says it is supposed to – Center for Disease Control.  That made no difference.  The CDC is unrepentant and unchanged and above all, never, ever, wrong. Its more of the same.  Many more vaccines for many more people many more times.

And if you never cross the road you never risk being run down crossing the road.  The more times you do it the more chances there are for you to get run down.  And every time you get a vaccine you have a risk of an adverse reaction, so that the alleged rare reactions [which are much more common but not reported, acknowledged and mostly denied thanks to the CDC Director and employees] will become even more common and probably just as much if not more unacknowledged or more likely denied.

Sure, there are a few in the vaccine movement who openly admit sometimes, but “only-very-rarely-you-understand” a vaccine here and there won’t work and are even proud of seeming to be honest about it. But this time it is not just a “little bit” even though most of them hate to be shown to be even a tiny bit wrong.  Their egos won’t allow it.  Its why they run with the pack, seeing and seeking safety in numbers as if their motto was “sure flies eat crap but 10 billion of them can’t be that wrong“.

They often claim society frowns upon parents who do not vaccinate, saying it is as well it does and, ignoring all concerns about real vaccine hazards, go on to accuse them mantra-like of being dreaded “antivaccinationists“, responsible for outbreaks of the potentially omnipresent “vaccine-preventable disease” when they are just parents worried for their kids, [which is understandable with all the lies they get told about vaccines by people they ought to be able to trust but can't]. 

Some devotees of the UK’s Dr Ben Goldacre, who congregate on his BadScience Forum set up for that purpose, go on to attack, harass and abuse anyone across the web who might point out anything critical of any aspect of vaccines as being weak-minded.  Some go to enormous lengths, even setting up and running anonymous and quasi-anonymous attack blogs across the internet dedicated to the purpose.

Many vaccine activists have really convinced themselves all vaccines are safe and effective and “one-size-fits-all” is a safe vaccine policy. They’re wrong, of course, but that doesn’t make them any less true believers.

Of course, it’s not easy to put the lie to the claims.  For one thing it is difficult to prove a vaccine caused injury and these fanatics know that.  And any figures are heavily underplayed and never adjusted for under-reporting, making those nice tables comparing diseases to vaccine reactions useless.  It is necessary to multiply the figures given out by at least 50 times for any adverse drug reactions as a rule of thumb as adverse reactions to all drugs are ignored 98 times out of a hundred: Spontaneous adverse drug reaction reporting vs event monitoring: a comparison: Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine Volume 84 June 1991 341.

Some in the vaccine movement really believe they are doing good as they do evil. Part of the reason that they believe that they’re doing good is because they manage to convince themselves that they are not actually causing harm but rather promoting the “greater good”, whilst keeping quiet about the extent of “collateral damage” with the “benefits outweigh the risks” gambit.  That avoids openly stating it and instead obliquely means the very seriously injured children of the unlucky parents who did believe, vaccinated and paid the price with their children’s lives and health.  So they aren’t the “antivaccinationists” they are accused of being at all.  They believed too, vaccinated and paid the price, a terrible, heavy and most dreadful price watching their child pay for their mistake in believing that what they are told is medical science is science when too much of it is either just plain woo or hype to sell drug products or to bill them for another physician appointment.

And then there is also hardly a medical school, academic, student,  or professional whose medical education or livelihood is not in some way paid for by the seeming generosity and largesse of those nice clean-cut drug company professionals.  And then there are all those government officials who are helped daily with assistance from the same kinds of folk.  And when having your journal paper published, or issuing some official government communique, do you saw off the branch you are sitting on by criticising or outright attacking the hands that feed?  Nope. 

The only people who can do that are powerful journals of the medical professions, like the British Medical Association’s journal which through advertising controls the drug industry’s access to their million or so worldwide subscribers and readers.  Occasionally but only just occasionally the BMJ will “kick-butt”.  That however is only when some drug industry scam or other has embarrassed them and their members and shown one too many of them to be incompetent and unprofessional in failing in their duties to their patients.  And this  because they lapped up the drug industry hype and neither questioned nor noticed the snake-oil treatments they freely prescribed, promoted or advertised are in fact useless or dangerous, like the totally useless Tamiflu, or outright killers like Vioxx.  They have no choice but to “kick-butt” against a steady loss of public confidence in mainstream medical professionals, with many patients turning away to alternatives instead.  Their appearing to “butt-kick” gives them the fig-leaf of claiming “see, we are not in bed with the drug industry” and pretending to look like they are 100% on the patient’s side, when not. 

