Vaccines & Autism: How the Media Lie about the 1998 Lancet Study

by May 7, 2018Health & Vaccines32 comments

A screenshot of an interview with Andrew Wakefield (Vaxxed)

The mainstream media's treatment of the retracted 1998 Lancet study hypothesizing a link between the MMR vaccine and autism illustrates how they systematically misinform the public and refuse to take parents' legitimate concerns about vaccines seriously.

We are constantly told by the mainstream media that vaccines do not cause autism. The belief that they can, we are told, stems from a study by a guy named Andrew Wakefield that was published in 1998 in The Lancet medical journal, which study claimed to have established a link between the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine and autism, but which was found to be fraudulent and therefore retracted.

This is a perfect illustration of how the mainstream media keep the public completely misinformed about the subject of vaccines.

The UK’s Independent newspaper just last week published a typical hit piece titled “Andrew Wakefield: How a disgraced UK doctor has remade himself in anti-vaxxer Trump’s America“.

“Anti-vaxxer”, of course, is the media’s derogatory label for anyone who dares to question public vaccine policy. To question public policy is to commit the crime of heresy against the vaccine religion. That is what Andrew Wakefield did, unrepentantly. And so he had to be punished for his heresy.

Here is the lead paragraph of the Independent‘s mindless propaganda (emphasis added):

It has been 20 years since the gastroenterologist Andrew Wakefield co-authored a now notorious and debunked medical paper that claimed to have found a link between autism and the use of a common children’s vaccine.

We can stop right there. There is no point in reading any further than that first paragraph. We can determine just from the lede that this article is garbage. It is, like practically all articles on the subject one reads in the mainstream media, worthless trash. Actually, it is less than worthless because rather than educating people about the vaccine issue, all the Independent is doing is misinforming the public.

You’ve no doubt heard that claim before, that Wakefield’s study claimed to have found a link between the MMR vaccine and autism. The less-than-worthless Independent piece goes on to say (emphasis added):

Wakefield remains defiant, even though the editor of The Lancet said statements contained in his 1998 study claiming a link between autism and the MMR (measles, mumps and rubella) vaccine, were “utterly false” and 10 co-authors issued a statement saying there was insufficient evidence to draw the conclusion the vaccine was not safe.

We hear this constantly. It is a mantra. It is dogma.

But here’s what we can determine right now, just from reading the lead paragraph: the author of this piece, Andrew Buncombe, has either (a) never actually read the Lancet study he purports to be educating readers about, or (b) he is a liar.

There are no other possibilities. Either Buncombe has never read the study, or he’s a liar.

And Andrew Buncombe isn’t alone. It is virtually obligatory for mainstream journalists, when writing about anything related to vaccine safety, to claim that science has proven vaccines don’t cause autism, but parents go on believing it anyway because of a retracted 1998 study that claimed to have found a link.

And so we can say the same thing about practically every mainstream journalist: either they have never read the study, or they are liars.

So now let me show you how I can say that. All we have to do to see that this is true is to look at what the study actually said.

So here is what the study actually said with respect to the hypothesis of an association between the MMR vaccine and autism (all emphasis added):

In eight children, the onset of behavioural problems had been linked, either by the parents or by the child’s physician, with measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination. Five had had an early adverse reaction to immunisation (rash, fever, delirium; and, in three cases, convulsions).

We did not prove an association between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and the syndrome described. Virological studies are underway that may help to resolve this issue.

If there is a causal link between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and this syndrome, a rising incidence might be anticipated after the introduction of this vaccine in the UK in 1988. Published evidence is inadequate to show whether there is a change in incidence or a link with measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine. A genetic predisposition to autisic-spectrum disorders is suggested by over-representation in boys and a greater concordance rate in monozygotic than in dizybotic twins.

So there you have it: what virtually every lazy-ass mainstream journalist tells us the Lancet study said versus what it actually said.

And as you can see, the Independent‘s claim that the study “claimed to have found a link between autism” and the MMR vaccine is absolutely false. On the contrary, the study explicitly stated that it had not established an association and suggested that further studies were needed to determine whether there was a link.

The whole premise of what is practically the entire mainstream media’s key argument against “anti-vaxxers” is a lie. Virtually every lazy-ass mainstream journalist cannot be bothered to actually look up the study and read it.

