Autism: Do Vaccines Really Cause Autism Spectrum Disorders?

autism causes facts2

A new study published in the Journal of Pediatrics last week concluded that childhood vaccines do not cause autism. This is another big report amidst recent research that disproves some of the public opinion about the link between autism and immunizations.

Despite what seems like overwhelming scientific evidence from current research, some parents choose not vaccinate their children. That may be having a negative impact on our public health.

A study found that large clusters of children who had not been vaccinated were close to the large clusters of whooping cough cases in the 2010 California epidemic…This spring also saw an 18-year high number of measles cases in the United States. The largest outbreak was in Ohio where the virus spread quickly among the Amish, who are mostly unvaccinated. This outbreak was a real surprise to health officials who thought that the infectious disease was thought to have been eliminated from the United States in 2000.

The Original Autism and Vaccine Study was a Fraud

The 1998 study that linked autism to childhood vaccines has been retracted. An investigation by the British Medical Journal found that Dr. Andrew Wakefield, the author, altered the medical histories of the 12 patients in the study. Britain took away Wakefield’s medical license this past May.

According to Fiona Godlee, the British Medical Journal‘s editor-in-chief:

It’s one thing to have a bad study, a study full of error, and for the authors then to admit that they made errors. But in this case, we have a very different picture of what seems to be a deliberate attempt to create an impression that there was a link by falsifying the data.

This Fraudulent Study Has Damaged Our Public Health.

Many parents became alarmed and afraid from the headlines after Wakefield’s false study came out, and the anti-vax movement is still alive and well on both sides of the Atlantic.

Meanwhile, the damage to public health continues, fueled by unbalanced media reporting and an ineffective response from government, researchers, journals and the medical profession.

Science, Facts, and History of the Autism-Vaccines Link

autism causes facts


What Started the Rumors?

1998: The Lancet published a paper by Dr. Andrew Wakefield, a dramatic study that found a connection between autism and vaccines.

People Started Investigating Wakefield’s Claims about Autism and Vaccines

1999: In a study of 500 children, no connection was found
2001: A study of 10,000 children found no connection
2002: A study in Denmark of 537,000 found no connection
2003: A study in Finland of 535,000 found no connection
2004: The Lancet released a statement REFUTING the original findings, saying the authors FALSIFIED FACTS
2005: A review of 31 studies of more than 10,000,000 also found no connection
2012: A review of studies covering 14,700,000 children also found no connection

Proof of Wakefield’s Continuing Damage to our Communal Health:

1 in 4 United States parents believe that vaccines cause autism
1.8% of parents opt out of vaccines for religious reasons

For more, look at this interactive map for how incidents of illnesses like measles, mumps, whooping cough are on the rise.

Common Vaccine Myths

1. Vaccines are full of toxic chemicals.
Fact: Thimersol, which contains mercury, is no longer in scheduled vaccines.

2. The decision not to vaccinate only affects my child.
Fact: Un-vaccinated children can infect infants and people with compromised immune systems.

3. Too many vaccines at once is not healthy.
Fact: Vaccines use deactivated viruses.

4. Drug companies just do it to make profits.
Facts: Vaccines only make up 2-3% of pharmaceutical profits.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s



Dorit Reiss is a “Renown” drug company shill, so take her vaccine pushing statements for what their worth.


Before the rest of the hired big pharma vaccine pushers start attacking and pointing out my typo, here is the official correction from ‘their’ to ‘they’re’, the shills attack you in anyway they can too discredit anyone exposing the dangers of vaccines, they took a page out of the devils book, hence the aka for the ‘Devils Advocate’.


The report’s conclusions are hardly convincing. But what’s more troubling, is the immense conflict of interest from which the report itself was written. The authors include Margaret A. Maglione, Lopamudra Das, Laura Raaen, Alexandria Smith, Ramya Chari, Sydne Newberry, Roberta Shanman, Tanja Perry, and Courtney Gidengil, all of the corporate-funded think tank, RAND Corporation.

While the report itself was funded by the US government, the RAND Corporation from which its authors were drawn is funded by the very corporations that manufacture various vaccines, including the MMR vaccine which was the primary focus of the report. Big-pharma sponsors of RAND include GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and Merck – that latter of which is listed by the US Center for Disease Control (CDC)specifically as the manufacturer of the MMR vaccine.

