- Hollywood Reporter Announces Best Vaccine-Free Doctors and Celebrities
- New Study In Journal Of Public Health Finds Autism And Cancer Related To Human Fetal DNA In Vaccines
- CNN iReport on CDC Whistleblower Spreads like Wildfire, then Censored
- Revealed: CDC Whistleblower Who Falsified MMR/Autism Safety Study
- More Flu Vaccine Cockamamie – Dr. Brownstein MD
- Molly on What happens if you decide not to vaccinate your child?
- Judy Frankel on Meet Jon Entine: Pro-Monsanto GMO activist and pro-Bill Gates activist
- Jessie on What happens if you decide not to vaccinate your child?
- nhokkanen on Hollywood Reporter Announces Best Vaccine-Free Doctors and Celebrities
- Susan on Growing Up Vaccinated, an Alternative Perspective to Amy Parker’s “Growing Up Unvaccinated”
Author Archives: The Refusers
By MB June 15, 2014
Whooping cough (pertussis) is back in the headlines, with CNN and the LA Times trumpeting the 3,458 reported state cases so far this year vs. the total 9,163 cases reported in the last full epidemic year 2010.
The CA health department claims: ‘This is a problem of “epidemic proportions.”
It is an epidemic in the vaccinated. Neither the LA Times, CNN or other mainstream media sources report the vaccination status of those 3,458 cases.
For that you have to dig a little deeper, past the usual media admonishment to rush out and get vaccinated.
United Press International newswire is the only media source to report the vaccination status of CA pertussis cases, it is for a subset of the state data.
For the San Diego region 85% of pertussis cases were fully vaccinated. With 6 shots!
Got that? San Diego has an epidemic of pertussis in the vaccinated and the state is still recommending a failed vaccine.
Here is the California State Health Department recommendation on the pertussis vaccine: “We urge all pregnant women to get vaccinated,” said Dr. Ron Chapman, director of the California Department of Public Health. “We also urge parents to vaccinate infants as soon as possible.”
Here is the San Diego pertussis vaccination failure rate according to UPI.
‘Of the 621 people in San Diego County diagnosed with whooping cough this year, 85 percent were up to date with their pertussis immunizations, calling into question the effectiveness of the vaccine. California is currently on track for having the most cases of the disease since 2010, and state officials declared the recent increase of cases an epidemic. San Diego County has seen 621 cases of the bacterial disease since the beginning of 2014, way up from the 430 total cases in 2013. There have been 3,458 cases this year in the entire state. Of the 621 people who’ve had the disease in San Diego County this year, 527 had the six shots necessary to be up to date with their pertussis vaccine and 67 were not. Immunization status for 27 of the ill wasn’t known.’
Clearly, the pertussis vaccine is a failure in San Diego.
But that won’t stop pro-vaccine evangelists from blaming the California pertussis outbreak on the unvaccinated. Because they can never admit their vaccines are a flop. That would invalidate their indoctrination and life mission, to enforce the CDC vaccine schedule no matter what the data says about vaccine failure, or what the vaccine package insert shows about pertussis vaccine adverse reactions.
Click PLAY to hear the Refusers Rockabilly song Little Prick.
Press release: Read full journal study below.
Substantial Scientific Evidence Exists that Vaccine Ingredient is a Developmental Neurotoxin
WATCHUNG, N.J., June 13, 2014 /PRNewswire-iReach/ — Just months after U.S. Congressman Bill Posey compared the Center for Disease Control (CDC)’s vaccine safety studies to the SEC’s Bernie Madoff scandal, malfeasance in the CDC’s studies of thimerosal-containing vaccines has, for the first time, been documented in peer-reviewed scientific literature. While the CDC states on its website that “low doses of thimerosal in vaccines do not cause harm, and are only associated with minor local injection site reactions like redness and swelling at the injection site,” the journal BioMed Research International now provides direct evidence that the CDC’s safety assurances about the mercury-containing preservative are not fact-based, according to the article’s lead author, Brian Hooker, PhD.
The paper opens by citing over 165 studies that have found Thimerosal to be harmful, including 16 studies that had reported outcomes in human infants and children of death, acrodynia, poisoning, allergic reaction, malformations, auto-immune reaction, Well’s syndrome, developmental delay and neurodevelopmental disorders including tics, speech delay, language delay, ADHD and autism. These findings by multiple independent research groups over the past 75+ years have consistently found thimerosal to be harmful. “Substantial scientific evidence exists and has existed for many years that the vaccine ingredient thimerosal is a developmental neurotoxin” says George Lucier, former Associate Director of the National Toxicology Program.
Studies showing harm from thimerosal sharply contradict published outcomes of six CDC coauthored and sponsored papers – the very studies that CDC relies upon to declare that thimerosal is “safe” for use in infant and maternal vaccines. Dr. Hooker, biochemist and vaccine industry watchdog, said of the six CDC studies, “Each of these papers is fatally flawed from a statistics standpoint and several of the papers represent issues of scientific malfeasance. For example, important data showing a relationship between thimerosal exposure and autism are withheld from three of the publications (Price et al. 2010, Verstraeten et al. 2003 and Madsen et al. 2003). This type of cherry-picking of data by the CDC in order to change the results of important research studies to support flawed and dangerous vaccination policies should not be tolerated.”
Dr. Boyd Haley, international expert in mercury toxicity and a co-author of the recently published paper said “There is no doubt that authorities in the CDC have initiated and participated in a cover-up of vaccine-induced damage from thimerosal to our children—-and this I consider criminal.” The paper, “Methodological Issues and Evidence of Malfeasance in Research Purporting to Show Thimerosal in Vaccines is Safe,” was published on June 6 and contains eight pages of evidence that the CDC has had knowledge of the vaccine preservative’s neurological risks, yet continues to cover them up.
The paper concludes, “five of the publications examined in this review were directly commissioned by the CDC, raising the possible issue of conflict of interests or research bias, since vaccine promotion is a central mission of the CDC. Conceivably, if serious neurological disorders are found to be related to Thimerosal in vaccines, such findings could possibly be viewed as damaging to the vaccine program.”
Dr. Hooker has submitted over 100 FOIA requests to the CDC over the past 10 years and has amassed thousands of pages of documents showing malfeasance in the CDC’s vaccine safety program. Hooker revealed that one CDC document quoted a top official instructing CDC employees to “Review all correspondences and documents to see if there is ‘foreseeable harm’ to the agency if they were released” so the documents could be redacted by CDC attorneys prior to release.
Barry Segal, founder of the Focus Autism Foundation and former entrepreneur whose company sales peaked near $2 billion said, “We are in the process of exposing what may be the biggest federal scandal ever with immense damage to our economy and our people, especially our children who are the future of our country. Their health has been compromised by mercury in vaccines. We need Congress to take action now. Thimerosal must be banned.”
A more effective vaccine preservative “2PE” has replaced thimerosal in many other vaccines and possesses a much better safety profile according to Dr. Hooker.
The Focus Autism Foundation is dedicated to providing information to the public that exposes the cause or causes of the autism epidemic and the rise of chronic illnesses – focusing specifically on the role of vaccinations. To learn more, visit FocusAutism.org. A Shot of Truthis an educational campaign sponsored by Focus Autism.
BioMed Research International Volume 2014 (2014), Article ID 247218, 8 pages http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/247218
Methodological Issues and Evidence of Malfeasance in Research Purporting to Show Thimerosal in Vaccines Is Safe
1Simpson University, 2211 College View Drive, Redding, CA 96001, USA
2Institute of Chronic Illness, Inc., 14 Redgate Court, Silver Spring, MD 20905, USA
3University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, Dallas, TX 75235, USA
4University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40506, USA
5CoMeD, Inc., Silver Spring, MD, USA
Received 15 February 2014; Accepted 12 May 2014; Published 4 June 2014
Academic Editor: Jyutika Mehta
Copyright © 2014 Brian Hooker et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
There are over 165 studies that have focused on Thimerosal, an organic-mercury (Hg) based compound, used as a preservative in many childhood vaccines, and found it to be harmful. Of these, 16 were conducted to specifically examine the effects of Thimerosal on human infants or children with reported outcomes of death; acrodynia; poisoning; allergic reaction; malformations; auto-immune reaction; Well’s syndrome; developmental delay; and neurodevelopmental disorders, including tics, speech delay, language delay, attention deficit disorder, and autism. In contrast, the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention states that Thimerosal is safe and there is “no relationship between [T]himerosal[-]containing vaccines and autism rates in children.” This is puzzling because, in a study conducted directly by CDC epidemiologists, a 7.6-fold increased risk of autism from exposure to Thimerosal during infancy was found. The CDC’s current stance that Thimerosal is safe and that there is no relationship between Thimerosal and autism is based on six specific published epidemiological studies coauthored and sponsored by the CDC. The purpose of this review is to examine these six publications and analyze possible reasons why their published outcomes are so different from the results of investigations by multiple independent research groups over the past 75+ years.
Thimerosal is an organic-mercury (Hg) based compound, used as a preservative in many childhood vaccines, in the past and present. To date, there have been over 165 studies that focused on Thimerosal and found it to be harmful [1, 2]. (A comprehensive list of these studies is shown at http://mercury-freedrugs.org/docs/20140329_Kern_JK_ExcelFile_TM_sHarm_ReferenceList_v33.xlsx.) Of these studies, 16 were conducted to specifically examine the effects of Thimerosal on human infants and/or children [3–18]. Within these studies, which focused on human infants and/or children, the reported outcomes following Thimerosal exposure were (1) death ; (2) acrodynia ; (3) poisoning ; (4) allergic reaction ; (5) malformations ; (6) autoimmune reaction ; (7) Well’s syndrome ; (8) developmental delay [10–13]; and (9) neurodevelopmental disorders, including tics, speech delay, language delay, attention deficit disorder, and autism [10, 11, 14–18].