It is only this plain when it is explained and pointed out what is going on.  One too many of these people cannot be trusted, and their emblem of entwined snakes is in this context fitting, from the Rod of Asclepius and the winged version: caduceus.

Snake Oil Salesmen

Cadeuceus. This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons. 26 March 2006 Source Drawing by Rama. Vectorized with Inkscape by Eliot Lash.

And then there are the cranks, quacks, and pseudoscientists that CHS has encountered over the years.  Of them there are a few who belong in the “elite” ranks of the crankosphere. They stick out through their sheer crankitude across a spectrum, sheer persistence obsessing on one subject, or for promoting quackery as science on vaccine movement crank blogs.

One of these elite few, however, does something that’s very useful to medical quacks everywhere, distorting scientific studies to make it seem as though theirs is a superior quasi-scientific intellect whilst promoting junk as if scientific in memes, as exposed here, overrunning Facebook and Twitter with seeming convincing pseudo-science.

In fact, his is one of a specific group of buddies-in-woo forming a small clique who run an entire website whose sole purpose has come to look to us much like it is to spin studies.  Theirs is the “one true faith” and all else is mumbo-jumbo heresy against their omnipotent all-knowing oracles, spinning pseudoscience and quackery as science and then, of course, spinning scientific studies that do not agree with them as pseudoscience and quackery.

If the crankosphere can have a crème de la crème, an elite of the bottom-feeders of the pseudo-scientific blogosphere, it has to be the world’s true favourite crankist blogs of Dr David Gorski at Science Blogs dot com, along with his writings under the Orac pen name with the Respectful Insolence blog (whose best attempt at a witty “literary” quote and by-line is “A statement of fact cannot be insolent” from the world’s all-time most truly excruciating and badly written and produced “sci-fi nerds dream” 1970s British TV show “Blake’s 7“).

Well, we cannot wait, like the anticipation of a first Christmas, for wee Davy Gorski to blog about a very new just-published study.

But small mercies – what entertainment will Gorski spin up for us all over this new paper?  It will be crap but it will be elite crap.  It will be the crap of all crap.  Roll it out Davy, we’re all waiting.

“Vaccines Saved Us” – Intellectual Dishonesty At Its Most Naked

If there’s one thing about the drug industry backed vaccine movement CHS has learned over the last several years, it’s that it’s almost completely immune to evidence, science, and reason.

No matter how much evidence is arrayed against it, there are those among its spokespeople who always find a way to spin, distort, or misrepresent the evidence to combat it and not have to give up the concept that vaccines don’t cause autism. “Its a mystery” but bizarrely the one thing they are are sure of “its not vaccines“, even when this has been confirmed in the past by leading health officials and agencies through gritted teeth when publicly embarrassed by media attention: Vaccination Causes Autism – Say US Government & Merck’s Director of Vaccines.

Not that this is any news to readers of this blog, but it bears repeating often. It also bears repeating and emphasizing examples of just the sort of disingenuous and even outright deceptive techniques used by promoters of vaccine pseudoscience to sow fear and doubt among parents. These arguments may seem persuasive to those who have little knowledge about science or epidemiology. Sometimes they even seemed somewhat persuasive to us; that is, at least until we actually took the time to look into them.

One example of such a myth is the claim that “vaccines save millions of lives” also sometimes going under the claim that “vaccines are safe and effective.”  Now this is something health officials and health departments started, with their shroud-waving tactics threatening parents their children would die without vaccines.  But what has happened instead is children develop autistic conditions in their millions with the amazing figure of around 1 family in every 25 in the USA with an affected child.  That is vastly higher than pretty much anything else put together including the diseases the vaccines are alleged to protect against.

These people ignore completely and disparage evidence like that on sites which have large sets of graphs showing that the death rates of several vaccine-preventable diseases, including whooping cough, diptheria, measles, and polio were falling before the vaccines for each disease were introduced. Pretending to be scientific the vaccine movement disparage and criticise articles having quotes like the one from Andrew Weil in his book Health and Healing:

Scientific medicine has taken credit it does not deserve for some advances in health. Most people believe that victory over the infectious diseases of the last century came with the invention of immunisations. In fact, cholera, typhoid, tetanus, diphtheria and whooping cough, etc, were in decline before vaccines for them became available – the result of better methods of sanitation, sewage disposal, and distribution of food and water.