Instead, they just write what they themselves have heard a million times, and since they’ve heard every other lazy-ass journalist repeat it a million times, they just accept it as true. No need to verify it!

It is dogma.

The only alternative possibility is that they did read it, but then just choose to regurgitate the bald-faced lie about it anyway.

Faithful adherence to the vaccine religion.

Take your pick.

But wait! There’s more!

You want to start going down the rabbit hole? Let’s go back to the Independent says about the study, and how ten of Andrew Wakefield’s co-authors on the study “issued a statement saying there was insufficient evidence to draw the conclusion the vaccine was not safe”.

The “Retraction” of an “Interpretation”

So let’s have a look at the actual statement that those 10 co-authors attached their names to (all emphasis added; read it carefully!):

The main thrust of this paper was the first description of an unexpected intestinal lesion in the children reported. Further evidence has been forthcoming in studies from the Royal Free Centre for Paediatric Gastroenterology and other groups to support and extend these findings. While much uncertainty remains about the nature of these changes, we believe it important that such work continues, as autistic children can potentially be helped by recognition and treatment of gastrointestinal problems.

We wish to make it clear that in this paper no causal link was established between MMR vaccine and autism as the data were insufficient. However, the possibility of such a link was raised and consequent events have had major implications for public health. In view of this, we consider now is the appropriate time that we should together formally retract the interpretation placed upon these findings in the paper, according to the precedent.

As you can see, their actual statement did not retract anything they had actually written in the study they coauthored with Andrew Wakefield.

Instead, they stood by their findings, emphasized that the study did not claim to find a link, and emphasized that such research as they had undertaken should continue.

But by merely proposing the hypothesis that there might be a link, these researchers had crossed a line.

They had committed heresy against the vaccine religion. They therefore had to repent. That preposterously meaningless retraction of “the interpretation placed upon” their study’s findings was their penance, their expression of their steadfast faith in the vaccine religion.

They didn’t actually withdraw anything they’d written in the article. On the contrary, they reaffirmed the main thrust of the paper. Their “retraction” had nothing to do with their findings. It had only to do with the “implications for public health”, which term they used euphemistically to mean public policy. The suggestion of a possible link had undermined the goal of public policy to maintain high vaccination rates. That was all that mattered. Proposing the hypothesis that vaccines could possibly be associated with autism threatened public vaccine policy. That was the concern. Not public health, but public policy.

Be mindful of the important distinction.

Now, there’s a lot more about that whole study that the mainstream media is just never going to tell you. I’ve just scratched the surface and shown you a tiny glimpse of the truth underlying the mainstream media’s lies, which are intended to prevent any serious discussion about the critically important subject of vaccines.

If you really want to dive into that whole story, just read this.

Wakefield’s Pioneering Research Validated

There’s also some twisted irony in the timing of this typical, shameless, lying Independent hit-piece. Just last month, a study by researchers from the UC Davis MIND Institute confirmed the key findings of the Wakefield, et al, paper that we are supposed to think was rubbish (that we are supposed to think ten authors of which withdrew the central conclusions of, etc., ad nauseum).

So let me just quote for you key excerpts from the UC Davis press release about the new study:

Immune system and gastrointestinal deregulation linked with autism

UC Davis MIND Institute research finds increased inflammation may be culprit

(SACRAMENTO, Calif.) —Researchers at the UC Davis MIND Institute have found that children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) have reduced immune system regulation, as well as shifts in their gut microbiota. The immune deregulation appears to facilitate increased inflammation and may be linked to the gastrointestinal issues so often experienced by children with ASD….

While previous studies and clinical experience have shown that many children with ASD have gut issues, the causes have been mysterious….

The researchers analyzed blood and stool samples to assess both the immune response and microbial makeup. The children with ASD and GI issues showed a number of distinctions. They had higher levels of inflammatory cytokines, such as IL-5, IL-15 and IL-17, compared to the children with ASD without GI symptoms.

The ASD/GI children also had lower levels of the protein TGFβ1, which is responsible for regulating the immune response. In addition, the group had higher levels of the protein zonulin, which regulates cell junctions in the GI tract, influencing gut permeability….