However, the United States (US) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) still insists that there is “no relationship between [T]himerosal[-]containing vaccines and autism rates in children” . This is a puzzling conclusion because, in a study conducted directly by the CDC, epidemiologists assessed the risk for neurologic and renal impairment associated with past exposure to Thimerosal-containing vaccine (TCV) using automated data from the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) and found a 7.6-fold increased risk of autism from exposure to Thimerosal during infancy . The database for that study was “from four health maintenance organizations [HMOs] in Washington, Oregon, and California, containing immunization, medical visit, and demographic data on over 400,000 infants born between 1991 and 1997.” In that initial study, Verstraeten et al.  “categorized the cumulative ethyl-Hg exposure from [T]himerosal[-]containing vaccines after one month of life and assessed the subsequent risk of degenerative and developmental neurologic disorders and renal disorders before the age of six.” They “applied proportional hazard models adjusting for HMO, year of birth, and gender, and excluded premature babies.” The reported results showed that “the relative risk (RR) of developing a neurologic development disorder was 1.8 (95% confidence intervals [CI] 1.1–2.8) when comparing the highest exposure group at 1 month of age (cumulative dose > 25 μg) to the unexposed group.” Similarly, they “also found an elevated risk for the following disorders: autism (RR 7.6, 95% CI = 1.8–31.5), nonorganic sleep disorders (RR 5.0, 95% CI = 1.6–15.9), and speech disorders (RR 2.1, 95% CI = 1.1–4.0)” in the highest exposure group.
Considering the many peer-reviewed published research studies that have shown harm from Thimerosal, including studies in which Thimerosal exposure is associated with the subsequent diagnosis of neurodevelopmental disorders (16 studies) such as autism, and the just-described evidence from the CDCs own research, which found evidence of a relationship between the level of Thimerosal exposure and the risk of a subsequent autism diagnosis, how does the CDC conclude that there is no evidence of that relationship? The foundation for the CDC’s current stance apparently is based primarily on six specific published epidemiological studies that the CDC has completed, funded, and/or cosponsored, starting in the late 1990s. These studies include (1) the Madsen et al.  ecological study of autism incidence versus Thimerosal exposure in Denmark, (2) the Stehr-Green et al.  ecological study of autism incidence versus Thimerosal exposure in Denmark, Sweden, and California, (3) the Hviid et al.  study of autism incidence versus Thimerosal exposure in Denmark (also ecological), (4) the Andrews et al.  cohort study of autism incidence and Thimerosal exposure in the United Kingdom, (5) the published Verstraeten et al.  CDC cohort study of autism incidence and Thimerosal exposure in the United States, and (6) the more recent Price et al.  case-control study of autism incidence and Thimerosal exposure in the United States. Although the CDC cites several other publications to purport the safety of Thimerosal, only these six specifically consider its putative relationship to autism.
The purpose of this review is to examine these six publications [21–26] which were “overseen” by the CDC and which claim that prenatal and early childhood vaccine-derived Thimerosal exposures are not related to the risk of a subsequent diagnosis of autism or autism spectrum disorder (ASD). This review analyzes possible reasons why their published outcomes are so different from the results of investigations by multiple independent research groups over the past 75+ years. The review begins with an examination of the Madsen et al.  study.
2. The Madsen et al. 2003 Study
The CDC-sponsored Madsen et al.  study examined whether discontinuing the use of TCVs in Denmark led to a decrease in the incidence of autism. Data were obtained from the Danish Psychiatric Central Research Register, which contains all psychiatric admissions since 1971 and all outpatient contacts in psychiatric departments in Denmark since 1995. The study authors examined the data from 1971 to 2000 and reported that rate of autism increased with the removal of Thimerosal from vaccines (starting in 1992, the year that Thimerosal-containing early childhood vaccines were phased out).
Although there are several concerns about the methodology used, the most serious concern involves diagnosis. As described in the paper, estimates of total autism cases in Denmark were only based on diagnoses occurring during inpatient visits from 1971 to 1994 and then during both inpatient and outpatient visits from 1995 to the last year of the study in 2000. Thus, the inclusion criteria are greatly expanded two years after the phaseout of Thimerosal from infant vaccines in Denmark, creating an “artificial increase” in autism prevalence. The authors conceded that “the proportion of outpatient to inpatient activities was about 4 to 6 times as many outpatients as inpatients with variations across time and age bands.” However, in an earlier publication by Madsen et al. , the same authors had stated regarding this same data, “in our cohort, 93.1% of the children were treated only as outpatients…” Unlike the statement in the Madsen et al.  study, the 2002 paper indicates that the ratio between outpatients and inpatients in the 1971–2000 dataset was 13.5 : 1, which would account for an even greater increase in cases diagnosed starting in 1995 (i.e., after the probable completion of the phaseout of TCVs that started in 1992).
In addition, the authors stated that the Danish registry which was used to count cases did not include a large Copenhagen clinic before 1993. This clinic accounted for as many as 20% of the autism cases nationwide, which would again artificially inflate the autism incidence observed in Denmark after the phaseout of TCVs was initiated in 1992. The authors do not mention this change in inclusion criteria (i.e., the addition of a new clinic in the registry) neither do they attempt to adjust their analysis in accordance with the anomaly. It was revealed, instead, in a similar paper by Stehr-Green et al.  where the authors state regarding the Denmark registry of autistic patients, “Prior to 1992, the data in the national register did not include cases diagnosed in one large clinic in Copenhagen (which accounts for approximately 20% of cases occurring nationwide).”
Also, the diagnosis criteria for “autism” changed within the course of the study. From 1971 to 1993, the ICD-8 standards for diagnosis (psychosis protoinfantilis 299.00 or psychosis infantilis 299.01) were used to measure autism incidence. However, from 1994 to 2000, the ICD-10 standard (infantile autism, F84.1) was used. Although the authors did not address the impact of the change in diagnostic criteria, this could result in as much as a 25-fold increase in cases as the instantaneous change in autism prevalence in Denmark, due to this change, went from a low of 1.2/10,000 to a high of 30.8/10,000 .
Another disconcerting methodological issue was that the 2001 data, which showed a strong downward trend in autism rates in at least two of the three age groups (continuing from 1999 through 2001), was not included in the final publication. This was apparent because when the paper was initially submitted for publication, it included the 2001 data. After the paper was rejected for publication by the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) and the Lancet, it was submitted to the journal Pediatrics again including the 2001 data. As stated by one of the peer-reviewers of the Pediatrics submission, “The drop of incidence shown for the most recent years is perhaps the most dramatic feature of the figure, and is seen in the oldest age group as well as the youngest. The authors do not discuss whether incomplete ascertainment in the youngest children or delay in recording of data in the most recent years might play a role in this decline, or the possibility that this decrease might have come about through elimination of [T]himerosal” (January 23, 2003, communication between Dr. Poul Thorsen, Aarhus University, and Dr. Coleen Boyle, CDC scientist). In response to this criticism, the authors removed the 2001 incidence numbers. The authors’ decision to withhold these data resembles scientific malfeasance, especially when coupled with the previously discussed problematic methods for counting autism cases. If the scientists believed that downward trend between 1999 and 2001 was caused by some phenomenon unrelated to the phaseout of the TCVs, these scientists should have included those data and then explained the trend within the discussion of the data.
If the 2001 data had been included in the final publication, the results would have been consistent with a more recent CDC study  where a decreasing trend of autism prevalence in Denmark after the removal of Thimerosal in 1992 was reported. Instead of large increases in autism prevalence after 1992, the recent Danish study revealed that the autism spectrum disorder prevalence in Denmark fell steadily from a high of 1.5% in 1994-95 (when children receiving Thimerosal-free formulations were too young to receive an autism diagnosis and, because of the known offset in diagnosis, most of those being diagnosed had been born 4 to 8 years earlier [from 1985 to 1990]) to a low of 1.0% in 2002–2004 (more than 10 years after the phasein of the use of Thimerosal-free vaccine formulations was started in 1992).
3. The Stehr-Green et al. 2003 Study
The CDC’s Stehr-Green et al.  study compared the prevalence/incidence of autism in California, Sweden, and Denmark with average exposures to TCVs. Graph-based ecologic analyses were used to examine population data from the state of California (national immunization coverage surveys and counts of children diagnosed with autism-like disorders seeking special education services in California); Sweden (national inpatient data on autism cases, national vaccination coverage levels, and information on use of all vaccines and vaccine-specific amounts of Thimerosal); and Denmark (national registry of inpatient/outpatient-diagnosed autism cases, national vaccination coverage levels, and information on use of all vaccines and vaccine-specific amounts of Thimerosal).
The study followed and appeared to be conducted in response to California study data , which was presented to the Institute of Medicine’s Immunization Safety Review Committee. The California data showed that increased uptake of Thimerosal-containing vaccines in California during the 1990s correlated with a corresponding increase in autism diagnoses. In the Stehr-Green et al.  study, the researchers stated that the reliability of the autism prevalence data, citing that the California data included autism spectrum disorder diagnoses such as pervasive development disorder (PDD), could account for the increase. However, in a published response to this paper, Blaxill and Stehr-Green  stated that the California prevalence rates were reported based solely on autism cases.