A well-known US stand-up comedian, television host, political commentator, satirist, author, and actor, Bill Maher has said similar things about vaccines.  The vaccine movement complain that “vaccines didn’t save us” is a gambit and has become a staple of vaccine safety websites. They complain vehemently when for example, people they describe as “ignorant bloggers” write:

The mythology surrounding vaccines is still pervasive, the majority of the population still believes, in faith like fashion, that vaccines are the first line of defense against disease. The true story is that nutrition and psychological/emotional health are the first line of defense against disease.

Vaccines are a concoction of chemical adjuvants and preservatives coupled with virus fragments and have clearly been implicated in the astounding rise in neurological disorders around the world, yet the ‘popular’ media has embedded itself as a spokesperson for the pharmaceutical cartel and simply does not report in any responsible way the real situation.

Gorski and the vaccine movement call it the “toxins” gambit.  At risk of exposure for absolute intellectual dishonesty, they are forced to concede that of course, it is true that better sanitation is a good thing.  They concede it has decreased the rate of transmission of some diseases.  Sanitation can do this, with many infectious diseases being transmitted person-to-person through the air from aerosolized drops of saliva from coughs and sneezes or from being deposited on objects that people touch frequently, like doorknobs and suchlike.

They claim “vaccines didn’t save us” is a mere strategy and a distortion. They allege the best way to demonstrate this is to go on to the very first website that currently shows up on a Google search for “vaccines didn’t save us.” And guess what?  You will end up here on CHS.

And who is the main crank spreading the claim it is a lie?  None other than the internet’s crankiest of medical crank doctor bloggers, Dr David Gorski over at Science Blogs dot com and as ORAC on his “Respectful Insolence” blog.  He originally directed his comments to another site’s page entitled Proof That Vaccines Didn’t Save Us, claiming it’s “one of the most breathtakingly spectacularly intellectually dishonest bits of anti-vaccine propaganda” that he’s ever seen. 

Well of course for Dr David Gorski, he almost always seems to say that or something like it.  No matter what he previously commented on, the one he comments on next is the “most“, its “breathtakingly“, or “spectacularly” intellectually dishonest, pretty much no matter what he writes about. 

The formula Gorski uses in his inane prattling is lapped up by his devoted followers, who like small dogs around his ankles jump up and down yapping for attention in subservient comments on his posts.

We say this not because Gorski uses a common distortion, but rather because he ups the ante every time with his primeval urges to make generous use of hyperbole, adding them with abandon to his disparaging writings.

Gorski’s distortions are hidden in plain sight, too, which is why he should have props for sheer chutzpah.

Actually, we have to give Gorski some backhanded kudos for how he always manages to devise some disparagement to represent the classic vaccine movement lies.  This he combines with some very clever cherry picking. We won’t take them all on in this post. Maybe we’ll take some of them on in a future post. In the meantime, what we will do is to take on some main ones because they represent a common vaccine movement theme against sites with graphs very similar to the one found in posts like this.

In fact, let’s look at Gorski’s attack on the late Ian Sinclair’s website.  He tells you to notice that there are six graphs, four of which are for vaccine-preventable diseases for which widespread vaccination was undertaken, two for which it was not. He will then say all of them show decreasing death rates from various diseases. And he will exclaim “Wow! It seems like slam dunk evidence, doesn’t it? Vaccines didn’t save us! After all, death rates were declining years before the vaccine, and they were declining for the diseases that didn’t even need a vaccine!

So having taken the main proposition which any sensible person would, Gorski then goes about trying to show you how deceitful, and cunning and manipulative are your own eyes.  He writes to persuade you to conclude from what is plain from decades and often a century or two of vaccination statistics, that you are wrong.  You cannot, nay, you must not believe it. 

Crazily, these kinds of graphs have only been brought into play because Gorski and people like Gorski have been frightening parents for a good century or two that their children will die and vaccines will save them from that.  So he and others are engaged in trying to move the goalposts to clear up the mess they made with what in other circumstances Gorski might describe as their own “most breathtakingly spectacularly intellectually dishonest bits of vaccine propaganda that” Gorski “has ever seen“. [Don't ya love it!]

Death rates.