“Children with ASD with increased inflammation are often those who exhibit the most severe behaviors,” Ashwood said. This immune activation is not helping these children. It might not be causing autism – we don’t know that yet – but it’s certainly making things worse.”

“It’s a step toward understanding co-morbidities that are present in at least half of children with ASD, and working out which of these children may respond well to certain types of therapies,” said Ashwood. “Although it’s still early, this work suggests we need to find ways to ease inflammation to help these children.”

Now understand this…

The Wakefield, et al, study was a case study of 12 children all presenting with gastrointestinal disorders who had been developing normally, but then for some unexplained reason regressed, including nine who developed autism. Parents and doctors had noticed that the regression occurred after receipt off the MMR vaccine.

Wakefield, et al, hypothesized that it was not by mere chance that these 12 children with behavioral abnormalities had gut problems. They suggested that there might be a causal association between gastrointestinal disorders and autism.

They pointed out that previous study had found that 43% of children with autism have “abnormal intestinal permeability”.

Intestinal hyperpermeability is when the gut lining becomes compromised, allowing larger molecules to pass through, which then triggers an inflammatory immune response. It is frequently referred to as “leaky gut”.

They pointed out that leaky gut was a feature of inflammatory bowel disease.

They pointed out that certain children might have a genetic predisposition making them more susceptible to environmental triggers that could set off a chain of events resulting in developmental regression.

In other words, twenty years ago, in the Lancet study we are supposed to think was worthless, Andrew Wakefield was saying the exact same things this new UC Davis study has confirmed.

The UC Davis researchers evidently learned the lesson we are all constantly reminded about and didn’t suggest any kind of possible link with vaccination, even though vaccination is one obvious source of inflammation that could easily be avoided — a factor that, by their own logic, is not only “not helping these children”, but “certainly making things worse”.

Now, given the actual facts, you would think that the media would, at the very least, acknowledge that Wakefield’s pioneering research into the association between gastrointestinal disorders, inflammation, and autism, has since been confirmed by other studies. One would think that his important contributions to the science would be recognized.

But lazy-ass mainstream journalists like Andrew Buncombe aren’t interested in giving you actual facts. They do just fine in their careers by instead mindlessly regurgitating the same dogmatic, lying talking points every other lazy-ass mainstream journalist ritualistically chants anytime the subject of vaccine safety is raised.

As you’ve just witnessed, they can’t even get the most basic facts about this subject straight!

And it’s not just the vaccine-autism issue. This kind of deception is routine when it comes to vaccines. The mainstream media routinely and systematically deceive the public about the safety and effectiveness of vaccines. (For another incontrovertible example, witness for yourself how the New York Times deceives the public about the safety and effectiveness of the influenza vaccine by grossly mischaracterizing its own sources from the medical literature.)

‘Professional Misconduct’ or Heresy?

Here’s another tidbit for you: In the second paragraph of his unthinking hit-piece, Buncombe obligatorily writes that Andrew Wakefield “was subsequently found guilty by the British General Medical Council (GMC) of three-dozen charges, including dishonesty and abuse of children, and struck off the medical register.”

What neither Buncombe nor any other lazy-ass mainstream journalist ever tell you is that one of Wakefield’s co-authors, John Walker-Smith, was also struck off the medical register, but that he appealed and won and was reinstated because the high court found that the GMC’s charges of “professional misconduct” were “untenable” and unsupported by the evidence.

Furthermore, the whole basis for the Lancet’s retraction was the very same “untenable” and unsupported charges by the GMC of “professional misconduct”.

Here, do yourself a favor and listen to something the presstitute media don’t want you to, which is Andrew Wakefield’s side of the story (transcript here):

 

Conclusion

So remember that whenever you hear a lazy-ass mainstream journalist telling you that “anti-vaxxer” parents reject science, but believe a debunked study by one Andrew Wakefield, the truth is that the study in question did not claim to have established an association between the MMR vaccine and autism, but rather explicitly stated that it had not established such a link. It rather simply relayed the temporal association between vaccination and developmental regression reported by the parents and doctors and proposed the biologically plausible hypothesis that there might be a link — which amounted to the crime of heresy against the vaccine religion. (Suggesting hypotheses for further study is the whole point of a case study, which is the kind of study this was.) Remember also that numerous subsequent studies have since confirmed the central findings of that retracted study. Remember that Wakefield’s co-author John Walker-Smith fought the GMC’s ruling and was reinstated on the grounds that the GMC’s accusations were unsupported by the evidence. And remember that the basis for the Lancet’s official retraction was the GMC’s unsupported accusations against the authors.