In the Stehr-Green paper, the Sweden autism prevalence data showed an increase in autism rates from 5- 6 cases per 100,000 in 1980–82 to a peak of 9.2 cases per 100,000 in 1993. In Sweden, TCVs were phased out starting in 1987. Denmark’s autism prevalence data was identical to that reported in the Madsen et al.  study critiqued previously. For Denmark, the authors reported an astounding 20-fold increase in autism prevalence between 1990 and 1999, despite the phaseout of TCVs that started in 1992.
In addition, the data from Sweden were based on inpatient (hospital) visits only. This limitation (counting a small fraction of the total number of cases) likely accounted for the erratic swings in the annual numbers of autism cases reported in that country. Also, the Thimerosal exposure level based on the Swedish vaccination schedule during this time period was much less (a nominal maximum of 75 μg of Hg by two years of age) than that possible in California (and the United States as a whole) where developing children nominally received up to 237.5 μg of Hg by 18 months of age through the standard immunization schedule. In conclusion, the Stehr-Green et al. study was problematic in its attempt to combine ecological data from three different countries that, relative to each other, demonstrated different vaccination policies and widely different Thimerosal exposure levels.
4. The Hviid et al. (2003) Study
The Hviid et al.  population-based cohort study, widely cited by the CDC, compared rates of autism prevalence among individuals who received Thimerosal-free vaccines to those receiving TCVs. The authors report that there was no evidence of increased autism prevalence with Thimerosal exposure.
The study authors stated that the mean age of autism diagnosis within their population was 4.7 years with a standard deviation of 1.7 years. However, cases and controls as young as 1 year of age were included within the analysis. Accordingly, controls that were less than the mean age of diagnosis minus two standard deviations (1.3 years) from that age had a 97.5% probability of actually being individuals who will later develop autism and are therefore possibly misclassified. Similarly, in this study, the mean age for an ASD diagnosis was 6.0 years with a standard deviation of 1.9 years. Thus, the study methodology is questionable because it appears to have underascertained the number of cases diagnosed with autism and ASD.
In addition, rather than counting persons within the cohort, the authors counted “person-years of follow up.” With this technique, each age group (one-year-olds, two-year-olds, etc.) was considered equally, despite the fact that younger age groups were much less likely to receive an autism diagnosis. This again contributed to the undercounting of the cases with a diagnosis of autism and ASD and biased the study towards the null hypothesis (that there is no statistically significant Thimerosal exposure effect on the outcomes observed).
5. The Andrews et al. (2004) Study
The Andrews et al.  study was a retrospective cohort study completed using records from a database in the United Kingdom, where autism prevalence rates were compared for children receiving Thimerosal-containing DTaP and DT vaccines. In the Andrews et al.  study, Cox’s proportional-hazards ratios were used to evaluate periods of followup in the cohort examined by the investigators using the records in the general practitioner research database (GPRD), a database that was known to have a significant level of errors. These investigators reported that increased organic-Hg exposure from TCVs was associated with a significantly reduced risk for diagnosed general developmental disorders and for unspecified developmental delay (although there was a significantly higher risk for diagnosed tics).
Considering that there are several studies conducted by independent investigators that have found that exposure to Thimerosal is a risk factor for neurodevelopmental delay and disorders [10, 11, 16], the reduced rate of neurodevelopmental delay and disorders with Thimerosal exposure found in the Andrews et al.  study suggests possible methodological issues.
This result may have occurred, in part, because other studies examined cohorts with significantly different childhood vaccine schedules and with different diagnostic criteria for outcomes. This difference may also exist because these other studies that found Thimerosal to be a risk factor for neurodevelopmental delay and disorders employed different epidemiological methods, especially with respect to the issue of follow-up period for individuals in the cohorts examined. The method used to measure follow-up period for individuals is a critical issue in all studies examining the relationship between exposures and the subsequent risk of a neurodevelopmental disorder diagnosis, especially in those instances where the postexposure periods for all of the participants in the study are essentially the same. This is because the risk of an individual being diagnosed with a neurodevelopmental disorder is not uniform throughout his/her lifetime. As observed in the present study, the initial mean age for any neurodevelopmental disorder diagnosis was 2.62 years old, and the standard deviation of mean age of the initial diagnosis of neurodevelopmental disorder was 1.58 years old. These findings are highly problematic because (1) any follow-up method that fails to consider the lag time between birth and age of initial neurodevelopmental disorder diagnosis will likely not be able to observe the true relationship between exposure and the subsequent risk of a neurodevelopmental disorder diagnosis and (2) statistically, the mean and standard deviation age of diagnosis as reported lead to the nonsensical result that a significant portion (2.5%) of the children in this study were diagosed with a neurodevelopmental disorder more than six months before they were born (i.e., the mean age minus two standard deviations, 2.62 − [2 × 1.58] = −0.54 years of age).
Another issue with this study is that the authors used a nontransparent, multivariate regression technique to analyze vaccine uptake and autism prevalence data. The study included one dependent variable (autism) and multiple independent variables, including two independent variables (Thimerosal exposure levels and year of birth) that were “correlated” with each other, since Thimerosal exposures increased with time. Thus, the researchers did not report a statistical analysis of the effect of Thimerosal exposure on autism incidence, despite the fact that the authors stated that no such effect was observed. Moreover, the methods used in this study can create a problem in regression known as “multicolinearity.” In this case, since the time variable and the vaccine exposure variable are correlated, they actually compete to explain the outcome effect. Inclusion of the time variable reduces the significance of the exposure variable. Yet, the authors did not explain why they included a time variable that competes with the exposure variable. Unfortunately, the authors of this study never released the raw data so that a valid single-variable analysis could be conducted to ascertain the probability of an association between Thimerosal exposure and the risk of autism.
It is also important to note that the UK Thimerosal exposure (a maximum of 75 μg of Hg by 4 months of age) was not comparable to that in the United States (a maximum of 75 μg of Hg by 2 months of age and 187.5 μg of Hg by 6 months of age). Thus, this study should not be extrapolated to the probability of an autism-Thimerosal association based on the US vaccination schedule.
6. The Verstraeten et al. (2003) Study
The CDC’s published Verstraeten et al.  study consists of a cohort analysis of a subset of records from the medical records databases for several of the HMOs whose records were maintained in a central data repository, the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD). This study was conducted in at least five separate phases. In the final phase (i.e., the results reported in the publication), the authors stated that there was no relationship between Thimerosal exposure in vaccines and autism incidence. However, no data are reported in the published study to support this conclusion.
Results from the first phase of the study released in an internal presentation abstract by Verstraeten et al.  (mentioned earlier) using records from four (4) HMOs showed that infants who were exposed to greater than 25 μg of Hg in vaccines and immunoglobulins at the age of one month were 7.6 times more likely to have an autism diagnosis than those not exposed to any vaccine-derived organic Hg. Within the same abstract, Verstraeten reports that the risk for any neurodevelopmental disorder was 1.8, the risk for speech disorder was 2.1, and the risk for nonorganic sleep disorder was 5.0. All relative risks were statistically significant.
In the second phase of the study, a different approach was taken: exposure was compared at 3 months of age, rather than one month. Results of this phase showed that children exposed to the maximum amount of organic Hg in infant vaccines (62.5 μg) were 2.48 times more likely to have autism diagnosis compared to those exposed to less than 37.5 μg of Hg in vaccines. These results were also statistically significant. No assessment against a “no exposure” control was apparently completed in this study phase.
In the third phase of the study, in which more data stratification methods and different inclusion/exclusion criteria were applied to the analysis, the relative risk of autism for children at three months of Thimerosal exposure dropped to 1.69. At this point, evidence in an email from Verstraeten, the lead investigator, written to a colleague outside of the CDC (obtained by the authors via the US Freedom of Information Act of 1950 as amended), suggests that Verstraeten could have been receiving pressure within the CDC to apply unsound statistical methods to deny a causal relationship between Thimerosal and autism. In this email, Verstraeten states (Figure 1), “I do not wish to be the advocate of the anti-vaccine lobby and sound like being convinced that thimerosal is or was harmful, but at least I feel we should use sound scientific argumentation and not let our standards be dictated by our desire to disprove an unpleasant theory.”
Figure 1: July 14, 2000, email from Verstraeten to Philippe Grandjean regarding the risk of harm due to Thimerosal (obtained by the authors via the US Freedom of Information Act of 1950 as amended).
The fourth and fifth phase of the study used records from only two of the original HMOs and incorporated a third HMO, Harvard Pilgrim, into the analysis. Some critics of the study questioned the use of Harvard Pilgrim, as this HMO appeared to be riddled with uncertain record keeping practices, and the state of Massachusetts had been forced to take it over after it declared bankruptcy. In addition, the HMO used different diagnostic codes than the other two HMOs used in phases 2 and 3. Other criticisms include that the study used younger children, from 0 to 3 years of age, even though the average age for an autism diagnosis at the time was 4.4 years. Since half of the children receiving an autism diagnosis would be over 4.4 years of age, far greater than the maximum age in the study at 3 years, this analysis excluded more than 50% of all autism cases from this HMO. Also, the cohort from this HMO contained 7 times fewer individuals than the main cohort from the previous study (i.e., HMO B), and there was no apparent attempt to assess the power of this HMO to show any statistically significant effect.
Also of note is the lack of variability within strata among the different HMOs in the Verstraeten et al.  study. By design, a cohort study seeking to assess the effect of some treatment on a subsequent outcome should be designed to maximize the range of the independent “treatment” variable (Thimerosal exposure in this instance) in order to determine if there is indeed an “effect” in the dependent postexposure outcome variable (neurological disorders in this study). However, the authors knowingly stratified the analysis based on the participants’ gender, year of birth, month of birth, and clinic most often visited. This effectively reduced the variability of Thimerosal exposure within the strata to the point that it reduced the capability of the final analysis to find any but the “strongest” Thimerosal exposure-related outcome effects. The problems with such “overmatching” practices have been discussed in detail in peer-reviewed scientific literature and will be treated in greater detail in the forthcoming review of the CDC’s Price et al.  paper.
