American Academy of Pediatrics Refuses to Back Vaccine Claims with Science

by Mar 28, 2017Health & Vaccines27 comments

When asked whether it could provide studies to support specific claims it made about vaccine safety, the American Academy of Pediatrics ultimately declined.

On January 10, 2017, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) issued a press release to express its opposition to a federal commission that has been proposed by the Trump administration to examine vaccine safety and efficacy. The AAP argues that since we already know that vaccines are safe and effective, therefore there is no need for further examination into their safety and efficacy.

This argument, however, begs the question — it presumes in the premise the proposition to be proven (the petitio principii fallacy). And the press release itself illustrates why, apart from the question of whether there should be a federal commission, critical examination of public vaccine policy is very much warranted.

In its press release, among other things, the AAP stated that:

  • Vaccines prevent cancer.
  • Claims that vaccines are linked to autism “have been disproven by a robust body of medical literature”.
  • Claims that vaccines “are unsafe when administered according to the [CDC’s] recommended schedule” have likewise “been disproven by a robust body of medical literature”.

According to the AAP, its own claims are backed by solid science. Yet when asked whether it could provide citations from the medical literature to support its claims, the AAP first failed to do so, then essentially offered a “No comment” when pressed for a comment about its failure to do so.

With respect to the claim that vaccines prevent some forms of cancer, the AAP was asked:

  • Can you please direct me to any studies in the peer-reviewed medical literature showing any vaccine prevents cancer?

With respect to the other two, the AAP was asked the following questions:

  • Can you please direct me to the studies you are referring to in this body of literature that took into account the possibility of a genetically susceptible subpopulation?
  • Can you please point me to the studies in this body of literature that have compared health outcomes, including but not limited to developmental regression (i.e., autism), for children who’ve receive the CDC’s full schedule of vaccinations with children who’ve remained completely unvaccinated?

An initial email to the AAP containing these questions went unanswered.

The email was followed up with a phone call. Lisa Black, the AAP’s Media Relations Manager, assured that she would get back with answers to the questions. In a subsequent email, Ms. Black replied, “Please see information that AAP has posted for parents on this page”, which was followed by a link to a list of studies on the website

However, none of the listed studies on that page supports the AAP’s claim that “vaccines prevent … forms of cancer”.

None apparently considered the possibility of a susceptible subpopulation with a genetic susceptibility to adverse reactions to vaccines.

And none compared health outcomes of fully vaccinated children with completely unvaccinated children.

The list provided does contain numerous studies finding no association between vaccines and autism, but even the listed safety review by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) doesn’t go so far as to say that the hypothesis has been “disproven”.

On the contrary, the IOM acknowledges that it is biologically plausible that vaccines might cause autism in a genetically susceptible subpopulation, but characterizes this hypothesis is still “speculative” and “unsubstantiated”.

That is a world apart from saying it has been “disproven”.

One would think that the IOM’s conclusion, if its inquiry was a scientific one, would be that since this is such an important question and this specific hypothesis is plausible and not well studied, therefore there should be further study into this question of whether vaccines could trigger autism at least in some children with a genetic predisposition to vaccine injury.

But rather than calling for more research into this area, the IOM actually advocated that no further studies to test this hypothesis be done. Its stated reason for this was partly medical, but at least equally political — and certainly favorable to the profits of the pharmaceutical industry. The IOM’s reason was:

Using an unsubstantiated hypothesis to question the safety of vaccination and the ethical behavior of those governmental agencies and scientists who advocate for vaccination could lead to widespread rejection of vaccines and inevitable increases in incidences of serious infectious diseases like measles, whooping cough, and Hib bacterial meningitis.

In other words, since studying this hypothesis further would undermine public vaccine policy with its one-size-fits-all approach to disease prevention, therefore no further research to test the biologically plausible hypothesis should be done.

The AAP was sent a follow up email noting that none of the studies listed appeared to support the claims it made in the press release. The AAP was welcomed to correct the record, but did not dispute the observation that none of the studies listed showed that vaccines can prevent cancer, considered genetic susceptibility to vaccine injury, or compared health outcomes for vaccinated and unvaccinated children.