In other words, just try to keep in mind how the mainstream media systematically deceive you and refuse to take the subject of vaccines seriously and do any kind of real journalism.

A few final thoughts to leave you with, from some folks whose words — given how the mainstream media treat this issue — you would think would place them firmly among the “anti-vaxxers”, but whose identities might surprise you:

“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.” — CDC Director Julie Gerberding, 2008

“There is a completely expressed concern that they [i.e., public health officials] don’t want to pursue a hypothesis [i.e., that vaccines can cause autism in genetically susceptible individuals] because that hypothesis could be damaging to the public health community at large by scaring people.” — Former NIH Director Bernadine Healy, 2008

“[I]t’s a possibility [that vaccines might cause autism in genetically susceptible individuals]…. It’s hard to predict who those children might be…. More research is needed to determine if there are rare cases where underlying mitochondrial disorders are triggered by anything related to vaccines.” — CDC Director of Immunization Safety Frank DeStefano, 2015

There is a serious discussion to be had about vaccines. It’s well past time the media started having it.

Instead, we get lazy-ass journalists who don’t have the foggiest clue about the real issues, but instead manufacture controversy that only serves as a red herring that distracts from the real issues, while arrogantly purporting to tell the public what they should think, all in the service of the state and the protection not of public health, but public policy.

Enough is enough!

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.

Related Articles

32 Comments

  1. Nay2

    Jeremy, you are wonderful, thanks for writing this. I’d also like to make your readers aware of this article from 2001 that exposes the Murdoch empire behind Wakefield prosecution
    http://www.salem-news.com/print/19724

    Reply
    • Cindy Robin

      Is this the article to which Wakefield refers in the video? (The single article that came out after his colleague was reinstated, and the judge slammed the fiasco.) If not, does someone have a link to that. Thanks.

      Reply
  2. David Foster

    Thank you Jeremy for your intrepid reporting on this and other issues, there are very few journalists who will dare to cross the line of vaccine dogma and your efforts to educate the public about the truth are very much appreciated.

    I got so tired of responding to the inevitable “anti-Wakefield screed” in online debates that I wrote up a Facebook note which curious readers might find interesting:

    The Other Side of the Wakefield MMR Vaccine and Autism Saga

    https://www.facebook.com/notes/david-foster/the-other-side-of-the-wakefield-mmr-vaccine-and-autism-saga/10210958089890808/

    Reply
  3. AutismDadd

    You must have read my mind. Yes 20 years later the media, who seem to be pharma minions still visit the Wakefield Well and we get yet another regurgitation of the allegations, supposition, exaggeration and lies. It boggles the mind how many fail to understand what this really means. Many take comfort in their appeal to authority even if its some writer in his or her first position after getting their degree.

    Reply
  4. shotofhealth

    Thank you so much Jeremy! I am busy trying to get a fact sheet done (as a summary to help people quickly refute the lies) and your article helps with some of the context. Thanks also for the “ahrp” link – that’s a seriously long article which will keep me busy for some time. Have you seen this document? What do you think and is there a rebuttal somewhere to be found?

    https://benthamopen.com/contents/pdf/TOVACJ/TOVACJ-6-9.pdf

    Thank you again – you are a shining beacon in the dark quagmire of mainstream journalism!

    Reply
    • Jeremy R. Hammond

      I have seen that review and don’t recall having seen any specific response to it. There are so many facets to that whole episode that it’s very difficult to sort out all the details. My main point with my above post was to demonstrate how the media not only don’t even scratch the surface, but can’t even get the most basic facts straight and mislead the public rather than reporting on the real issues.