Another methodological concern about the Verstraeten et al.  study is related to the issue of the minimum follow-up period required for individuals in the cohorts examined to ensure that all the cases in the cohort will have been identified with a high degree of certainty. This issue has been mentioned as a problem in the previous studies. As mentioned earlier, the method used to determine the minimum follow-up period for individuals is a critical issue in all studies examining the relationship between exposures and the subsequent risk of a neurodevelopmental disorder diagnosis, especially in those instances where the exposures to all participants in the study are the same or essentially the same. This is the case because the risk of an individual being diagnosed with a neurodevelopmental disorder is not uniform throughout his/her lifetime. Any follow-up method that fails to consider the lag time between birth and age of initial neurodevelopmental disorder diagnosis will likely not be able to observe the true relationship between exposure and the subsequent risk of a neurodevelopmental disorder diagnosis. Verstraeten et al.  included children in the control group who were too young (down to “0” years of age) to receive a neurodevelopmental disorder diagnosis.
Within this study, Verstraeten et al.  still found significantly increased risk ratios for tics and language delay. However, the authors stated that, because these results were not consistent between the HMOs tested, these significantly increased risk ratios could not be used to make a determination of the potential adverse consequences of organic-Hg exposure from TCVs.
7. The Price et al. 2010 Study
In 2010, the CDC published another epidemiology study on Thimerosal and autism . This case-control study was conducted using the records from three managed care organizations (MCOs) consisting of 256 children with an ASD diagnosis and 752 controls that were matched by birth year, gender, and MCO to the children with an ASD diagnosis. Exposure to Thimerosal in vaccines and immunoglobulin preparations was determined from electronic immunization registries, medical charts, and parent interviews. Conditional logistic regression was used to assess associations between ASD, autistic disorder (AD), and ASD with regression and exposure to ethyl-Hg during prenatal, birth-to-1-month, birth-to-7-month, and birth-to-20-month periods. Their published finding was that prenatal and infant Thimerosal exposure from TCVs and Thimerosal-containing immunoglobulin posed no statistically significant risk of autism.
As mentioned earlier, in case-control studies, the main methodological concern is the phenomenon called “overmatching.” This concern for overmatching in the Price et al.  study was voiced previously by DeSoto and Hitlan . In their comprehensive analysis of overmatching errors specific to the Price paper, DeSoto and Hitlan  stated that “Matching cannot—or should not—be done in a way that artificially increases the chance that within[-] strata exposure is the same; this happens when a matching variable is a significant predictor of exposure and is called overmatching.”
Cases were matched with controls of the same age and sex, within the same HMO and essentially the same vaccination schedule, using the same vaccine manufacturers. DeSoto and Hitlan then state further, regarding the lack of variability of Thimerosal exposure in the Price study, “Across the different years, the average cumulative exposure varies from 42.3 μg to 125.46 μg; while within the birth year stratas (sic), the mean exposures do not vary by more than 15 micrograms.” In other words, the maximum level of variation in Thimerosal exposure in the cases and controls being compared was 15 μg of Hg, as compared to the “83” μg of Hg range for the average cumulative exposures in the cohort studies. Moreover, this range is much less than the range of Thimerosal exposures that could have been used to determine risk including (a) 0 to 50 μg of Hg for one-month exposures, (b) 0 to 190 μg of Hg for seven-month exposures, and (c) 0 to 300 μg of Hg for 20-month exposures. Finally, regarding the Price study, DeSoto and Hitlan  concluded, “this paper is flawed. Unfortunately, there is not an analytic fix for overmatching: it is [a] design flaw.”
Prenatal Thimerosal exposure for the children within the study arose from the Thimerosal-preserved inactivated-influenza vaccine given during pregnancy and the Rho immunoglobulin administered to pregnant women to prevent Rh-factor incompatibility injury to the developing child. Unlike postnatal exposure from TCVs in the recommended childhood vaccination schedule, prenatal exposures would not be overmatched in a study design that stratified the participants based on their birth year or HMO. Evidence from the background CDC report regarding the Price study showed a significant risk of regressive autism due to prenatal Thimerosal exposure levels, at exposure levels as low as 16 μg of Hg . However, the risk of regressive autism due to prenatal Thimerosal exposure reported in that paper was 1.86 and yielded a value of 0.072 which was deemed as insignificant based on the authors’ “cut-off” value of . However, values between 0.05 and 0.10 are “marginally significant” and should merit further study. In addition, upon further analysis, it was found that the 2009 background report  to the Price et al.  study showed that the prenatal Thimerosal exposure model was run in six different ways and that the most reliable methods (those that factored out the postnatal Thimerosal exposure effects) found highly statistically significant relative risks of up to 8.73 () for regressive ASD due to prenatal Thimerosal exposures from Thimerosal-containing influenza vaccines and Rho immunoglobulin products relative to no such prenatal Thimerosal exposures. Curiously, these more compelling results were not reported in the paper. Withholding these data from the publication and, instead, reporting a significantly lower value could appear to constitute scientific malfeasance on the part of the authors of this study.
As seen in this review, the studies upon which the CDC relies and over which it exerted some level of control report that there is no increased risk of autism from exposure to organic Hg in vaccines, and some of these studies even reported that exposure to Thimerosal appeared to decrease the risk of autism. These six studies are in sharp contrast to research conducted by independent researchers over the past 75+ years that have consistently found Thimerosal to be harmful. As mentioned in the Introduction section, many studies conducted by independent investigators have found Thimerosal to be associated with neurodevelopmental disorders. Several studies, for example, including three of the six studies covered in this review, have found Thimerosal to be a risk factor for tics [10, 17, 24, 25, 34, 35]. In addition, Thimerosal has been found to be a risk factor in speech delay, language delay, attention deficit disorder, and autism [10, 11, 15–17, 24, 25, 34].
Considering that there are many studies conducted by independent researchers which show a relationship between Thimerosal and neurodevelopmental disorders, the results of the six studies examined in this review, particularly those showing the protective effects of Thimerosal, should bring into question the validity of the methodology used in the studies. A list of the most common methodological issues with these six studies is shown in Table 1. Importantly, other than the Hviid et al.  study, five of the publications examined in this review were directly commissioned by the CDC, raising the possible issue of conflict of interests or research bias, since vaccine promotion is a central mission of the CDC. Conceivably, if serious neurological disorders are found to be related to Thimerosal in vaccines, such findings could possibly be viewed as damaging to the vaccine program.
Conflict of Interests
All of the investigators on the present study have been involved in vaccine/biologic litigation.
Funding was provided by the nonprofit Institute of Chronic Illnesses, Inc. and CoMeD, Inc.
- J. G. Dórea, “Low-dose mercury exposure in early life: relevance of thimerosal to fetuses, newborns and infants,” Current Medicinal Chemistry, vol. 20, no. 32, pp. 4060–4069, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
- D. A. Geier, L. K. Sykes, and M. R. Geier, “A review of thimerosal (merthiolate) and its ethylmercury breakdown product: specific historical considerations regarding safety and effectiveness,” Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health B: Critical Reviews, vol. 10, no. 8, pp. 575–596, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
- D. G. Fagan, J. S. Pritchard, T. W. Clarkson, and M. R. Greenwood, “Organ mercury levels in infants with omphaloceles treated with organic mercurial antiseptic,” Archives of Disease in Childhood, vol. 52, no. 12, pp. 962–964, 1977. View at Scopus
- D. S. Matheson, T. W. Clarkson, and E. W. Gelfand, “Mercury toxicity (acrodynia) induced by long-term injection of gammaglobulin,” Journal of Pediatrics, vol. 97, no. 1, pp. 153–155, 1980. View at Scopus
- J. H. Axton, “Six cases of poisoning after a parenteral organic mercurial compound (merthiolate),”Postgraduate Medical Journal, vol. 48, no. 561, pp. 417–421, 1972. View at Scopus
- A. Patrizi, L. Rizzoli, C. Vincenzi, P. Trevisi, and A. Tosti, “Sensitization to thimerosal in atopic children,” Contact Dermatitis, vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 94–97, 1999. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar· View at Scopus
- O. P. Heinonen, S. Shapiro, R. R. Monson, S. C. Hartz, L. Rosenberg, and D. Slone, “Immunization during pregnancy against poliomyelitis and influenza in relation to childhood malignancy,” International Journal of Epidemiology, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 229–235, 1973. View at Scopus
- A. Vojdani, J. B. Pangborn, E. Vojdani, and E. L. Cooper, “Infections, toxic chemicals and dietary peptides binding to lymphocyte receptors and tissue enzymes are major instigators of autoimmunity in autism,” International Journal of Immunopathology and Pharmacology, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 189–199, 2003.View at Scopus
- K. J. Koh, L. Warren, L. Moore, C. James, and G. N. Thompson, “Wells’ syndrome following thiomersal-containing vaccinations,” Australasian Journal of Dermatology, vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 199–202, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
- H. A. Young, D. A. Geier, and M. R. Geier, “Thimerosal exposure in infants and neurodevelopmental disorders: an assessment of computerized medical records in the vaccine safety datalink,” Journal of the Neurological Sciences, vol. 271, no. 1-2, pp. 110–118, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar ·View at Scopus
- C. Gallagher and M. Goodman, “Hepatitis B triple series vaccine and developmental disability in US children aged 1–9 years,” Toxicological and Environmental Chemistry, vol. 90, no. 5, pp. 997–1008, 2008.View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
- D. Mrozek-Budzyn, R. Majewska, A. Kieltyka, and M. Augustyniak, “Neonatal exposure to thimerosal from vaccines and child development in the first 3 years of life,” Neurotoxicology and Teratology, vol. 34, no. 6, pp. 592–597, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
- J. G. Dórea, R. C. Marques, and C. Isejima, “Neurodevelopment of Amazonian infants: antenatal and postnatal exposure to methyl- and ethylmercury,” Journal of Biomedicine and Biotechnology, vol. 2012, Article ID 132876, 9 pages, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
- D. A. Geier, B. S. Hooker, J. K. Kern, P. G. King, L. K. Sykes, and M. R. Geier, “A two-phase study evaluating the relationship between thimerosal-containing vaccine administration and the risk for an autism spectrum disorder diagnosis in the united states,” Translational Neurodegeneration, vol. 2, article 25, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
- C. M. Gallagher and M. S. Goodman, “Hepatitis B vaccination of male neonates and autism diagnosis, NHIS 1997–2002,” Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health A: Current Issues, vol. 73, no. 24, pp. 1665–1677, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
- D. A. Geier, P. G. King, L. K. Sykes, and M. R. Geier, “A comprehensive review of mercury provoked autism,” Indian Journal of Medical Research, vol. 128, no. 4, pp. 383–411, 2008. View at Scopus
- J. P. Barile, G. P. Kuperminc, E. S. Weintraub, J. W. Mink, and W. W. Thompson, “Thimerosal exposure in early life and neuropsychological outcomes 7–10 years later,” Journal of Pediatric Psychology, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 106–118, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
- D. A. Geier and M. R. Geier, “A meta-analysis epidemiological assessment of neurodevelopmental disorders following vaccines administered from 1994 through 2000 in the United States,”Neuroendocrinology Letters, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 401–413, 2006. View at Scopus
- Immunization Safety and Autism,http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/00_pdf/CDCStudiesonVaccinesandAutism.pdf.
