CDC Claim of No Autism-Vaccine Link Based on Junk Science

CDC Claim of No Autism-Vaccine Link Based on Junk Science

Junk, by Daniel Y. Go, cropped and with word Science superimposed

The CDC has produced junk science that demonstrates absolutely nothing, but claims it shows no connection between autism and the vaccine schedule. It's now spinning it as if it proves that there's no link between the modern day nightmare of autism and the vaccines that they push for Big Pharma. Here's the evidence.

by Heidi Stevenson

The CDC has produced a study, claiming that it proves that there's no link between autism and the number or timing of vaccinations. The mainstream news has been covering it with its usual unquestioning cheerleader approach. Worse, they have—with the assistance of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC)—conflated the study with the more basic question of whether vaccinations cause autism. Of course, their implied conclusion is that it doesn't, and that now parents should simply accept their claims that there's no connection between vaccines and autism.

However, I have read the study—and frankly, it provides a new standard for the term pseudo science.. Even the little information that's been produced by the media makes it absolutely clear that the study is nothing but junk science. In no sense does it even come close to demonstrating a lack of association between autism and vaccines. There are several reasons.

The primary flaw is that there is no comparison between vaccinated children and unvaccinated children.  

That's right. That alone is more than enough to simply toss the study in the trash. The only way to prove whether vaccines cause autism is by comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated children. That has never been done. Until then, there is simply no purpose served in examining how the relative levels of vaccination affect the condition:

Why would you want to investigate whether the degree of exposure affects a condition, unless you've already found that it actually causes it?

The fact is that no such legitimate study has been done. The CDC's reason, the same one that's parroted around the world, is that it would be unethical. They claim it would be unethical to deprive children of the questionable benefits of vaccination by doing such a study. There are, of course, two solid arguments countering that claim:

  • The first is that such considerations have never stopped them from doing medical studies in any other arena. So why should it stop them now?
  • The second is that there are large unvaccinated pools of children who could be compared with vaccinated ones. These include the Amish people, thousands of Homefirst clinic patients, and a large percentage of the Waldorf Schools children. There is no lack of unvaccinated children for such a study, either prospective or retrospective.

The Study

The study[1] was a case-controlled variety. It used 256 children defined as having autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and compared them with 752 children who hadn't been given the diagnosis. Reports that give these numbers, though, do not tell the whole story.

Any child who also had a diagnosis for fragile X syndrome, tuberous sclerosis, Rett syndrome, congenital rubella syndrome, or Angelman syndrome was not included in the study. The stated reason was that they had "known links to  ASD traits". However, at least one of these conditions, Rett syndrome, is defined as a type of autism. It is not similar to autism. It is possibly the worst form of it. So, the authors of the study specifically eliminated the worst cases of autism from their trial!

They started with 771 potential ASD cases, not the 256 reported in the media, and 2,760 potential controls, not the 752 reported—and then they started eliminating subjects:

  • 103 ASD cases (leaving 668 cases) and 316 controls (leaving 2,444 controls) were deemed ineligible. Why they were ineligible, we're not told.
  • Of the remaining subjects, only 321 ASD cases (48.1%) and 774 controls (31.7%) completed the trial. The reasons are not given. This is a significant factor. Notice that a far higher percentage of the ASD cases than controls completed the trial.
  • Of the remaining controls:
    • 12 of the remaining controls were eliminated because they had exclusionary conditions. (as described above)
    • 10 controls were not included because they didn't match any of the ASD cases.
    • 186 controls were eliminated because they "had indications of speech delay or language delay, learning disability, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder or attention deficit disorder, or tics, or had an individual education plan". In other words, any indication of a developmental disorder resulted in removal of a child from the controls group.
    • 27% of the original controls were counted in the study.
  • The remaining ASD cases were not eliminated for the same reasons that controls were. Instead, a different set of criteria was used:
    • They defined a set of criteria based on testing to determine which children would remain in the study.
    • They eliminated any child whose diagnosis happened after age 36 months.
    • 33% of the original ASD cases were counted in the study.

Why the Results Are Meaningless

As initially pointed out, this study was done on the assumption that there is no connection between autism and vaccinations. Therefore, there was no reason to do such a study. Why would you do a study on whether there's an association between autism and vaccinations before you believe that there's been a study demonstrating such a connection? If this were legitimate science, then there'd be no reason to do it.

There is no explanation for the high dropout rate of subjects, nor is there an explanation for the significantly different dropout rates between ASD cases (51.9%) and controls (68.3%). More than half of both groups didn't finish the study, yet we're left without an explanation. Obviously, this large number could easily have changed the results.