      Reply
      • shotofhealth

        Thanks for replying, I really appreciate it. I agree that the matter is huge. When I thought I would put a fact sheet together I knew it would take me a bit of time, but I hadn’t realised how much! I have “Callous Disregard” which is excellent but obviously I’m fact-checking to make sure that what I write is 100% correct. It seems that the only thing he did ‘wrong’ was to take blood from healthy children with parent consent at one of his children’s birthday parties. He should have got Ethics Committee approval. How ironic. When medical staff will automatically vaccinate a child WITHOUT parental consent and when parents don’t (can’t) give informed consent – they give manufactured consent. Parents are not told about the risks of vaccination because medical staff don’t believe it exists.

        Thanks to people like you, the general public IS waking up to the truth of the risks involved. Thank you for all the work that you do to bring truth to people.

      • AutismDadd

        I imagine you know something about the involvement of James Murdoch, son of media giant Rupert. After Wakefield’s kangaroo court conviction James was appointed to the board of MMR maker GlaxoSmithKline. Connections to Brian Deer and the saga covered by the Murdock media likely influenced many.

  5. Greg Madison

    Wakefield is as full of shit as you are and brings measles wherever he goes driving down vaccine rates.

    Reply
    • Jeremy R. Hammond

      You’ve just violated the terms of use of the comments section of this website. If you have a substantive criticism, you are welcome to make it.

      Reply
  6. Le Fox

    ‘Study the studies’. OK, then.

    Mitochondrial damage and genetic susceptibility are serious issues, and will affect how one takes medicine in general. I’ve heard everything from microwaves, to aluminium, and the most popular vaccines causing autism. The basis of this article was: ‘People are stupid for criticizing a guy who claimed there may be a link, and believing the media for telling them he was debunked.’

    Hypothesis or not, 12 children is nowhere near enough to establish a firm link between vaccines and autism, where there are many children who are vaccinated and who do not have autism, and children who have autism that may have a genetic basis. If these 12 children have mitochondrial disorders, no matter what substance is injected in their bodies, they will have a reaction.

    It also begs the question: say the MMR does cause autism, or the thimerosal preservative. What solution then for childhood measles, mumps and rubella, which ravaged kids? What do we do to ensure public health, and what measures should be taken when these cases increase?

    If parents who do not wish to vaccinate their children do so out of an autism fear, then they have room to enjoy their public health when other diseases like smallpox and polio were eradicated by vaccines. By all means, let the questions be asked, and the real world reactions played out.

    Reply
    • Jeremy R. Hammond

      The basis of this article was: ‘People are stupid for criticizing a guy who claimed there may be a link, and believing the media for telling them he was debunked.’

      No. That is not an accurate summation of the key point of this article. For starters, it’s not just that the media criticize Wakefield for claiming there may be a link. It’s that they can’t even get the most basic facts straight about the 1998 case study. And I certainly didn’t call anyone stupid for believing the media or otherwise suggest that anyone who believes what they hear from the media is stupid. They are simply misinformed.

      The key takeaway of this article is rather that the mainstream media systematically misinform the public about the vaccine issue and refuse to take the numerous concerns surrounding the practice of vaccination seriously.

      There is nothing in this message that consists of the fallacy of begging the question. The thesis is amply demonstrated.

      Reply
      • Le Fox

        Hang on. Did I not just read in your two articles that the media deliberately misinforms and mis-educates the public when it talks about vaccines? In the second paragraph this is confirmed.

        The media had responded to Wakefield’s study poorly, as you wrote, because they didn’t get the facts straight. The poo-pahing of the media in regards to this study was the focal point. Wakefield, as you write and as he did, did not suggest there was a solid claim to autism and the MMR vaccine. The media took it too far and destroyed his reputation. BUT, there may be a plausible claim, from the studies I’ve read and the blogs I’ve seen, between autism and vaccines (and aluminium and mercury, and lead, and thimerosal, etc).

        Wakefield’s reputation was destroyed for nothing, and vaccines should be approached with scientific scrutiny if they go wrong. Yes? But it still does beg the question: how did Wakefield get a link with just 12 children, when he easily could have found, say, 1200?

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        Did I not just read in your two articles that the media deliberately misinforms and mis-educates the public when it talks about vaccines?

        I don’t know what you have read of mine. But certainly the media misinforms the public about vaccines, as I provide an example of in the above article.

        It doesn’t follow that I consider people who aren’t aware of this to be stupid. I was simply correcting your inaccurate summary of my purpose in writing.

