·

Study finds evidence for CDC cover-up of link between autism and mercury in vaccines

study-finds-evidence-for-cdc-cover-up-of-link-between-autism-and-mercury-in-vaccines

A new study finds the CDC may have covered up the clear and present danger associated with mercury in vaccines.

A controversial new study published in Biomed Research International titled, "Methodological Issues and Evidence of Malfeasance in Research Purporting to Show Thimerosal in Vaccines Is Safe," has exposed convincing evidence of wrong-doing on the part of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in actively covering up the causal link between mercury in vaccines (Thimerosal) and harm to infants and children.

According to the review, "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." [references for the 16 studies can be found here: #3-16]

While the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) states there is "no relationship between [T]himerosal[-]containing vaccines and autism rates in children,"[1] the researchers pointed out that a study conducted by CDC epidemiologists found a 7.6-fold increased risk of autism from exposure to Thimerosal during infancy.

Moreover, "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.

Owing to this glaring contradiction the review sought out to examine closely these six CDC conducted studies to find out how their results conflict with the findings of 75+ years of past research performed by multiple independent research groups that did find clear evidence of harm.

A closer look at the review

The review references 16 studies that show Thimerosal exposure is associated with the subsequent diagnosis of neurodevelopmental disorders such as autism. This brings to the fore the obvious question: 'how does the CDC conclude that there is no evidence of that relationship?'

According to the review, there are six studies the CDC references which deny the link:

"These studies include (1) the Madsen et al.[2] ecological study of autism incidence versus Thimerosal exposure in Denmark, (2) the Stehr-Green et al.[3] ecological study of autism incidence versus Thimerosal exposure in Denmark, Sweden, and California, (3) the Hviid et al.[4]study of autism incidence versus Thimerosal exposure in Denmark (also ecological), (4) the Andrews et al.[5] cohort study of autism incidence and Thimerosal exposure in the United Kingdom, (5)  the published Verstraeten et al [6] CDC cohort study of autism incidence and Thimerosal exposure in the United States, and (6) the more recent Price et al.[7] 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 review of these six studies found that there were serious methodological issues present, listed as follows:

Study reviewed

Methodological issues

Madsen et al. [2]

(i) Changing entrance criteria in ecological studies.

(ii) Withholding important results from the final publication.

(iii) Conclusions not generalizable to the US vaccination schedule due to widely different vaccination schedules and different levels of Thimerosal dosing in other countries.

Stehr-Green et al. [3]

(i) Changing entrance criteria in ecological studies.

(ii) Withholding important results from the final publication.

(iii) Conclusions not generalizable to the US vaccination schedule due to widely different vaccination schedules and different levels of Thimerosal dosing in other countries.

Hviid et al. [4]

(i) Accounting for "person-years" regarding exposure rather than actual exposure levels.

(ii) Conclusions not generalizable to the US vaccination schedule due to widely different vaccination schedules and different levels of Thimerosal dosing in other countries.

 

Andrews et al. [5]

(i) Accounting for "person-years" regarding exposure rather than actual exposure levels.

(ii) Conclusions not generalizable to the US vaccination schedule due to widely different vaccination schedules and different levels of Thimerosal dosing in other countries.

Verstraeten et al. [6]

(i) Cohort of children too young for followup for an autism diagnosis.

(ii) "Overmatching" phenomena due to too closely matched cases and controls.

(iii) Withholding important results from the final publication.

Price et al. [7]

(i) "Overmatching" phenomena due to too closely matched cases and controls.

(ii) Withholding important results from the final publication.

The reviewers pointed out that all but one of these CDC 'commissioned' studies were likely influenced by conflict-of-interest/malfeasance, owing to their consistent methodological errors, their running contrary the body of evidence showing mercury in vaccines do harm, and the implications their questionable results have for the CDC's aggressive pro-vaccine agenda:

"[F]ive 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."

The only CDC-sponsored study that found a clear link between mercury in vaccines and neurodevelopmental disorders including autism — The Verstraeten et al. (2003) Study [8] — had 5 phases, with each successive phase seemingly manipulated to show less harm. Email evidence obtained through the US Freedom of Information Act of 1950 also indicates that lead researcher may have been pressured to water down the study results.

The study's five phases:

  • In the first phase, a subset of medical records were obtained from databases for several of the HMOs whose records were maintained in a central data repository, the Vaccine Safety Datalink: "Results from the first phase of the study released in an internal presentation abstract by Verstraeten et al. [20] (mentioned earlier) using records from four (4) HMOs showed that infants who were exposed to greater than 25μg 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."
  • "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."

Clearly, this new review indicates what is on the line when it comes to the clear and present danger associated with injecting mercury into infants and children, over and above the already questionable practice of injecting hundreds of active and 'inactive' vaccine antigens into our offspring at their most critical and sensitive developmental window.  The conventional medical establishment still maintains that there is a scientific consensus on mercury's safety in vaccines, despite the fact that it began to be phased out from the routine vaccination schedule in the United Sates, European Union, and other affluent countries, in 2005, in order to assuage popular and presumably irrational fears among irrational parents and so called 'anti-vaxers.'