The elimination of the worst type of autism, Rett syndrone, could easily have skewed the results.

Eliminating subjects from ASD cases and controls for different reasons is generally not legitimate in a case controlled study.

They looked at the number of antigens given to each child, both overall for their first two years and the number given on single days. This presumes that the number of antigens, rather than the number of vaccinations is the issue. It completely ignores adjuvants and other vaccine ingredients, including known toxins such as formaldehyde, mercury, and sorbitol 80, among others.

Continue to Page 2

Pages :
Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of GreenMedInfo or its staff.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Two political aspects

My experience of the vaccines-autism link was in the late 1960s and early 1970s, in New Zealand.   These comments relate to that time, but may apply more widely.

The vaccine to give to infants called the "triple vaccine" was ordered on a named basis by the local doctor.   He gave the drug distributing company a patient name and identifyng information, upon which they issued one dose of the vaccine.   There are known to have been two different forms of the vaccine, one containing a mercury substance and one not.

"Thiomersal (INN), commonly known in the US as thimerosal, is an organomercury compound. This compound is a well established antiseptic and antifungal agent."  (Quote from wikipedia).  The vaccines containing this are sometimes called TCV.

This means the only people holding a list of who got which form of the vaccine was the vaccine's agent, the distribution company. 

This means it is very simple to fake any subsequent research on this vaccine, by manipulating the choice of subjects who are put in the "control group".   This means the vaccine manufacturer can get any research results they like.

I am certain there is a link between the "triple vaccine" issued to infants at this time and autistic development in normal infants.   

I further believe the choice (of who got the more dangerous thimerosal form of the vaccine) was manipulated, victimising certain families or families not within one part of society.

A second point is that there was apparently a mention of protection of one drug company from prosecution within the earliest anti-terrorist legislation in the USA.   This is the extremely long and weighty legislation rushed through Congress after 911.   Congressmen said at the time that nobody had had time to read it properly.

Need a good study on the mercury link

Given the toxicity of mercury, I wish we could get a REAL study that would not only compare autism levels in vaccinated/non-vaccinated children, but would also look at whether they have other likely exposure to mercury, in the form of silver amalgams in their own mouths, or through gestation/breastfeeding by a mother who has silver amalgams.

Despite the junk science, I don't think the CDC will ever squelch parents' deep-seated distrust of vaccines (sadly, often when it is too late and the damage has been done). The autism community knows this link only too well, and chelating using the Cutler protocol is starting to look like the best option of "recovering" children with autism and other behavioral issues that are most likely linked to mercury exposure.

The rise in allergies like eggs and more is probably linked to vaccines too. Vaccines and antibiotics are messing with immune systems in the most brutal way possible, and the results are starting to really show.


Thank you for adding such a thoughtful comment! 

This is not Vaccine research...

The title of the research paper, and the stated objective, clearly declares that this research is NOT investigating the relationship between vaccinations and autism.  The title "Increasing Exposure to Antibody-Stimulating Proteins and Polysaccharides in Vaccines Is Not Associated with Risk of Autism" and the objective: "To evaluate the association between autism and the level of immunologic stimulation received from vaccines administered during the first 2 years of life."  eg. They did not measure vaccinations, they attempted to measure specific aspects of vaccinations.  And when we read the paper - we find they didn't measure autism, they just measured specific types of autism. 

It is also worth nothing that the title, and stated objective, do not agree. The authors confuse "level of immunologic stimulation"  - which was not measured, with "exposure to antibody-stimulating proteins".

And of course, as you mention, they continually restrict their data until it fits their goals.  

A true measure of the relationship between vaccinations and autism would compare all measures of vaccinated subjects, from not vaccinated to heavily vaccinated, with all levels of autism, from minor to very serious.  This study would be fully open and honest, but it is unlikely that it would be studied. 

to your health, tracy


Excellent article. It just goes to show you how "studies" can be manipulated and changed to produce a desired outcome. This is done with ALL the new drugs that come from Big Pharma. Thank you for standing up for truth.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to write a comment

Popular Threads

This website is for information purposes only. By providing the information contained herein we are not diagnosing, treating, curing, mitigating, or preventing any type of disease or medical condition. Before beginning any type of natural, integrative or conventional treatment regimen, it is advisable to seek the advice of a licensed healthcare professional.

© Copyright 2008-2016, Journal Articles copyright of original owners, MeSH copyright NLM.