- T. Verstraeten, R. L. Davis, D. Gu, and F. DeStefano, “Increased risk of developmental neurologic impairment after high exposure to thimerosal-containing vaccine in first month of life,” in Proceedings of the Epidemic Intelligence Service Annual Conference, vol. 49, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Ga, USA, 2000.
- K. M. Madsen, M. B. Lauritsen, C. B. Pedersen et al., “Thimerosal and the occurrence of autism: negative ecological evidence from Danish population-based data,” Pediatrics, vol. 112, no. 3 I, pp. 604–606, 2003.View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
- P. Stehr-Green, P. Tull, M. Stellfeld, P.-B. Mortenson, and D. Simpson, “Autism and thimerosal-containing vaccines: lack of consistent evidence for an association,” American Journal of Preventive Medicine, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 101–106, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
- A. Hviid, M. Stellfeld, J. Wohlfahrt, and M. Melbye, “Association between thimerosal-containing vaccine and autism,” Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 290, no. 13, pp. 1763–1766, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
- N. Andrews, E. Miller, A. Grant, J. Stowe, V. Osborne, and B. Taylor, “Thimerosal exposure in infants and developmental disorders: a retrospective cohort study in the United Kingdom does not support a causal association,” Pediatrics, vol. 114, no. 3, pp. 584–591, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
- T. Verstraeten, R. L. Davis, F. DeStefano et al., “Safety of thimerosal-containing vaccines: a two-phased study of computerized health maintenance organization databases,” Pediatrics, vol. 112, no. 5, pp. 1039–1048, 2003. View at Scopus
- C. S. Price, W. W. Thompson, B. Goodson et al., “Prenatal and infant exposure to thimerosal from vaccines and immunoglobulins and risk of autism,” Pediatrics, vol. 126, no. 4, pp. 656–664, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
- K. M. Madsen, A. Hviid, M. Vestergaard et al., “MMR vaccination and autism–a population-based follow-up study,” Ugeskrift for Laeger, vol. 164, no. 49, pp. 5741–5744, 2002. View at Scopus
- B. S. Hooker and J. A. Trelka, “More on Madsen’s analysis,” Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, vol. 9, no. 4, 2004.
- T. K. Gronborg, D. E. Schendel, and E. T. Parner, “Recurrence of autism spectrum disorders in full- and half-siblings and trends over time: a population-based cohort study,” Journal of the American Medical Association Pediatrics, vol. 167, no. 10, pp. 947–953, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
- M. F. Blaxill, “The rising incidence of autism: associations with thimerosal,” in Immunization Safety Review: Thimerosal-Containing Vaccines and Neurodevelopmental Disorders, Institute of Medicine, Washington, DC, USA, 2001.
- M. F. Blaxill and P. Stehr-Green, “Concerns continue over mercury and autism (multiple letters),”American Journal of Preventive Medicine, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 91–92, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
- M. C. DeSoto and R. T. Hitlan, “Vaccine safety study as an interesting case of “over-matching”,” inRecent Advances in Autism Spectrum Disorders—Volume I, M. Fitzgerald, Ed., P.M.F., 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
- C. Price, A. Robertson, and B. Goodson, Thimerosal and Autism, ABT Associates, 2009.
- W. W. Thompson, C. Price, B. Goodson et al., “Early thimerosal exposure and neuropsychological outcomes at 7 to 10 years,” The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 357, no. 13, pp. 1281–1292, 2007.View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
- D. A. Geier and M. R. Geier, “A two-phased population epidemiological study of the safety of thimerosal-containing vaccines: a follow-up analysis,” Medical Science Monitor, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. CR160–CR170, 2005. View at Scopus
By Jon Rappoport May 16, 2014
At the FDA, which is, in fact, killing Americans at that rate, no one has ever felt the need to step forward and speak up.
Let’s shift the venue and ask the same question. If you were a medical reporter for a major media outlet in the US, and you knew the above fact, wouldn’t you make it a priority to say something, write something, do something?
I’m talking about people like Sanjay Gupta (CNN, CBS), Gina Kolata (NY Times), Tim Johnson (ABC News), and Thomas Maugh II (LA Times).
And with that, let’s go to the smoking guns. The citation is: BMJ June 7, 2012 (BMJ 2012:344:e3989). Author, Jeanne Lenzer.
Lenzer refers to a report by the Institute for Safe Medication Practices: “It calculated that in 2011 prescription drugs were associated with two to four million people in the US experiencing ‘serious, disabling, or fatal injuries, including 128,000 deaths.’”
The report called this “one of the most significant perils to humans resulting from human activity.”
And here is the final dagger. The report was compiled by outside researchers who went into the FDA’s own database of “serious adverse [medical-drug] events.”
Therefore, to say the FDA isn’t aware of this finding would be absurd. The FDA knows. The FDA knows and it isn’t saying anything about it, because the FDA certifies, as safe and effective, all the medical drugs that are routinely maiming and killing Americans.
Click PLAY to hear Refusers song It’s only a Coincidence
Previously, I have documented that the FDA knows; because the FDA has a page on its own website that admits 100,000 people are killed every year by medical drugs, and two million more people are severely injured by the drugs. (Search engine “FDA Why Learn About Adverse Drug Reactions” or click here to be taken directly to the FDA page in question).
And for the past five years or so, I have been writing about and citing a published report by the late Dr. Barbara Starfield that indicates 106,000 people in the US are killed by medical drugs every year. Until her death in 2011, Dr. Starfield worked at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health. Her report, “Is US health really the best in the world?”, was published in the Journal of American Medical Association on July 26, 2000.
Since the Department of Homeland Security is working its way into every nook and corner of American life, hyper-extending its mandate to protect all of us from everything, why shouldn’t I go along with Janet Napolitano’s advice: see something, say something.
This is what I see and this is what I’m saying. Maybe DHS would like to investigate the FDA as a terrorist organization.
How many smoking guns do we need before a sitting president shuts down the FDA buildings, fumigates the place, and prosecutes very large numbers of FDA employees?
Do we need 100,000 smoking guns every year? Do we need relatives of the people who’ve all died in the span of merely a year, from the poisonous effects of FDA-approved medical drugs, to bring their corpses to the doors of FDA headquarters?
And let me ask another question. If instead of drugs like warfarin, dabigatran, levofloxacin, carboplatin, and lisinopril (the five leading killers in the FDA database), the 100,000 deaths per year were led by gingko, ginseng, vitamin D, niacin, and raw milk, what do you think would happen?
I’ll tell you what would happen. SEALS, Delta Force, SWAT teams, snipers, predator drones, tanks, and infantry would be attacking every health-food store in America. The resulting fatalities would be written off as necessary collateral damage in the fight to keep America safe and healthy.
All those phony stories in the press, reported dutifully by so-called medical reporters? The stories about maybe-could-be-possible-miracle breakthroughs just over the horizon of state-of-the-art medical research? Those stories are there to obscure the very, very hard facts of medically-caused death on the ground.
The buck stops at the FDA.
Except in the real world, it doesn’t. Which tells you something about the so-called real world and how much of it is composed of propaganda.
Here is the situation. No medical drug in the US can be released for public use unless and until the FDA says it is safe and effective. That’s the rule. The FDA is spitting out drug approvals month after month and year after year, and the drugs are routinely killing 100,000 people a year and maiming two million more, which adds up to a million deaths per decade and 20 million maimings per decade. The FDA and the federal government are doing nothing about it, even though they know what’s going on. This is mass murder. Not accidental death. Murder. A holocaust.