The additional follow up questions were also asked:

  • If the AAP cannot produce one or more studies that considered the possibility of a genetically susceptible subpopulation, how can it claim that any association between vaccines and autism has been “disproven”?
  • If the AAP cannot produce one or more studies that compared health outcomes between children vaccinated according to the CDC’s schedule and children who remained unvaccinated, how can it claim that any association between vaccines and autism has been “disproven”?

The AAP did not reply via email to the follow up questions.

In a second phone call requesting the AAP to produce such studies to support its claims, Ms. Black replied that she had provided everything the AAP was going to provide.

When confronted with the observation that none of the studies provided supported the AAP’s claim that vaccines can prevent cancer, she repeated that the AAP was not going to provide any additional information.

When asked whether the authors of the press release, AAP President Fernando Stein and Executive Vice President Karen Remley, would like to comment, Ms. Black abruptly ended the phone call by saying she was going to hang up and then doing so.

Questions Unanswered

The questions seem pertinent, particularly given the fact that the government has acknowledged that vaccines can cause brain damage resulting in developmental regression.

In 2008, then director of the CDC Julie Gerberding offered the following carefully worded acknowledgment:

Now, we all know that vaccines can occasionally cause fevers in kids. So if a child was immunized, got a fever, had other complications from the vaccines. And if you’re predisposed with a mitochondrial disorder, it can certainly set off some damage. Some of the symptoms can be symptoms that have characteristics of autism.

The context in which she was speaking was with respect to Hannah Poling, a child with a mitochondrial disorder who developed autism after receiving numerous vaccines on the same day and whose family was awarded compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP).

The VICP was established in the mid-1980s under a law that granted broad legal immunity to vaccine manufacturers. The government’s reason for doing so was that vaccine injury lawsuits were threatening to undermine public policy by putting vaccine manufacturers out of business.

The Supreme Court has upheld that legal immunity on the grounds that certain adverse reactions are “unavoidable” and “design defects” are “not a basis for liability.”

Around the same time as Gerberding’s admission, a former director of the National Institutes of Health, the late Bernadine Healy, criticized the refrain that any link between vaccines and autism has been debunked. She pointed out the kinds of studies that would be necessary in order to confidently draw that conclusion hadn’t yet been done.

Specifically, she noted the lack of studies taking into consideration a genetically susceptible subpopulation.

Ms. Healy also slammed the IOM for advocating that no further research be done and noted that as a potential cause of autism, “vaccines carry a ring of both historical and biological plausibility”.

Similarly, in contrast to the AAP’s claim that any association between vaccines and autism has been “disproven”, one of the CDC’s lead researchers on that very question, CDC Director of Immunization Safety Dr. Frank DeStefano, admitted in an interview in 2014 that “it’s a possibility” that vaccines could trigger autism in genetically susceptible individuals.

“It’s hard to predict who those children might be”, DeStefano observed, and trying to determine what underling conditions put children at risk of vaccine injury is “very difficult to do”.

Acknowledging the lack of studies in this area, he added that, “if we ever get to that point, then that kind of research might be fruitful.”

The AAP’s list of studies includes one or more for which DeStefano was an author.

The CDC also admits the need for further study in this area. Its website at the time of this writing acknowledges that “More research is needed to determine if there are rare cases where underlying mitochondrial disorders are triggered by anything related to vaccines.”

So how can the AAP claim that any association between vaccines and autism has been “disproven” when the studies that would be necessary to invalidate the hypothesis haven’t been done?

No comment.

That’s the AAP’s answer to the question, anyway.

The AAP’s attitude should perhaps come as no surprise, given its close relationship with the vaccine industry.

As CBS News reported in 2008, “The vaccine industry gives millions to the Academy of Pediatrics for conferences, grants, medical education classes and even helped build their headquarters.”

A Discussion to Be Had

The AAP argues in its press release against the formation of a federal commission, but its argument would apply to any public debate about the safety and efficacy of vaccines. By the AAP’s logic, like the IOM’s, also unnecessary are any discussion about it in the media and any further scientific inquiry.

But as Daniel Sarewitz observes, “as science approaches the cutting edge, it tends to raise as many questions as it resolves, so there is always room for debate about what the science is actually saying.”

Parents dubbed “anti-science” by the media are naturally curious why that label doesn’t seem to apply to those calling for no further inquiry into pertinent questions.