This is how he follows on with a deceptively simple: “Here’s the problem.” Wow, David will say and he has in fact gone on to say: “It’s not surprising that death rates were declining before introduction of the vaccines. Medicine was improving.” Of course you will not realise that the data goes back two hundred years because David does not tell you, and that is way before socialised medicine ever came on the scene and way before the vast majority of working people could afford it [and believe us, a large proportion in the USA, long without socialised medicine, still cannot].  And yet the steady dramatic falls in disease mortality continued.

Now here is the real deceit.  Gorski never once mentions “attenuation“, which is well-known in medicine and it is the steady decline in severity of diseases over time, as shown by all these graphs.  His claim is to completely pretend natural attenuation of diseases does not exist and that it is all about “medicine improving“. 

Now would you agree that is or is not intellectual dishonesty?  Do you think it is right for a medical professional, a trained medical doctor, to abuse medical knowledge to make a claim a competent medical expert simply should not make?

David goes on:

More importantly, supportive care was improving. For example, take the case of polio. Before the introduction of the iron lung and its widespread use, for example, if a polio patient developed paralysis of the respiratory muscles, he would almost certainly die. The iron lung allowed such patients to live. Some even survived in an iron lung for decades.” 

Well, you will think, that is pretty convincing.  Everyone has heard of polio and iron lungs.  But what David fails to tell you is that was for a short period around the 1950s and that he has completely airbrushed out the prior 150 years.  He ignores the 1850s or the 1900s when large parts of western economies had working people living tightly packed in slums without adequate sanitation, nutrition or clean water, ripe for the spread of infectious diseases. 

Have you seen the film “Angela’s ashes“? If not, watch it and you will soon get some idea about how bad slums and living conditions were.  And that is not showing the worst either.  But you will realise what misleading garbage is written on blatant propaganda attack sites like Science Blogs dot com by Gorski and his buddies. 

Gorski fails to acknowledge or even accept [despite mountains of historical evidence outweighing his own cherry-picked bias] that as living conditions improved deaths from disease dropped dramatically before medicine even had much of a chance to play even a small role. 

In the UK the National Health Service only came into existence in 1948.  Before then ordinary working people got by without Gorski’s alleged “supportive care”.  His ridiculous claim it was “improving” is also pointless save to deceive.  When you haven’t got “it” in the first place, improvements in “it” are just as worthless.  But Gorski ploughs on having sucked the gullible into his scribbled rants.

But so as not to lose you and any credibility completely Gorski concedes “No doubt improved nutrition also played a role as well.” But with that tiny concession buried in thousands of Gorski’s inanities he rapidly moves on: “However, if you want to get an idea of the impact of vaccines on infectious disease, take a look at this graph  from the CDC of measles incidence, not death rates“:

CDC Measles Incidence Graph

Now here’s the problem” as Gorski would say.  [In fact he won't and he did not for this part, so we need to]. First, he cherry picks starting in 1950.  That bizarrely leaves out the massive decline over the prior 150 years.  So no: 1) the vaccine was certainly not responsible for the massive decline in mortality and 2) that decline was still continuing after the vaccines were introduced and 3) it took place before “improved” medicine was commonly available to many [but still not all] in the West.

But Dr David Gorski leaves out even more.  So if you have not realised before, let’s help you now.    What else has Dr Gorski left out?  Notice the graph seems to show measles cases dramatically falling?  What you may not have noticed is that he has palmed the card and dealt you a crooked hand from the deck of cards he has hidden under the table.

Now here’s the problem“.  Without telling you, without batting an eyelid and likely without you noticing at all he flips to a graph of measles cases and not deaths to change the game completely.  So in one move, a “sleight of hand” just like a three-card trickster who cheats you of your money, he has changed the entire proposition from saving us all from death to saving us from getting what might often be a mild dose of measles, [with no risk of 1 in 25 families having a child with autism as a result of vaccination as US leading health officials have admitted].  And he has done this without telling you, without batting an eyelid and likely without you noticing at all.  He just flips to a graph of measles cases and not deaths.   It is not the same argument and is not comparable.  But you probably did not notice, but David certainly did.

Well “what’s wrong with that“, you might ask.  Plenty.  Want to know why?  Let’s explain it, straight  – with no Gorskiesque deceit in sight.

When Gorski’s graph shows a fall in cases, it is not showing a fall in cases.  It is showing a fall in the numbers of diagnoses of measles which have been reported.

When doctors say they are diagnosing what they really mean is they are guessing pretty much all the time.