Click PLAY to hear Refusers song Unavoidable Unsafe
Jon Rappoport is an investigative reporter, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com
Exclusive interview by Jon Rappoport April 25, 2014 NoMoreFakeNews.com
Before her recent resignation from CBS, Sharyl Attkisson was a mainstream news star. Multiple Emmys. CNN anchor, CBS anchor on stories about space exploration. Host of CBS’ News Up to the Minute. PBS host for Health Week. Investigative reporter for CBS.
Attkisson dug deep into Fast&Furious, Benghazi, and the ill-effects of vaccines. Too deep. Her bosses shut her down and didn’t air key stories.
She now has her own website, sharylattkisson.com. She is writing a book, Stonewalled: My Fight for the Truth Against the Forces of Obstruction, Intimidation and Harassment in Obama’s Washington.
It’s not every day that a major mainstream journalist leaves the fold and then seeks to expose the corruption that impinged on her work.
She agreed to do an email interview. Some of the questions I sent went to the heart of her book-in-progress, so she declined to answer them. However, her answers to my other questions were revealing and explosive.
In 2009, you spearheaded coverage of the so-called Swine Flu pandemic. You discovered that, in the summer of 2009, the Centers for Disease Control, ignoring their federal mandate, stopped counting Swine Flu cases in America. Yet they continued to stir up fear about the “pandemic,” without having any real measure of its impact. Wasn’t that another investigation of yours that was shut down? Wasn’t there more to find out?
The implications of the story were even worse than that. We discovered through our FOI efforts that before the CDC mysteriously stopped counting Swine Flu cases, they had learned that almost none of the cases they had counted as Swine Flu was, in fact, Swine Flu or any sort of flu at all! The interest in the story from one executive was very enthusiastic. He said it was “the most original story” he’d seen on the whole Swine Flu epidemic. But others pushed to stop it and, in the end, no broadcast wanted to touch it. We aired numerous stories pumping up the idea of an epidemic, but not the one that would shed original, new light on all the hype. It was fair, accurate, legally approved and a heck of a story. With the CDC keeping the true Swine Flu stats secret, it meant that many in the public took and gave their children an experimental vaccine that may not have been necessary.
You’ve revealed serious problems caused by vaccines. Have you run into opposition as a result of covering these stories?
This is a long discussion but yes, it is one of the most well funded, well orchestrated efforts I’ve ever seen on a story. Many reporters, if not all, who have tried to factually cover this topic have experienced the same opposition as have researchers who dared to uncover vaccine side effects. Those who don’t want the stories explored want to censor the information from the public entirely, lest the public draw the “wrong” conclusions about the facts. The media has largely bought into the conflicted government, political and medical complex propaganda on the topic that marginalizes researchers, journalists and parents who dare to speak to the scientific facts they’ve uncovered or to their own experiences. It’s a giant scandal of its own.
In an interview with Real Clear Politics, you suggested that the website, Media Matters, has been targeting and attacking you. Why have they gone after you? Because of your work on the Fast&Furious story? Do these people just reflexively react whenever a reporter writes something that casts a negative light on the Obama White House?
I didn’t interview with Real Clear Politics but maybe they quoted my interview with CNN. MediaMatters is well known to be a left wing propaganda group that acts as a pro-Obama surrogate to attack journalists that threaten the agenda. It works in concert with federal officials who withhold public information from the press and the public but then share it with MediaMatters so that the “talking points” of the day can be controlled and manipulated. (One example: http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/18/emails-reveal-justice-dept-regularly-enlists-media-matters-to-spin-press/) The group works with other surrogates such as Talking Points Memo to controversialize and harass reporters to intimidate them and try to stop their damaging coverage. None of that is surprising or unexpected. They are simply using a media campaign to try to squelch the journalists who they believe could damage the interests of those they serve. The only strange part of the equation is that the “mainstream” press at times almost treats these paid opinion bloggers as if they are objective media watchdogs. I don’t see these news organizations respond to the right wing counterparts with the same deference. They news media typically doesn’t quote conservative media ‘watchdogs’ or question journalists about the conservative watchdogs’ criticisms and observations. Just the liberal ‘watchdogs.’
At this moment in time, because you’re not employed by a major news network, are you viewed by the media establishment as a loose cannon? Are you being painted as an outsider, a weirdo, a chronic dissenter with an axe to grind?
All of the above, I suppose, but I don’t pay attention that. It’s expected. I have heard from many colleagues at various networks who are happy that I’m in a position to speak freely of things that they, too have experienced and observed but cannot say publicly.
My comment on Attkisson’s answers: Her discussion of the endlessly corrupt CDC is remarkable. The most hyped “epidemic” in recent history, Swine Flu, had absolutely no basis in fact. It was one more effort to promote vaccines and scare the public. And the harassment of mainstream reporters who question the sacred conventional wisdom about vaccines is another piece of the story.
Click PLAY to hear Refusers song Vaccine Gestapo
Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, Jon Rappoport has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe.
By Charlotte Gilruth, CCH – Vermont Coalition for Vaccine Choice
Apr 22, 2014
Scapegoating usually is an oversimplification of a more complex issue. (1)
Contrary to the stated goals of official health organizations such as the CDC and WHO, measles could not be eliminated even if everyone on the planet were to be vaccinated. On the contrary, mass vaccination seems to be exacerbating measles’ spread.
A study published in Great Britain’s Proceedings of the Royal Society (2) found that measles vaccination “can have a range of unexpected consequences as it reduces the natural boosting of immunity” and that “the interaction between vaccination and waning immunity can lead to pronounced epidemic cycles in which the peak levels of infection can be…orders of magnitude greater than the mean.”
Microbes constantly mutate, so vaccines may become less and less successful at protecting against new circulating strains, similar to the way overuse of antibiotics promotes growth of resistant bacteria such as MRSA. The international medical community is addressing this important phenomenon of “vaccine-driven pathogen evolution.” (3)
Measles can be spread through vaccinated individuals. The CDC cites 21 cases of measles occurring in a fully vaccinated secondary school, which “…demonstrates that transmission of measles can occur within a school population with a documented immunization level of 100%.” (4)
The origin of an outbreak in New York City in 2011 was traced to an “index patient” who had two doses of measles-containing vaccine, and spread the infection to four “secondary patients” who had either two doses of measles vaccine or confirmed positive test for measles antibody. (5)
Any vaccine can lead to encephalitis (brain damage, through swelling of the brain): The Merck Manual, the largest-selling medical textbook, says vaccines can cause encephalitis when “A virus or vaccine triggers a reaction that makes the immune system attack brain tissue (an autoimmune reaction).” (6)
In the package insert of Merck’s M-M-R II vaccine, “Encephalitis; encephalopthy; measles inclusion body encephalitis (MIBE), and subacute sclerosing panencephalitis (SSPE) are listed as possible adverse reactions, with the comment that “the data suggest the possibility that some of these cases may have been caused by measles vaccines.” (7)
Of of the nearly $2.7 billion total paid out in claims for vaccine injuries and deaths from 1988 to the present by the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), 12% was for deaths and injuries attributed to measles vaccines. (8)
In the VICP, only four conditions are covered for measles-containing vaccines: Anaphylactic shock, Encephalopathy (or encephalitis), Thrombocytopenic purpura [excessive bruising and bleeding], and Vaccine-strain Measles Viral Infection in an immunodeficient recipient. (9) Those vaccinated against measles can endanger immune-compromised individuals through shedding of live viruses.
Vaccines are not necessarily as effective as we are led to believe. Merck has been sued for falsification of data and for making fraudulent claims about the efficacy of the Mumps component of its M-M-R II vaccine. (10) This case has been tied up in court since 2012. How can we believe Merck’s claims about its many other vaccines?
Most of these problems apply to other types of vaccines, making it clear that vaccination is fraught with ambiguity, and that the tiny percentage of those who opt out - less than 2% of children entering kindergarten nationwide are not vaccinated at all (11) – cannot be blamed for the failure of vaccines to check the spread of disease.
Nearly 300 vaccines are under development, (12) and following current protocols, most will eventually be mandated. Even now it’s reasonable to forgo at least a few shots of the dozens required, yet throughout the country, hostility mounts toward thinking health care consumers who decline vaccination for a variety of good reasons.. A survey by the American Journal of Preventive Medicine found 25 percent of pediatricians have fired patients for refusing vaccines. (13)
The Vermont Coalition for Vaccine Choice regularly hears complaints from those who have been disrespected by their physicians because of their vaccine choices. Recently, two of my close family members were subjected to varying degrees of pressure to be vaccinated themselves while pregnant; one was later harassed for refusing to vaccinate her newborn. (The doctor honorably apologized the next day.)
As the pharmaceutical and insurance industries and the government increasingly dominate health care, it becomes ever more urgent to hold onto our right to informed consent regarding all medical choices–including the highly personal matter of whether to accept vaccination for oneself or one’s children. Informed consent, a cornerstone of medical ethics, is summarized by the AMA as a communication process to “elicit a better understanding of the treatment or procedure, so that he or she can make an informed decision to proceed or to refuse a particular course of medical intervention.” (14)
Informed consent by definition includes the right to say “no.” Period.