Parents aren’t just asking legitimate questions about vaccines. They’re doing what most doctors haven’t and spending a lot of time researching vaccines themselves. And they’re not just going to “anti-vaccine” websites to research it. They’re organizing, sharing information, and digging into the medical literature for themselves.

Parents can see the fundamental contradiction between public health officials and the media constantly insisting that vaccines are harmless even while the government grants legal immunity to the vaccine manufacturers on the grounds that vaccines are unavoidably unsafe and while the government manages a Vaccine Injury Compensation Program in order to shift the costs for damages and keep the vaccine manufacturers profitable — all to maintain public policy.

Parents understand how government and industry funding influences the direction and findings of scientific research, and how the medical establishment that has given us soaring costs and a population in which nearly 40 percent are chronically ill will tend to justify itself despite its abysmal performance and a long history of being wrong time and again, from tobacco science (older generations may remember how the industry used to get product endorsements from doctors) to the USDA recommended high-carb diet (which has contributed to the obesity epidemic and is more about satisfying food industry lobbyists than providing science-based advise) to the role of cholesterol in heart disease (scientific research no longer supports the hypothesis that dietary cholesterol contributes to blood cholesterol and heart disease risk).

Parents are aware of how government agencies like the FDA and the CDC serve the financial interests of the pharmaceutical industry. They see the corruption and the “revolving door” of Washington, such as how Julie Gerberding left her government job pushing vaccines as head of CDC to become president of the vaccine division for the pharmaceutical giant Merck.

They see how the AAP, too, has an incestuous relationship with “Big Pharma”. They understand how willful ignorance goes beyond the individual operating within the system and becomes institutionalized. And they watch as an organization that influences how their child’s pediatrician practices medicine accepts money from an industry they feel the AAP ought to be protecting them from.

They can witness how the AAP makes statements it claims are solidly backed by science, but which it is unwilling or unable to provide any studies to support. They understand that the truly “anti-science” position is the one that says no further scientific inquiry into an admittedly biologically plausible hypothesis is necessary.

Parents know there are many studies that have found no association between vaccines and autism. They don’t need the AAP to point this out to them. But they wonder why the AAP ignores all the studies that do support the hypothesis.

They wonder how the AAP can claim that the vaccine-autism hypothesis has been “disproven” when the most any of the studies it cites have concluded is that those particular studies, with their own particular focus, designed around their own particular assumptions, using a particular methodology, did not find an association between vaccines and autism.

And parents are asking questions like: What was the actual purpose of the study? What were the underlying assumptions made by the authors? What vaccines were being studied, and what outcomes? Who were the study groups? What were the criteria for their selection? What was the study’s methodology? What are its strengths and weaknesses? Do the conclusions drawn follow from the actual findings? How conclusive is it? What does the study actually prove, if anything?

Parents can see for themselves the huge disparity between what they are told science has to say about vaccines  — by public health officials, the medical establishment, and the mainstream media — and what science actually has to say about it.

The parents who are choosing not to vaccinate their children aren’t doing so because they are uneducated or unintelligent. On the contrary, studies show that they tend to be wealthier and more highly educated than the general population.

They aren’t choosing not to vaccinate because they are ignorant of the science. They are choosing not to vaccinate because they are digging into the medical literature (which can be searched via and awakening to the deceit they see coming out of the government and the mainstream media.

They see how mainstream journalists, rather than seriously investigating what the science actually says, rely on statements from agencies like the CDC and industry-funded organizations like the AAP to “inform” the public about the subject.

They see how the establishment is seeking to stifle debate not by respectfully addressing their legitimate questions, but by bullying them into silence and conformity, and they understand how such a phenomenon can arise because institutions with a life of their own feel threatened by the truth and act to preserve the status quo.

The AAP and other actors interested in preserving the public vaccine policy so far seem to have assumed that they can end the discussion by declaring authoritatively that there is no need for further discussion.

But if they ever hope to truly end the discussion, they are going to have to start taking parents’ concerns seriously and answering their legitimate questions with more than disingenuous public relations talking points that might as well have been written by the vaccine industry.

Did you find value in this content? If so and you have the means, please consider supporting my independent journalism.

About Jeremy R. Hammond

About Jeremy R. Hammond

I am an independent journalist, political analyst, publisher and editor of Foreign Policy Journal, book author, and writing coach.