The fact that autism and autism spectrum disorder diagnoses have continued to expand, despite Thimerosal's 'precautionary' phase out in 2001 in the 'developed world,' is often used as 'evidence' that mercury was never a contributing factor. What may be more salient is the phase out reflected a tacit acknowledgment that Thimerosal was indeed a factor in the accumulating evidence for unintended, adverse health effects of vaccines. Also, mounting research now points to substituted vaccine adjuvants like aluminum hydroxide continuing to contribute to an epidemic of autoimmunity in immunized populations, including damage to the nervous system consistent with an explanation for vaccine-induced autism and related neurodevelopmental conditions. [9]

What this study shows is there was never a consensus on its safety, but rather smoke in mirrors generated in response to a signal of harm.  And insofar as the CDC appears to have actively manipulated the results it uses as 'evidence' to support its hardline policies and increasingly obvious agenda of mandatory vaccination, we owe it to ourselves to continue to exercise extreme caution in defaulting to faith in 'authority' over the scientific evidence and commonsense itself.

[1] Immunization Safety and Autism, CDC http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/00_pdf/CDCStudiesonVaccinesandAutism.pdf.

[2] 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.

[3] 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.  

[4] 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.

[5] 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.

[6] 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.

[7] 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.

[8] 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.

[9] Seneff, et al "Empirical Data Confirm Autism Symptoms Related to Aluminum and Acetaminophen Exposure" Entropy 2012, 14(11), 2227-2253

Source: GreenMedInfo
Written by Sajer Ji

If you value what we do here, open your ad-free account and support our journalism.

Share:

Producing content you read on this website takes a lot of time, effort, and hard work. If you value what we do here, select the level of your support and register your account.

Your support makes this project fully self-sustainable and keeps us independent and focused on the content we love to create and share.

All our supporters can browse the website without ads, allowing much faster speeds and a clean interface. Your comments will be instantly approved and you’ll have a direct line of communication with us from within your account dashboard. You can suggest new features and apps and you’ll be able to use them before they go live.

You can choose the level of your support.

Stay kind, vigilant and ready!

$5 /month

  • Ad-free account
  • Instant comments
  • Direct communication
  • New features and apps suggestions
  • Early access to new apps and features

$50 /year

$10 /month

  • Ad-free account
  • Instant comments
  • Direct communication
  • New features and apps suggestions
  • Early access to new apps and features

$100 /year

$25 /month

  • Ad-free account
  • Instant comments
  • Direct communication
  • New features and apps suggestions
  • Early access to new apps and features

$200 /year

You can also support us by sending us a one-off payment using PayPal:

7 Comments

    1. True, however, some Amish do vaccinate. My daughter's family lives among them in rural PA–a neighboring family's oldest child has an obvious vaccine injury (mental retardation, mechanical movements, verbal issues)–he was vaccinated. Having high intelligence and power of observation, the parents refused to vaccinate their other children…

  1. Dawn, I don't disagree with what you have said.
    But for there to be a change in a natural/biological structure/being there needs to be a trigger. This could be the environment, genetics, injury and so on.
    Changes to the 'structure' can carry through generations or be triggered for the first time in a person.
    Regressive Autism can present due to an environmental factor trigger or genetic natural programming.
    As a parent, I have total respect for other parents who seek answers to the reasons which their child has presented with Autism or is presenting with Autistic behaviours (sometimes some conditions present with 'behaviours' which mimic true Autism) regarded as regressive.
    I am on the fence with vaccinations. The dilemma is if you don't vaccinate, you may see many of the past terrible diseases rearing their ugly head again and damaging many people/babies and mortality rates (which have been somewhat brought under control due to past diseases) may rise. By not vaccinating you also may lessen the chance of unnatural introduced chemicals 'having their way' with our natural systems…
    On the other hand (or side of the fence), if you do vaccinate, you may avert many of the 'old' diseases, but could possibly trigger a chemically contradictory reaction within 'our' natural chemistry. As I briefly wrote/eluded to in my last post.