Charlotte Gilruth, CCH
Secretary Vermont Coalition for Vaccine Choice
1) Anonymous comment. “Herd Immunity.” Science-based Medicine. 5 June 2009. http://
2) Heffernan, J.M., and Keeling, M.J. “Implications of vaccination and waning immunity.” Proceedings of the Royal Society. 4 March 2009. http://tinyurl.com/l8jm7kn
3) “Vaccination: an evolutionary engine for species?” Fondation Merieux. 25-27 November 2013. http://tinyurl.com/la6lmlv
4) “Measles Outbreak among Vaccinated High School Students–Illinois.” Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Report/CDC. 22 June 1984. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00000359.htm
5) Jennifer B. Rosen, Jennifer S. Rota, Carole J. Hickman, Sun B. Sowers, Sara Mercader, Paul A. Rota, William J. Bellini, Ada J. Huang, Margaret K. Doll, Jane R. Zucker, and Christopher M. Zimmerman. “Outbreak of Measles Among Persons With Prior Evidence of Immunity, New York City, 2011.” Clinical Infectious Diseases/Oxford Journals. Volume 58 Issue 9. 1 May 2014. http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/58/9/1205
6) “Encephalitis.” Merck Manual Home Health Handbook. May 2013. http://tinyurl.com/kpqsuyu
7) Merck & Co., Inc. “M-M-R® II (MEASLES, MUMPS, and RUBELLA VIRUS VACCINE LIVE).” (vaccine package insert). Food and Drug Administration. http://tinyurl.com/nyqwxtj
8) National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. “Data and Statistics.” Human Resources and Services Administration. 2 April 2014. http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/data.html
9) Ibid. “Vaccine Injury Table of covered vaccines and associated injuries.” http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/vaccinetable.html
10) Kramer, Reuben. “Class Says Merck Lied About Mumps Vaccine.” Courthouse News Service. 27 June 2012. http://tinyurl.com/7hj7372
11) “Vaccination Coverage Among Children in Kindergarten — United States, 2012–13 School Year.” CDC: Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR). 2 August 2013. http://tinyurl.com/lflzpoc
12) Taylor, Lynne. “US biopharma: nearly 300 vaccines in R&D, Online Pharma Times. 24 April 2012. http://tinyurl.com/kh2fkmx
13) Jaslow, Ryan. “Doctors fire patients who refuse vaccines for children: Ethical?” CBS News. 30 March 2012. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/doctors-fire-patients-who-refuse-vaccines-for-their-children-ethical/
14) Shaz, Beth H., MD. “Donor’s Written Statement of Understanding.” (p.6) FDA. June 2009. http://tinyurl.com/n8apvhg
“I think the CDC Should Be Investigated.” Congressman Bill Posey
PRNewswire Apr 16, 2014
WATCHUNG, N.J., April 16, 2014 /PRNewswire-iReach/ — In an April 8 interview on AutismOne’s A Conversation of Hope radio show, Congressman Bill Posey’s strong resolve and demands for transparency were evident as he discussed the Center for Disease Control (CDC)’s handling of vaccine safety studies which affect “our most precious resource in our nation – our children.” The 30-minute interview, conducted by vaccine industry watchdog, PhD biochemist Brian Hooker, delves into what Posey called “the incestuous relationship between the public health community and the vaccine makers and public officials.”
The Florida legislator, known as “Mr. Accountabililty,” did not mince words when criticizing current and past CDC officials including indicted fraudster Dr. Poul Thorsen; CDC director turned Merck Vaccine President Dr. Julie Gerberding; and the agency’s current spokesperson regarding autism and vaccines, Dr. Coleen Boyle.
On Thorsen, Posey said “If you read through the emails and learned about the meetings and the financial arrangement this crook had with the CDC, it will make you absolutely sick to your stomach. This was no casual researcher way down the line. This is the CDC’s key man in Denmark. He was closely tied to the CDC’s top vaccine safety researchers… as long as Thorsen was cooking the books to produce the results they wanted, they didn’t care whether the studies were valid or how much money was being siphoned off the top…It’s like the Security and Exchange Commission and Bernie Madoff. But it’s worse because we’re talking about someone who basically stole money that was supposed to be used to improve the health and safety of our most vulnerable in our society – our young babies.”
Click PLAY to hear Refusers CDC song Vaccine Gestapo
Dr. Hooker remarked that Thorsen had collaborated with the CDC on 36 papers, not just one paper as claimed by Dr. Boyle, and that the agency refused to investigate studies exonerating vaccines’ role in causing autism following his indictment on wire fraud and money laundering. Posey described Boyle as “intentionally evasive,” in his questioning of her at a Congressional hearing. “I asked her a very direct question. ‘Have you done a study comparing autism rates in vaccinated vs. unvaccinated children?…’ She started telling us about everything she’s done …After she wasted three minutes, I cut her off and I demanded that she answer the question. And then, only then, did she admit that the federal government has never done that very simple, fundamental, basic study.”
About Boyle’s denial of a true increase in autism, Posey said, “I know we have an autism epidemic. You know it. She knows it. She knows we know it. But for some reason they refuse to acknowledge it publicly.” Regarding Boyle’s assertion that the increase is due to better diagnosing, Posey said, “I don’t think anybody that’s intellectually honest with this issue can begin to fathom that lame excuse that she uses.” He also described an orchestrated campaign on behalf of the CDC and vaccine industry: “people who do all the blogging and shredding anyone who dares question the unaccountable bureaucrats.” He spoke of “their little media network [that will] twist the truth to disparage, to malign, to vilify, to denigrate anybody who wants any kind of accountability….”
Posey then discussed his co-sponsorship with Rep. Carolyn Maloney of the Vaccine Safety Study Act. He said the proposed legislation would compel the government to conduct a retrospective vaccinated vs. unvaccinated study of health outcomes. He felt it could be done with “accountability and direct oversight of the government”
In his closing remarks, Posey said, “The CDC can’t be trusted regarding investigating vaccine safety. Huge conflict of interest. I think the CDC should be investigated.”
Barry Segal, founder of Focus Autism, which sponsors Dr. Hooker’s investigative research, called the interview “a game changer.”
Representative Bill Posey is serving his third term in Florida’s 8th Congressional District. He serves on the Committee for Science, Space and Technology. He was instrumental in the release of CDC documents regarding a link between vaccines and autism. These papers are now being analyzed by several researchers, including Dr. Brian Hooker.
Brian Hooker, PhD, PE, has 15 years experience in the field of bioengineering and is an associate professor at Simpson University where he specializes in biology and chemistry. His over 50 science and engineering papers have been published in internationally recognized, peer-reviewed journals. Dr. Hooker has a son, aged 16, who developed normally but then regressed into autism after receiving Thimerosal (mercury-containing) vaccines.
The Focus Autism Foundation is dedicated to providing information that exposes the cause or causes of the autism epidemic and the rise of chronic illnesses – focusing specifically on the role of vaccinations. A Shot of Truth is an educational website sponsored by Focus Autism. AutismOne is a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization that provides education and supports advocacy efforts for children and families touched by an autism diagnosis.
Media Contact: A Shot of Truth, A Shot of Truth, (844)367-2768, firstname.lastname@example.org
News distributed by PR Newswire iReach: https://ireach.prnewswire.com
SOURCE A Shot of Truth
by Amy Davidson April 15, 2014 The New Yorker
Awarding the Pulitzer for public service to the Guardian and the Washington Post should go down as about the easiest call the prize committee has ever had to make. It would have been a scandal, this year, if there had been no Pulitzer related to the documents that Edward Snowden, a former National Security Agency contractor, leaked to several reporters. This was a defining case of the press doing what it is supposed to do. The President was held accountable; he had to answer questions that he would rather not have and, when his replies proved unsatisfying to the public—and, in some cases, just rang false—his Administration had to change its policies. Congress had to confront its own failures of oversight; private companies had to rethink their obligations to their customers and to law enforcement; and people had conversations at home and at school and pretty much everywhere about what they, themselves, would be willing to let the N.S.A. do to them. Justice Scalia recently said that he fully expected these issues to be before the Supreme Court soon, because we’ve had a chance to read the Snowden papers. And journalists have had to think about their own obligations—to the law, the Constitution, their readers, and even, in the practice of reporting in the age of technical tracking, to sources they might expose or make vulnerable. Any one of those aspects would be a major public service. How could that not be Pulitzer material?
And yet, the Post itself acknowledged that some people might be angry, noting that the documents were classified and came from Snowden, “who has fled to exile in Russia, lending a controversial edge to this year’s awards.” Congressman Peter King, in character, tweeted that “Awarding the Pulitzer to Snowden enablers is a disgrace.”
He’s wrong. What is meant by “enabling”—that the reporters involved were Snowden’s mousy little couriers? The public-service successes wrought by these stories were not inevitable. As explosive as the papers would have been on their own, with no mediation, the shape of the scandal has also been a function of careful journalism. It didn’t have to play out this way: either paper could have bungled it. They had to be judicious and brave. Each has more documents than it has published, and has been scrupulous about what it shares, making sure to give a sense of what the acronyms and connections mean. (In a way, the Pulitzer is also for what the papers have not made public.) Each has also reported out the stories, which includes going to the government for comment—listening to what it has to say, dealing with its pressure sensibly and not reflexively—and then publishing certain things that it has been told it should keep secret. The newspapers have been called criminal. As Janine Gibson, the editor-in-chief of Guardian US, said after the award announcement, “It’s been an intense, exhaustive, and sometimes chilling year working on this story.”
The Post and the Guardian’s peers could have left them alone and exposed. Instead, half a dozen other outlets have had some part of the papers, and many more have followed up on the leads that they present. But imagine an alternate history, with journalists charged with crimes, official explanations and claims of outrageous damage unchallenged, and a couple of bad court rulings tightening the parameters on freedom of the press. It’s not farfetched. (Look at Snowden’s situation.) This Pulitzer was deserved in part because publishing the papers was a risky thing to do, not despite it.