        BUT, there may be a plausible claim, from the studies I’ve read and the blogs I’ve seen, between autism and vaccines…

        Yes. The claim that this hypothesis has been debunked is false. It has never been properly studied.

        But it still does beg the question: how did Wakefield get a link with just 12 children, when he easily could have found, say, 1200?

        I think you mean “raises the question”. Begging the question is a logical fallacy, and, again, if you are suggesting there’s a logical fallacy in my article, I am still unclear as to what it is you are suggesting is logically invalid.

        As for your question, I don’t know what you mean. First of all, what do you mean by “get a link”? Again, the paper explicitly noted that they did NOT establish a link. I also think you misunderstand what kind of study this was. It was a case study. Hence the 12 children.

      • Le Fox

        It has never been properly studied, despite frequent claims by vaccine hesitant people that it happens all the time. Wakefield should have taken the time to properly study it, and use more than 12 test subjects, because 12 test subjects is not enough to demonstrate a strong link given how often the MMR vaccine is used.

        Yes, it does beg the question. How did Wakefield come to a conclusion or a suggestion with just 12 children? It begs and raises questions.

        The paper did NOT establish a link, BUT we need more research into the MMR vaccine because there MAY be a link with autism and other disorders.

        I don’t misunderstand at all. I read what you wrote, and what you linked: the media’s overreaction on Wakefield’s study was based on nothing at all, and people should have the right to know when vaccines have adverse effects or their efficacy as a whole.

        It still does not answer whether or not MMR, merucy, thimerosal, aluminium, or other ingredients cause autism. It also doesn’t answer why those kids, all with mitochondrial issues, reacted the way they did. Is it worth investigating?

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        It has never been properly studied, despite frequent claims by vaccine hesitant people that it happens all the time.

        I think you mean to say: The hypothesis that vaccines can at least in a subset of children with genetic or environmental predisposition cause autism has never been properly studied, despite incessant claims by public vaccine policy apologists that it’s been proven to be untrue.

        Wakefield should have taken the time to properly study it…

        This is nonsense. The whole point of a case study is to propose hypotheses for further study.

        Yes, it does beg the question.

        Please identify what it is I wrote that you are claiming is the logical fallacy of begging the question.

        How did Wakefield come to a conclusion or a suggestion with just 12 children? It begs and raises questions.

        Again, begging the question is a logical fallacy. Raising the question is not. Again, the whole purpose of a case study is to make observations and develop hypotheses for further study.

      • Le Fox

        It still begs the question why Wakefield, seeing a potential research area, only used 12 test subjects. If children with mitochondrial issues are affected by vaccines in general, it would require extensive re-shaping of vaccine policy and the effects of genetics in viral cultures in general.

        The paragraph in which children with predisposed genetic conditions are vaccinated and the autism does appear does not prove or show that autism directly arose from that vaccine; it instead suggests that something else is at play.

        Yes, studies are there for more research and more research shapes public policy. So why did Wakefield only use 12 children, and why are similar studies limited by such small groups, even though it’d be such a vast interest to study?

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        It still begs the question why Wakefield, seeing a potential research area, only used 12 test subjects.

        If you are going to persist in accusing me of committing the fallacy of begging the question, for the last time, please identify what conclusion I drew that you are claiming is fallacious.

        As for the question of why only 12 children were included in the case study, I have already given you the answer: because it was a case study.

        If children with mitochondrial issues are affected by vaccines in general, it would require extensive re-shaping of vaccine policy and the effects of genetics in viral cultures in general.

        Everyone is affected by vaccines. Children with mitochondrial disorders are at higher risk of vaccine injury. Yes, certainly, the one-size-fits-all mentality of current public vaccine policy is ignorant and reckless and needs to be changed.

        The paragraph in which children with predisposed genetic conditions are vaccinated and the autism does appear does not prove or show that autism directly arose from that vaccine; it instead suggests that something else is at play.

        There are numerous paragraphs discussing genetic predisposition to vaccine injury and regression into autism. Which one are you taking issue with? And in what way does it suggest that something else, and not vaccination, was the cause? What other factor(s) are you referring to?

    • sabelmouse

      which children do those ravage?