It is admitted in the “conclusions” that there are severe limitations in this so called study which simply looks at old studies – all studies on any vaccine in the current schedule are done by comparing one vaccine with another vaccine – so none of the studies looked at were on vaccinated vs unvaccinated people or an inert placebo as this is considered unethical. However a retrospective study could easily be done as there are a large body of unvaccinated to choose from. Also this study admits that MMR and other vaccines have not been studied for their ability to cause auto immune disease, one of the most rampant illnesses in our society; that severity of Adverse Reactions are inconsistently reported due to there being no compulsory reporting to VAERS and only 1 – 10% of adverse events are reported. The majority of studies did not investigate or identify risk factors for Adverse Events and this is a huge hole in the safety studies. The study admits that some vaccines are associated with serious adverse events but does not say which ones. Considering that most adverse events are dismissed or not reported, it does not really give parents a sense of confidence.

“RESULTS: Of 20 478 titles identified, 67 were included. Strength of evidence was high for measles/mumps/rubella (MMR) vaccine and febrile seizures; the varicella vaccine was associated with complications in immunodeficient individuals. There is strong evidence that MMR vaccine is not associated with autism. There is moderate evidence that rotavirus vaccines are associated with intussusception. Limitations of the study include that the majority of studies did not investigate or identify risk factors for AEs; and the severity of AEs was inconsistently reported.

CONCLUSIONS: We found evidence that some vaccines are associated with serious AEs; however, these events are extremely rare and must be weighed against the protective benefits that vaccines provide.

Dorit Reiss

This is very inaccurate. The report is a meta-review, a powerful form of study, using data from many studies to assess knowledge. The commentator pointed to no problem in the study selection criteria or other flaw in the study. Instead, it suggests a conspiracy theory – it must be rigged by big pharma. Even if the commentator pointed to direct conflicts of interests, and she does not, conflicts of interests warn us to read a study more critically: but they do not make the data or the findings disappear. You still have to examine the study on the merits.

What are the commentator’s actual criticisms?
A. No vaccinated v. unvaccinated study: but the study examined adverse events for each vaccine, and the correct comparison is people who got the vaccine and those who did not – and that was done. And by the way, there are several studies looking retrospectively at rates of vaccination: Wood and Smith (2010), DeStefano et al (2013), and the Germany KIGGS study, recently updated – and they found no difference.

B. ” MMR and other vaccines have not been studied for their ability to cause auto immune disease” Vaccines have been examined for connection to autoimmune disease. None was found. See, for example:
P. A. Offit & C. J. Hackett. (2003). Addressing parents’ concerns: Do vaccines cause allergic or autoimmune diseases? Pediatrics, 111(3), 653-660. doi:10.1542/peds.111.3.653.

Myléus, A., Stenlund,H. et. al. Early Vaccinations Are Not Risk Factors for Celiac Disease. Pediatrics; originally published online June 25, 2012; DOI: 10.1542/peds.2011-2806.

Mor G, Singla M. et. al. Do DNA vaccines induce autoimmune disease? Hum Gene Ther. 1997 Feb 10;8(3):293-300.

Grimaldi-Bensouda L, Le Guern V, et. al. The risk of systemic lupus erythematosus associated with vaccines: An international case-control study. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2014 Mar 3.

Hanslik T, Vaillant JN et. al. Systemic lupus erythematosus and risk of hepatitis B vaccination: from level of evidence to prescription. Rev Med Interne. 2000 Sep;21(9):785-90.

Grimaldi-Bensouda L, Guillemot D, et. al; the PGRx-AID Study Group. Autoimmune disorders and quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccination of young female subjects. J Intern Med. 2013 Nov 8.

DeStefano F, Mullooly JP et. al. Childhood vaccinations, vaccination timing, and risk of type 1 diabetes mellitus. Pediatrics. 2001 Dec;108(6):E112.

C. “severity of Adverse Reactions are inconsistently reported due to there being no compulsory reporting to VAERS and only 1 – 10% of adverse events are reported.” Providers are actually legally required to report to VAERS. There’s no basis to the 1-10% number used by anti-vaccine activists that I can tell. There is underreporting to VAERS, but also a lot of over reporting – some by personal injury lawyers. All we can say is that VAERS numbers do not reflect vaccine injuries: we need to look to other sources for that – and this study did that, rejecting studies that only relied on raw VAERS reports, since without investigating them, those are not good evidence.

D. ” The majority of studies did not investigate or identify risk factors for Adverse Events and this is a huge hole in the safety studies. ” Since this report and the studies focused on frequency and causal connection, that was simply not the focus. We do know risk factors – that’s why we have medical contraindications, situations in which a child should not be vaccinated. Sometimes you can’t know in advance – just like you can’t know in advance which child will have a complication from a disease.

E. “The study admits that some vaccines are associated with serious adverse events but does not say which ones. ” The study does go vaccine by vaccine and address which serious adverse event it’s associated with.

In short, the critique is unjustified. This study should reassure parents that adverse events are rare and that vaccinating is a much safer choice than leaving your child exposed to dangerous diseases.

Discuss on Facebook