My writings empower readers with the knowledge they need to see through state propaganda intended to manufacture their consent for criminal government policies.

By recognizing when we are being lied to and why, we can fight effectively for liberty, peace, and justice, in order to create a better world for ourselves, our children, and future generations of humanity.

Please join my growing community of readers!


Download my free report 5 Horrifying Facts about the FDA Vaccine Approval Process.

Download my free report 5 Horrifying Facts about the FDA Vaccine Approval Process.

My Books

Related Articles


  1. lifebiomedguru

    Great article. What can we do to help get AAP to answer questions? See

    • Jeremy R. Hammond

      Not much, I would say, other than keeping a spotlight on them until it reaches a point where they feel their credibility is threatened enough that they’ll have to come to reason.

    • Jennifer R.

      Boycott them. Organize alternative providers. Starve them out of business.

  2. FACTS

    Thanks so much for investigating.. yet another “trusted health authority” is a bastion of cronies, frauds, criminals.. they will pay dearly for their crimes, some day, some way..

  3. VaccineFreeNYC

    I am always looking for a compelling way to “get through” to legislators and I believe this is it. May I interview you Jeremy? If you are willing please contact me on FB at “VaccineFreeNYC”. Grateful for this useful tool.. Sallie


    Thanks for noticing!

  5. Lotus Lady

    The article indicates an exchange of phone calls and emails with the AAP, but doesn’t reveal who initiated those calls and emails. This seems to be an important point that has been left out of an other wise really good article. Please inform your readers.

    • Merits the merry mememaker

      A rather more important point is when they were made since claims/questions stand or fall on their own merits. It’s far more shady if they were made/sent 3 weeks ago and no answer was received than if they were made/sent 5 minutes ago and no answer was received.

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        My inquiries were sent over the course of weeks.

        I first emailed the AAP on February 12, 2017. I received no reply.

        I called on March 2 and left a voicemail for Ms. Black. She called me back at 3:09 pm, and after we ended that call, she sent me an email containing the link. I emailed her back the same day to point out that none of the studies supported their claims in the context of my specific questions.

        On March 20, I resent that email to Ms. Black and once again requested the AAP to comment. I received no reply.

        On March 27 at 2:39 pm, I called once more and spoke to Ms. Black, pointing out, e.g., that none of the studies she provided supported the AAP’s claim that vaccines prevent cancer, etc. That call ended with her hanging up on me (as described in the article).

        On March 28, I emailed Ms. Black once again to share the link to my article with her and to once again invite comment from the AAP on the article.

        Once again, the AAP declined to comment.

      • hitchhiker999

        Thank you for doing this.

  6. HOGSTER69

    Guess what I’ve noticed while surfing the net regarding vaccinations? That the pro vax site have no area for the public to leave comments but the real truth sites like this one all have space for public comments. They can’t handle the truth or criticisms. Thanks for all the work you guys have put into this site.

    • rosross

      And in searching it is pro-vax material which comes up page, after page, after page and the questioning material takes time to find.,

  7. Dubiuus Anonymus

    This is a very characteristic maneuver- pretending that the science is settled but not actually stating what the science is that is settled.

    Very simply- they are making a claim that they cannot back up with facts and the rest of the verbal diarrhoea that they produce simply obscures the fact that they refuse to produce the alleged facts that prove their case.

    They are insisting on the old “Trust Me, I’m a Doctor” line, rather than trust me because I show you enough high quality evidence.

    This article of mine goes in to this mentality, and its flaws, at greater length:

  8. Jennifer R.

    This really isn’t that surprising. They enjoy immense power and authority, and expect to be obeyed without question. They write the legislation and the rules regarding all things related to children, from daycare regulations to child welfare and insurance regulations. They exist to increase the pay, status, and power of their members. Not to promote the health of children.

  9. Judith

    When it comes down to it they do not have the answers:

    The following is a sampling of studies that have not been done:

    Safety of simultaneous vaccination vs. placebo

    Mixing of vaccine adjuvants (for example, thimerosal and aluminum)

    Follow up study of the higher rate of seizures from MMRV vs. MMR

    There have been no studies of the remaining vaccines on the childhood schedule (beyond MMR and Hepatitis B) for associations with autism. This would include the following vaccines: Rotavirus, DTaP, Hib, PCV (pneumococcal), IPV (polio), Influenza, Varicella, and Hepatitis A.