      Reply
      • Le Fox

        The ones that get autism. I thought this was clear…?

      • sabelmouse

        nope.

    • Luke Lochlin

      Le Fox says: “12 children is nowhere near enough to establish a firm link between vaccines and autism, where there are many children who are vaccinated and who do not have autism,”

      Faulty premise. No one said 12 children were used to establish a firm link between vaccines and autism. Where did you read that? It’s called a straw man argument.

      next, where are those “many children who are vaccinated who do not have autism”? You make another mistake in showing you don’t understand the subject at all when you say “autism”. It’s called, autism spectrum disorder where there are many different adverse effects that happen to EVERY SINGLE PERSON THAT GETS A VACCINATION. That’s the point of vaccinations; to get a reaction in some way shape or form from the immune system. The effects come in all different forms; from rashes, to allergies, to convulsions, to cancer, and even death.

      then you say, “when other diseases like smallpox and polio were eradicated by vaccines.” Vaccinations NEVER eradicated any disease. Sanitation has sufficiently reduced many types of disease. Polio is supposedly from a virus found in feces. Luckily we have sewer systems, and water treatment plants, toilets and showers, and hygiene… Refrigeration, and products like iodine, and chlorine bleach…

      Let’s try to think a little more, and research before spewing lies. Your insolence offends me.

      Reply
  7. Sergio Kas

    Good article and good points. i will add a couple more. The media often says it is Wakefield that started the “vaccines cause autism” debate in 1998. Actually he was not. Check out this 1976 study.
    -https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/944354#%23 Last sentence of this says “Vaccination is recognized as having a starter function for the onset of autism”.

    Second point. The media often accuses Wakefield of causing a large drop in the uptake of the measles vaccine and responsible for many measles cases and deaths. See link below. This link will also explain why the “system” came down so hard on Wakefield.
    -https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/165/6/704/63700 This shows that in 1992 one of the mmr vaccines was withdrawn for a couple years because it was causing aspec meningitis. This which would have caused some alarm in the public and many to quite using this vaccine, nothing to do with Wakefield.
    A new mmr vaccine was brought back in 1998 by GSK, around the same time Wakefield was announcing his study.(Merck had the first mmr vaccine) His study was not so much the problem as was the press conference he held where he suggested that “perhaps they should go back to the single measles vaccine while this is studied”. This is the last thing that GSK wanted to hear as they were bringing out their new vaccine. GSK did not want negative comments about the mmr vaccine. So that was the end of Wakefield. They did everything they could to discredit him through Brian Deer.

    Reply
  8. Michele Higbee Hixon

    Thank you for clearing this up. It’s hard to find a balanced article on Wakefield.

    Reply
  9. Luke Lochlin

    Anything the media or the CDC say is a lie. I’m anti-vaxx because it’s bullshit, and merely snake oil to harm our children into becoming life long patients of big pharma, and of course the ones that die are just eugenics.

    the amount of illness in the autism spectrum is alarming. It’s from the vaccination, period. None vaccinated children don’t get sick. If they do, it’s a VERY rare occurrence from some type of environmental source.

    Reply
  10. Luke Lochlin

    good story Jeremy. But I have to tell you that big pharma pays these “journalists” to lie, and obfuscate the truth. Journalism has become nothing more than PR and advertising. The bottom line is to profit, and harm children. We live in a world that kills their own offspring, in the womb and out.

    Reply
  11. Tonya Prim

    I appreciate your repeated use of the term “lazy-ass” because there is no other explanation for a “journalist’s” lack of knowledge of the case. When I first began to question vaccines, I read the Lancet study and was astounded that anyone capable of using logic could possibly use that study to draw the conclusions I had heard so many times levied against Wakefield.
    Here is a piece I wrote about the CDC’s lies about measles that I like to use to get people to question whether the CDC is actually more concerned about public health, or about establishing and maintaining a high vaccination rate.

    Nearly every news story one reads about measles these days claims that measles was “declared eliminated in 2000” by the CDC. Do you even know what that means? It’s not the definition most people would adhere to in common English usage, meaning removal or ridding.