The problem with statistics on cases and not deaths is they depend upon lots of doctors’ guesses.  Doctors’ guesses also follow fads, fashions and trends.  And Gorski also fails to point out that symptoms are not like those in textbooks.  Some diseases have symptoms which look a lot like other diseases.  Some patients will have some but not all symptoms.  Some symptoms are milder in some patients than others.  So a diagnosis a patient has one disease and not another is often a guess. And it is often wrong.

What Gorski does not tell you is the practice of medicine is not science.  In fact he will tell you he “follows the science“.  He seems such a zealot he would probably prefer to throw himself under a train before admitting medical practice is not a science.

When doctors believe there could be a measles epidemic they can diagnose 73 out of 74 patients as having measles when they don’t have measles.  That is a real figure obtained from official data. You can find details here [at the end of the "Introduction" and before the "Contents"].

This also works in reverse.  When doctors have information a child has been vaccinated they will tend to rule out the vaccinated disease as a possibility and guess [diagnose] a different disease.  That is what the educated guessing process doctors call “diagnosis” is all about.

So when there are real measles cases, and doctors think the symptoms they see are not likely to be measles, they don’t diagnose measles. 

Did Gorski tell you any of this?  Nope.  But we are.  In fact all doctors in the USA were told that in 1967 measles was to be eradicated in just that year alone with the measles vaccine.  This was in a formally published statement “EPIDEMIOLOGIC BASIS FOR ERADICATION OF MEASLES IN 1967 A Statement By the Public Health Service” by David J. Sencer, M.D., H. Bruce Dull, M.D., Alexander D. Langmuir, M.D. PHR Vol. 82, No. 3, March 1967 253

So you can be sure that in the USA from the moment the first vaccine was licensed in 1963, the hype would have already started.  Thus, on the one hand the graph Gorski presented you has figures for diagnoses [guesses] showing a dramatic decline of measles cases from the very moment the vaccine was first licensed in the USA.  And on the other hand the moment doctors think it cannot be measles, they stop diagnosing measles and guess something else instead. So when there are real measles cases they will not be diagnosed.

So Gorski’s graph is totally misleading.  But glossing over it all he goes on to argue by analogy claiming “Similar results were seen most recently from several other vaccines, including the Haemophilus influenza type B vaccine, as the CDC points out:

Hib vaccine is another good example, because Hib disease was prevalent until just a few years ago, when conjugate vaccines that can be used for infants were finally developed. (The polysaccharide vaccine previously available could not be used for infants, in whom most cases of the disease were occurring.) Since sanitation is not better now than it was in 1990, it is hard to attribute the virtual disappearance of Haemophilus influenzae disease in children in recent years (from an estimated 20,000 cases a year to 1,419 cases in 1993, and dropping) to anything other than the vaccine.”

And then you might ask, what is wrong with that?  Again, plenty.  The clue is in the word “estimated” in “the virtual disappearance of Haemophilus influenzae disease in children in recent years (from an estimated 20,000 cases a year to 1,419 cases in 1993“?

To put it bluntly, one too many a health official including one too many in the US CDC make up grossly exaggerated estimates to make it look like they are doing their job.  Paying their mortgage depends on it.  So on the one hand they want to make it look like disease is everywhere and on the other that they are controlling and fixing the problem. 

The CDC was officially castigated by the US Senate in an official report CDC Off Centeras an agency which “cannot demonstrate it is controlling disease“  but which was managing to spend US$11 billion in tax dollars every year not doing what even its name says it is supposed to – Center for Disease Control.

Flu death estimates are a classic example.  The US CDC claims there are an estimated 36,000 annual flu deaths so they can promote flu vaccines and prove later how successful they have been.  Their problem is the UK were doing the same thing, but got caught and the Chief Medical Officer had to “fess up”.  You can read the details here.  Flu deaths in the UK averaged no more than 33 annually despite Department of Health claims estimating 12,000 people die annually: 360 times higher than actual deaths.  If a plane fell out of the sky over the UK, the way the Department of Health calculated flu deaths, these would have been included in their flu deaths figure.  Read it for yourself and see here.

Now, do you think Dr David Gorski is being intellectually honest?