    There have been no studies of ingredients in childhood vaccines (besides thimerosal) for associations with autism.

  10. MadWorld

    Fantastic article. Over 50% of American children have chronic disease. Children have devolved into this status with the AAP at the helm. Why would thinking person trust the their leadership and guidance? Meanwhile, pharma and their federal agency puppets are all too happy to profit from our sick kids.

  11. AutismDadd

    Awesome piece. Provides powerful and damning evidence that the Pro-Vaccine Gestapo can’t prove the claims they make about vaccines even after they claim there is an abundance of evidence. They assume no one will call them on it and their claims of being EXPERTS should be enough. But what are they experts of? Well this story explains that completely.

  12. SteveCA7

    ALL vaccines are SAFE and EFFECTIVE! They have been approved following clinical trials.
    Then why were the following withdrawn?
    Trivirix MMR vaccine made by GSK Canada caused meningitis, Plusrix MMR vaccine made by GSK UK caused meningitis, Immravax MMR vvacine made by Aventis Pasteur caused meningitis, Rotashield rotavirus vaccine made by Wyeth Lederle caused bowel obstruction, Polio vaccine made by Medeva caused vCJD, the human form of mad cow disease, Lymerix Lyme disease vaccine made by GSK caused Lyme disease and severe arthritis, BCG vaccine made by PowderJect did not meet the end-of-shelf-life specification, Imovax hepatitis B, polio and Haemophilus influenzae type B made by Aventis Pasteur tested positive for the live vaccine, Hexovac diphtheria, tetanus, whooping cough vaccine made by Sanofi Merck provided inadequate protection, PedvaxHIB haemophilus influenzae type B vaccine made by Merck was contaminated with a bacteria called Bacillus cereus, Comvax haemophilius B and hepatitis B vaccine made by Merck was contaminated with a bacteria called Bacillus cereus, Menjugate meningitis C vaccine made by Novartis was infected with bacteria Staphylococcus aureus, Fluvax flu vaccine made by CSL caused seizures, Preflucel flu vaccine made by Baxter Healthcare caused fatigue, muscle pain and headaches and Pandemrix flu vaccine made by GSK caused narcolepsy.
    But for now the HPV vaccines are still considered safe by the health authorities – despite over 167,000 adverse reactions in 73,000 reports, including 280 deaths on the World Health Organisation database of adverse drug reactions at

  13. rosross

    Perhaps the AAP can detail the extensive research now being done into vaccine theory and methodology, following the unexpected and shocking discovery, a couple of years ago that the immune system and brain are physically connected through Lymphatics.

    Announcements of this discovery generally stated that textbooks would have to be rewritten and that it turned on its head previous understanding of the brain and immune system.

    One presumes, since vaccine theory and methodology were invented before this link was known, that science-medicine would now be hard at work studying what injecting disease, often in multiple form; toxins, including the known neurotoxin, Aluminium, and animal, aborted foetal human, and bird material, does to the brain.

    How on earth can they ‘know’ vaccines are safe when until a couple of years ago they had no idea the immune system connected to the brain in physical and powerful ways?

    More so because following the increasing vax timeline we have epidemics of Autism, Behavioural and Learning Difficulties and Brain Cancer in children and Dementia and Alzheimer’s in the aged – the young and old being the two most vulnerable groups.

    • Jeremy R. Hammond

      Indeed. People should keep in mind that vaccination was invented at a time when scientists knew next to nothing about the immune system, and even today scientists are really only just beginning to understand it. Another example is the role of gut bacteria in immune function.

  14. GAElbek

    AAP is an American nightmare, heavily funded by Pharma, and/or doctors who are Pharma funded! Look at J. Bhatia for instance, in charge of AAP child nutrition while heavily funded by soy industry…and supporter of toxic soy (endocrine disruptors) baby formulas!

  15. Thu Pham

    Great article.

    There is a non-profit scientific group in Seattle conducting study on vaccine safety. I believe they are the only organization doing so as of now. They have 4 published peer-review papers discussing the questionable ingredients in the current manufacturing vaccines.


Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This