    “Elimination of disease: Reduction to zero of the incidence of a specified disease in a defined geographical area as a result of deliberate efforts; continued intervention measures are required. Example: neonatal tetanus.
    Elimination of infections: Reduction to zero of the incidence of infection caused by a specific agent in a defined geographical area as a result of deliberate efforts; continued measures to prevent re-establishment of transmission are required. Example: measles, poliomyelitis.”

    https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/su48a7.htm

    Even with that specialized definition of “elimination”, measles never was eliminated. There were 86 cases in 2000, and there have been cases every single year since.

    “During 2000, a total of 86 confirmed measles cases were reported… Of the 86 cases reported, 26 were imported from outside the United States, and 19 cases were epidemiologically linked to imported cases. Nine additional cases had virologic evidence of importation (i.e., genotypic analysis of measles viruses indicated no evidence of an endemic strain). The remaining 32 cases were classified as unknown source cases because no link to importation was detected.”

    https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4953a1.htm

    The CDC asserts that if these cases originated in another part of the world and were brought here by travellers, they don’t count. So, even though there were 86 cases that year, and 32 of those cases came from an unknown source, the CDC “declared” measles eliminated. It never actually happened; they just “declared” it.

    Reply
  12. Sir HC

    Thank you for this showing how the media is very manipulative and lies frequently getting everyone to believe what they want. I have four kids, the first 3 received MMR vaccines, all are affected, two have Autism. Our first born we think could possibly have Autism, but he wasn’t officially diagnosed with this condition. He does have memory issues, and he has difficulty staying focused, he has to be guided often by his teacher, but he is very smart and gets excellent grades. He has a very high understanding of things. Our fourth child we refused all vaccines, she is 100 percent healthy with no issues whatsoever. We are about to have a 5th child, a baby girl who we will not allow to be injured by vaccines. It annoys and frustrates me that so many people believe whatever they are told without actually researching the studies and separating the factual information from the disinformation. I suppose these days, you really have to have a gift to tell real from what is not real, truth from lies. We have video evidence that our children were perfectly healthy before the MMR vaccines, the two with autism were even starting to do that baby gibberish talk and then immediately after the MMR shots, they never spoke another word for a very long time. Our younger son was placed in early intervention programs as was our daughter. Our daughter can speak words but to this day she is mostly non-verbal and she is highly autistic. She developed severe problems with going to the bathroom, and to this day she has these problems. It hurts for her to go number 2, and her number 2’s are abnormally large. Doctors are unable to explain this. We believe it’s from the MMR vaccine that caused these issues. Our son was able to do well in speech and while he does well, there still are things he can’t understand that his baby sister (4th child) easily understands. She is like the rock of the group as she was never injured by vaccines. I wish everybody would actually think for themselves and research and learn that there are some 4 billion dollars that have been compensated for people with vaccine injuries through the vaccine injury court that was created back in 1986 I believe. But clearly you can’t determine the actual number of injuries because most people probably don’t bother to go through the injury claim process. We haven’t. I didn’t even know that you could until recently. I read that you could not sue the manufacturers of vaccines which we wanted to, but evidently you can go through the vaccine injury court which takes approximately 3 YEARS to be heard. With so much evidence and proof of vaccine injuries of all kinds, I don’t see how people can’t accept that one of those injuries is Autism as the number of children becoming Autistic is climbing at a very alarming rate. I think if we did have our first born checked for being on the Autism Spectrum, they might say he is, a lot of the time I think he might have Asbergers or something like that. If my newborn daughter is perfectly healthy just as my 4th child, then I think it should count has strong evidence that those shots did in fact cause the Autism in my children along with the video proof before and after those MMR shots how my kids were. It was painfully clear they didn’t have Austism before those MMR shots. I was even warned by somebody who had this happen to their child and I got the shots anyway because I thought it would be fine. I feel I couldn’t have been more wrong, and I blame myself for letting them get the shots. I say never again. And now in New York, they just mandated the shots without the religious exemption, stripping your constitutional right of freedom of religion? VOID LAW! You can’t just take away people’s rights, yet they are doing this in New York. What is the world coming to?

    Reply
    • Jeremy R. Hammond

      The efforts by the federal and state governments to quash dissent from public vaccine policy and to enforce vaccine mandates that violate the right to informed consent are truly frightening.

      Reply

Share your thoughts.

Pin It on Pinterest

Shares
Share This