It makes sense that the prizes went to the papers, and not just to a few of the dozens of reporters and editors who worked on this story. That’s not to quarrel with the George Polk Award, which went, last week, to Glenn Greenwald, Laura Poitras, and Ewen MacAskill, for the Guardian, and Barton Gellman, at the Washington Post, who had the main bylines on the big stories, and who took the earliest gambles. (If one were forced to choose the single journalist who most made the story happen, it would be Poitras.) But it’s good that the Pulitzer committee is used to recognizing teams, because that’s what this one took. The Post said that its contingent included twenty-eight people (including Julie Tate, late of The New Yorker); the Guardian mentioned, in addition to Greenwald, Poitras, and MacAskill, Gibson, Stuart Millar, Paul Johnson, Nick Hopkins, and ten others.
If one looks over the list of Pulitzer winners for public service, starting in 1918, it is striking how well this prize fits in. A good proportion have to do with government corruption, whether it involves money or power. The Times won for publishing the Pentagon Papers, in 1972, and the Post for its Watergate investigation, in 1973.
Interview with Dr. Peter Gotzsche, author of Deadly Medicines and Organised Crime
Dr. Gøtzsche is co-founder of the Cochrane Collaboration and head of the Nordic Cochrane Centre. His new book is entitled: Deadly Medicines and Organised Crime: How big pharma has corrupted healthcare.
Apr 8, 2014
ANH-Intl: Towards the end of your book you state that “What we should do is … identify overdiagnosed and overtreated patients, take patients off most or all of their drugs, and teach them that a life without drugs is possible for most of us.” Can you please explain this a little further?
PG: Removal of drugs should usually not be accompanied by the introduction of other types of treatment. Many patients would gain a better quality of life if their drugs were taken away from them. What we need is to remember Brian McFerrin’s song: “Don’t worry, be happy”. We shall all die, but we should remember to live while we are here without worrying that some day in the future we might get ill. It is daunting how many healthy people are put on drugs that lower blood pressure or cholesterol, and it changes people from healthy citizens to patients who may start worrying about their good health. This can have profound psychological consequences apart from the side effects of the drugs that the patients don’t always realise are side effects, e.g. if they get more tired or depressed after starting antihypertensive therapy or experience problems in their sex life.
ANH-Intl: What can the public and patients do to help redress the situation? Are they effectively disempowered or are there things they can do to help build a more functional healthcare system?
PG: First of all, the public needs to know the extent to which they are being deceived in the current system, e.g. few people know that prescription drugs are the third major killer. If drug testing and drug regulation were effective, this wouldn’t happen.
ANH-Intl: Numerous problems with the medical literature are cited in your book, among them unpublished trials, fiddled statistics, unsuitable comparators and other methodological weaknesses and the preponderance of academic ‘flak’ in the form of weak, industry-sourced publications designed to muddy the waters. Bearing this in mind, what advice would you have for anyone wishing to locate high-quality published data?
PG: There are very little high-quality published data. Neither the drug industry nor publicly employed researchers are particularly willing to share their data with others, which essentially means that science ceases to exist. Scrutiny of data by others is a fundamental aspect of science that moves science forward, but that’s not how it works in healthcare. Most doctors are willing to add their names to articles produced by drug companies, although they are being denied access to the data they and their patients have produced and without which the articles cannot be written. This is corruption of academic integrity and betrayal of the trust patients have in the research enterprise. No self-respecting scientists should publish findings based on data to which they do not have free and full access.
ANH-Intl: Are there any classes of drug, as opposed to individual products, for which, in your opinion, there is no valid scientific or medical justification for their use in healthcare?
PG: There are several classes of drugs, e.g. cough medicines and anticholinergic drugs for urinary incontinence, where the effect is doubtful but there is no doubt about their harms, which in my opinion means they should be withdrawn from the market. There are many other types of drugs that likely have no effect. All drugs have side effects, and it is therefore difficult to blind placebo-controlled trials effectively. We know that lack of blinding leads to exaggerated views on the effect for subjective outcomes, such as dementia, depression and pain, and it is for this reason that many drugs, which are believed to have minor effects, likely aren’t effective at all.
There are also classes of drugs where, although an effect has been demonstrated, their availability likely does more harm than good. I write in my book that, although some psychiatric drugs can be helpful sometimes for some patients, our citizens would be far better off if we removed all the psychotropic drugs from the market, as doctors are unable to handle them. Patients get dependent on them, and if used for more than a few weeks, several drugs will cause even worse disorders than the one that led to starting the drugs. As far as I can see, it is inescapable that their availability does more harm than good.
ANH-Intl: The chapter in your book entitled “Intimidation, violence and threats to protect sales” begins as follows: “It takes great courage to become a whistle-blower. Healthcare is so corrupt that those who expose drug companies’ criminal acts become pariahs.” Have you experienced any blowback since publishing the book?
PG: No, quite the contrary, as people have praised the book. I don’t hear from the drug industry of course, but I have seen blunt lies about the book being propagated by drug industry associations and their paid allies among doctors.
Vaccine Failure: Twice-Vaccinated Individual Contracts and Transmits Measles – Clinical Infectious Diseases Journal
By MB Apr 11, 2014
Hey all you vaccinated people – you’re not protected! Your measles vaccine insurance policy is a fraud. You can still get and transmit measles to others.
Hey all you media know-nothings who blame every disease case on the unvaccinated – vaccinated people get diseases too and spread them because of VACCINE FAILURE.
Hey Big Pharma, lick your scummy lips at the prospect of selling more doses of failed vaccines to gullible people who will never figure out that vaccines are defective and who will line up obediently like sheep for more doses of your useless and toxic vaccines.
Click PLAY to hear Refusers song Little Prick
Hey everyone else – do you have a functioning brain that can add 2 and 2? Vaccines are failing, measles eradication is a lie because the vaccinated can get and infect others with measles.
Try this one on for size: Measles eradication efforts actually eliminate herd immunity. Every case of measles in an unvaccinated person is the real herd immunity. They get permanent immunity against measles. Epidemiologists are idiots. The outbreaks they panic over and attempt to suppress with the epidemic models they were taught in BS statistics provide real herd immunity. Permanent immunity gained through natural exposure. That is authentic herd immunity and they are doing everything in their power to stamp it out by using vaccines that will always fail and leave people asking for more doses of vaccines that don’t work.
Outbreak of Measles Among Persons With Prior Evidence of Immunity. Clinical Infectious Diseases Apr 10, 2014
‘The index case had two doses of measles-containing vaccine. Of 88 contacts, four secondary cases were confirmed that had either two doses of measles-containing vaccine or a past positive measles IgG antibody. All cases had laboratory confirmation of measles infection, clinical symptoms consistent with measles, and high avidity IgG antibody characteristic of a secondary immune response.’
Measles Outbreak Traced to Fully Vaccinated Patient for First Time ScienceNow Apr 11, 2014
Get the measles vaccine, and you won’t get the measles—or give it to anyone else. Right? Well, not always. 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 suggests that a recent swell of measles outbreaks in developed nations could mean more illnesses even among the vaccinated.
When it comes to the measles vaccine, two shots are better than one. Most people in the United States are initially vaccinated against the virus shortly after their first birthday and return for a booster shot as a toddler. Less than 1% of people who get both shots will contract the potentially lethal skin and respiratory infection. And even if a fully vaccinated person does become infected—a rare situation known as “vaccine failure”—they weren’t thought to be contagious.
That’s why a fully vaccinated 22-year-old theater employee in New York City who developed the measles in 2011 was released without hospitalization or quarantine. But like Typhoid Mary, this patient turned out to be unwittingly contagious. Ultimately, she transmitted the measles to four other people, according to a recent report in Clinical Infectious Diseases that tracked symptoms in the 88 people with whom “Measles Mary” interacted while she was sick. Surprisingly, two of the secondary patients had been fully vaccinated. And although the other two had no record of receiving the vaccine, they both showed signs of previous measles exposure that should have conferred immunity.
A closer look at the blood samples taken during her treatment revealed how the immune defenses of Measles Mary broke down. As a first line of defense against the measles and other microbes, humans rely on a natural buttress of IgM antibodies. Like a wooden shield, they offer some protection from microbial assaults but aren’t impenetrable. The vaccine (or a case of the measles) prompts the body to supplement this primary buffer with a stronger armor of IgG antibodies, some of which are able to neutralize the measles virus so it can’t invade cells or spread to other patients. This secondary immune response was presumed to last for decades.
By analyzing her blood, the researchers found that Measles Mary mounted an IgM defense, as if she had never been vaccinated. Her blood also contained a potent arsenal of IgG antibodies, but a closer look revealed that none of these IgG antibodies were actually capable of neutralizing the measles virus. It seemed that her vaccine-given immunity had waned.
Although public health officials have assumed that measles immunity lasts forever, the case of Measles Mary highlights the reality that “the actual duration [of immunity] following infection or vaccination is unclear,” says Jennifer Rosen, who led the investigation as director of epidemiology and surveillance at the New York City Bureau of Immunization. The possibility of waning immunity is particularly worrisome as the virus surfaces in major U.S. hubs like Boston, Seattle, New York, and the Los Angeles area. Rosen doesn’t believe this single case merits a change in vaccination strategy—for example, giving adults booster shots—but 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—which are increasingly common in the United States and other developed countries. Even a vaccine failure rate of 3% to 5% could devastate a high school with a few thousand students, says Robert Jacobson, director of clinical studies for the Mayo Clinic’s Vaccine Research Group in Rochester, Minnesota, who wasn’t involved with the study.