Gorski’s graph claims a fall in measles cases from the moment the first measles vaccine was licensed in 1963.  The widespread use of measles vaccine in the US in a mass public vaccination programme started in 1967 which was nearly 5 years later. And the early vaccines were withdrawn because they were ineffective or caused high rates of adverse reactions.  The 1963 licensed inactivated (“killed”) vaccine was withdrawn in  1967 because it did not protect against measles virus infection – it just did not work but it took nearly 5 years to find out. Additionally, it was not until 1968 that what was claimed a more effective safer vaccine was introduced.  This was the attenuated strain vaccine (Edmonston-Enders). These further attenuated vaccines caused fewer reactions than the original Edmonston B vaccine.  The 1963 licensed live attenuated vaccine (Edmonston B strain) was withdrawn in 1975 because of a high frequency of adverse reactions.  A further attenuated vaccine (Schwarz) was first introduced in 1965 but is also no longer used: Measles Epidemiology and Prevention of Vaccine-Preventable Diseases The Pink Book: Course Textbook – 12th Edition Second Printing (May 2012)

As you can see, the US authorities kept a useless vaccine in use for 5 years seemingly without realising it.  They kept a harmful vaccine in use for at least 10 years before replacing it.  So this gives you an idea of how difficult it is for parents to prove a vaccine is useless or one harmed their child when the US CDC pretends for 10 years a vaccine they later withdrew as dangerous is OK to give US kids.  And it also tells you, you cannot trust government and you cannot trust health officials.

And you may also not realise it but these were dangerous, unethical and illegal mass experiments on children, US children, directed by health officials of what is now the US Centers for Disease Control.  And the CDC is still doing illegal and dangerous experiments on US children with vaccines, but telling the public and media the vaccines are safe and effective.  Nothing has changed.  Has the US CDC ever used any of its annual US$11 billion budget in developing an effective treatment for measles?  Nope.  There is no effective treatment.  The CDC is a one trick pony.  And if they did develop an effective treatment like a measles pill, and a pill for other diseases, they might be out of a job.

Does Dr David Gorski warn you?  Nope.  He instead does the opposite with misinformation put out in a distasteful manner on his blogs.  [And he is supposed to be a professional medical doctor with high ethical standards, just like the CDC's health officials.]

So you can see how Gorski simply laps up information he gets off the internet from unreliable and dangerous websites like that operated by the US Centers for Disease Control without exercising any critical faculties over dangerous and false health information given out by US health officials which ends up with US kids getting harmed [and possibly killed].  It is typical of the genre.  But he will attack and disparage others from the relative safety of his own blogs and he does so routinely.  Go over to his blogs and read for yourself.  Make your own mind up whether Dr Gorski is fair and open minded or is he something else?  Ask yourself are his blog posts fair and balanced or bullying and harassing those whose legitimate views he wants to censor from common knowledge in favour of his drug industry supporting version of the “truth“.  Overall ask yourself is he and Science Blogs dot com a source to be trusted?

The answer to that has to be a Big Fat “NO”.

And for how many other “vaccinatable diseases” have the records of reported cases diminished not because the vaccine works but because medical professionals do not diagnose the cases?  Remember, in many cases symptoms can be mild and/or look like another disease.  In the UK claims were being made for whooping cough being practically eradicated when the reality was the cases were not being reported: Easily Missed? Whooping cough Harnden, A BMJ 2009;338:b1772. Research Whooping cough in school age children with persistent cough: prospective cohort study in primary care Harnden, A BMJ 2006;333:174

Polio is another because not only are cases unlikely to be reported but cases not involving any symptom of paralysis are hardly likely to be noticed let alone reported and the UK form for reporting is for cases involving temporary or permanent paralysis and not non paralytic polio.

One thing you can say for sure about a death, is the patient is dead.  And another is death is the most extreme consequence of a disease.  A measure of how less dangerous a disease has become is from the rate at which mortality falls over time, so you can be certain all other kinds of adverse consequences will similarly be far less serious.  But Gorski never tells you that nor that statistics on reported cases are wholly unreliable.  That is not what Gorski or the US CDC want you to know or even guess at.  The more tax dollars the CDC can spend on vaccines, the more certain they are of staying in a job.  But then, they do have mortgages to pay don’t they, so we guess it must be OK to pay for them with your child’s health or the next child’s autism or asthma or diabetes [and so on and so forth].

All of the foregoing is why people don’t believe allopathic doctors like Gorski or government health officials and experts.  Because one too many are deceiving you, misleading you and acting against your best health interests and those of your children.  And if you want a great example, go over to Dr David Gorski’s various blog sites and read the nasty cranky stuff he writes, full of deceptions and misleading information.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 883 other followers