    1. If you look around and investigate you will find plenty of graphs and other information that provides evidence for the fact that all of the so called “vaccine preventable diseases” were drastically declining years before vaccines were introduced. The graphs that vaccine companies use generally start in the early 1900’s with the scale blown up so that the drop in vaccine rates over a course of thirty years looks huge (like from 1920-1950) when really if you saw the graph they took that from you’d see that the decline in disease mortality rates from 1800’s until 1900’s was about 90% bigger than the decline in the rates from the 1900’s until the 50’s by when most vaccines had been introduced.
      I’ve looked at so many graphs for so many diseases for so many time periods in so many different countries and they all show the same trends. The rate of disease incidence fluctuates naturally from decade to decade. No one is examining what causes the natural fluctuations even though its obvious that the fluctuations occur regardless of vaccination timing, type, or whether it was done at all. A good graph to look at is the graph about pertussis in sweden because they stopped the vaccine in the 70’s and re-introduced a new one in the 90’s. The fluctuations in pertussis incidence rates persisted before the introduction of any vaccine, after the first one was introduced, after they stopped giving it all all, and after they re-introduced a new one. The fluctuations that occur regardless of vaccines should be studied for another environmental clue about why some years there are higher rates of disease than others even when vaccinating, even when not vaccinating. The other thing you will notice if you do begin examining graphs is how the rates of disease incidence and disease mortality for many different diseases were on the steady decline throughout the late 1800’s. Then toward the end of world war 1 you see a huge spike in the incidence rates of both disease and mortality from disease (I’m not specifying which disease because I have looked at nearly a hundred graphs from different things). The other huge spike in disease and mortality rates is toward the end of world war 2. Then, as running water, refrigeration, better sanitation practices, health care, knowledge about nutrition, and availability of fresh foods year round world wide all began to increase, the rates of disease and mortality steadily declined with only tiny spikes every decade or so, none of which ever reached the levels seen before the 1950’s.
      The other thing you will also notice in these graphs is the clear spike in disease rates following the year of a vaccine introduction. You will not find in any graph any kind of drop in a disease rate after a vaccine was introduced until at least 2-5 years after the vaccine was introduced. If vaccines work then they should have an impact on the disease rate the year they are introduced, or at the very least the following year should show a drastic decrease. Every graph I’ve read shows a clear spike in the incidence of the disease being vaccinated for immediately after the vaccine was introduced. So the decreased rates don’t come until two years after the vaccine, during which time the rate spiked, so the rate has to drop a certain amount before it reaches pre vaccine level and then drop more before you can see a net decrease in disease rate. Most people don’t look closely at graphs like this to see what happens from year to year within the graph. They look at the image and see an overall downward trend, because that trend exists and has for about two hundred years now. Don’t endanger your child because you fear a disease (s)he is more likely to contract from a vaccine than they are from the natural environment. The answer to disease prevention is not vaccination, it’s nutrition and keeping yourself away from others when sick to avoid spreading it. Don’t go to work, don’t send your kids to school, stay home and get better. And remember that most infectious diseases start out looking like a common cold. two years ago a chickenpox outbreak was started in my tiny community when a 5 month old contracted chickenpox from her vaccine, and then was brought to a playgroup before they knew it was chickenpox (they thought she had a cold since no spots had appeared yet) where other children contracted it from her. A week later two other kids at the playgroup had ‘colds’ and I was told by their mother not to sit near them (duh, why are you here then?) and two days later everyone was told those kids now had chicken pox. A week later another little girl had the chickenpox. She had been in the playschool with a cold and then it turned into the chicken pox. In each of these four cases the spread of chickenpox would have been prevented if people had the good sense to keep their children home even if they appeared to only have a minor cold.

  2. the JCVI is a body in the UK that approved vaccines for use after reviewing the studies presented to them by vaccine manufacturers. Dr. David Freed, whose son developed autism following a vaccine, requested documents about the studies for the vaccine his son had been given so he could see for himself what the study said. He had to fight for years to get the documents released through the freedom of information act. He published his results (and mysteriously died a few days later, not sure how) and the results are disturbingly shocking. The documents are transcripts from meetings of the JCVI in which they discuss how to word the contraindications on the vaccines in order to not exclude so many children. For example one vaccine, I believe it was DTP which was found to be the most reactive, the study showed that anyone with a family history of seizures was at risk of developing neurological symptoms from the vaccine. They decided to change the contraindication to say that people with personal history of seizures are at risk of an adverse reaction. there are a lot more people with a family history of seizure than there are people with personal history of seizure, so they just included a whole bunch of people who are at risk. They also changed the wording so that they never disclosed there was a risk of any neurological problems. While researchers have identified a clear genetic involvement in autism disorders, they have also discovered that the environment has a major impact on genetics (epigenetics) and they are studying autism in twins who don't have the same autism (some cases one twin seems quite normal while the other is severely autistic). So while it's possible for people to be born autistic from genetics it's also possible for children to develop autism later after years of normal development. This is now called 'regressive autism' and 30 years ago it was not heard of. Now 80% of autism cases are called regressive. Clearly your children Lulu do not have a regressive form since they were autistic 'from birth' as you say. If you could tell from the moment your sons were born that they were different, then the mothers whose children regress could tell their children were normal at birth. This argument about vaccines may go on for a while longer, but there are a lot of discoveries coming out through freedom of information acts that may very well increase the general public's awareness of the issue and make them question enough that the regulatory bodies will be forced to show us satisfactory evidence or to drop the charade. Until it's proven that vaccines will not kill babies and land their fathers in jail, until they can prove that no case of infectious disease can be contracted through a vaccine, and until they prove that there will be zero adverse reactions then a lot of people will not be convinced. I would like to see them prove that getting a vaccine prevents you from getting a disease, but that is impossible to do. Once the vaccine is given there is no way to know if the disease would have been contracted or not. The more people question the better.

  3. My son, his father, his grandfather, cousins….are all Autistic…all conceived and born with Autism.
    No vacc's for the grandfather, no vacc's for the father.
    Son, cousins – all autistic from birth – before vacc's.
    Though, I don't discount that vacc's may trigger some neurological issues for some children – there are also poisons in our foods, water, air…….
    This argument about vaccines will go on for ever and a day unfortunately.

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published.