Antivaccine nonsense Autism Clinical trials Complementary and alternative medicine Quackery

Quoth the Institute of Medicine: The current vaccine schedule is safe and effective. Quoth antivaccinationists: Gahhhh!

I sense another disturbance in the antivaccine Force.

Yes, I realize that it was just a couple of days ago that I sensed a previous disturbance rippling through the antivaccine Force. That’s when antivaccinationists brought David Kirby out of mothballs from whatever journalistic slime pit he’s currently residing in to use every trick at his disposal to convince you that somehow the government has compensated two families of children for vaccine-induced autism when in fact he’s playing the same game he’s always played: Claiming that if any child who’s ever been compensated by the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) who at some point developed any syndrome resembling autism or autism spectrum disorders it means that vaccines caused the autism. It’s such a transparent ploy that Kirby’s used so often that it only induced ennui.

However, for some reason (probably because I only check out the antivaccine propaganda blog Age of Autism every now and then for yucks), I missed a post there by our old pal J.B. Handley pimping donations about a highly dubious study for which Generation Rescue is raising money. I blogged about this study a couple of months ago. Basically, it’s a study that’s the holy grail of the antivaccine movement, a study known colloquially as a “vaxed-unvaxed” study. Basically, it’s the sort of study that antivaccinationists clamor for as a second choice. While most (but not all) antivaccinationists grudgingly accept that a prospective randomized study comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated children would be completely unethical, they are so convinced that vaccines are pure evil that they want to compare vaccinated versus unvaccinated populations for health outcomes, expecting to find enormous differences, with vaccinated children being all autistic and riddled with chronic diseases like asthma. Or something. For some reason, the investigators doing this study claim they need $500,000. To do what, I can’t figure out, given that this “study” appears to be little more than an Internet survey examining home schooled children, who of course represent a highly unrepresentative population to be studying. Its principal investigator is Anthony R. Mawson, M.A., Dr.P.H., who is an admirer of Andrew Wakefield and clearly has antivaccine tendencies.

Then, a few days ago, J.B. Handley repeated his call for money for these science-challenged antivaccine investigators. He framed it as a a “Q & A” session about the study by Suzanne Humphries, which is not a good choice if you want to convince anyone that the study is anything other than an antivaccine study, given that Humphries is known for referring to vaccines as “disease matter.” Particularly interesting is this bit:

Q: So if they need Internal Review Board approval, does this mean that there could be other sources of funding? $500,000 is a lot to come up from the grassroots. There needs to be a benefactor or some other creative financing.

A: IRB approval for the study was obtained at Jackson State University, where the study is based, in 2011. Approval was renewed for Year 2 a few months ago. There is no other current funding for the study. The pilot study was funded by Generation Rescue, whose support was financial. They are totally uninvolved in study design and analysis.

It’s pretty sad when someone like Humphries or Handley apparently doesn’t know that it’s Institutional Review Board approval, not Internal Review Board approval, but it’s about par for the course for these people. Be that as it may, one wonders what sort of IRB they have at Jackson State University or what they were smoking there to approve such a dubious study like this. Be that as it may, Handley showing up again made me wonder what’s going on. Frequently, the antivaccine movement knows about things that are about to happen before I do because, well, they spend incredible amounts of time and effort finding these things out, and I have a job and a life. In any case, it didn’t take long for me to find out what probably provoked this (besides, of course, Generation Rescue’s only having raised $30,000 out of the needed additional $400,000). Just yesterday, a very telling screed appeared from our old friend Dan Olmsted about the recently released Institute of Medicine report on vaccines, Childhood Immunization Schedule and Safety: Stakeholder Concerns, Scientific Evidence, and Future Studies.

Olmsted begins, predictably enough, with a whine:

It isn’t worth spending much time and energy to take on the new Institute of Medicine report on vaccine safety concerns– bought and paid for by the Department of Health and Human Services — except to note that as the Feds continue trying to bottle up the truth about the autism epidemic, it keeps leaking out everywhere else. The Vaccine Court rulings this week, uncovered by the outstanding reporting of David Kirby and validated over and over by the Unanswered Questions report of EBCALA, are far more important in the long run than the dying yelps of the medical-industrial complex.

In other words, the fact that vaccines are the main driver of the autism epidemic, validated every day by families across the county and now in the world, is far more important than the ginned-up claim by the special interests that they don’t cause autism, or autoimmune disorders, or asthma, or ADHD, or juvenile diabetes, and etcetera and etcetera and etcetera.

It’s the same ol’, same ol’. The IOM is a pharma shill; vaccines are the cause of autism and all sorts of horrible diseases; and, of course, only Dan Olmsted, David Kirby, and their fellow antivaccine travelers know the truth. Of course, that EBCALA report referred to by Olmsted was in itself unauthorized human subjects research—and incompetently done research, to boot.

In fact, the report is nothing unexpected. The IOM, while acknowledging that

The committee acknowledges the evidence that reducing vaccine coverage is associated with increases in vaccine-preventable disease and found only ad hoc, inconsistent, and anecdotal evidence to imply that the recommended immunization schedule is not safe. Furthermore, existing systems for the detection of adverse events provide confidence that the existing childhood immunization schedule is safe, and the committee recognizes that the federal government invests considerable resources to ensure vaccine safety. Nevertheless, some stakeholders have suggested that further work is warranted, such as a comparison of vaccinated children with unvaccinated children or children receiving immunizations on alternative immunization schedules.

Ad hoc, inconsistent, and anecdotal evidence is exactly the sort of evidence that the antivaccine movement relies on is, of course, because it doesn’t have any epidemiological evidence or scientific evidence worth bothering with. Its evidence comes from at best low quality, uncontrolled or poorly controlled studies, and studies done by antivaccine investigators like Mark and David Geier, Christopher Shaw, or Andrew Wakefield. In any case, the report goes on to point out that doing a prospective randomized trial of vaccinated versus unvaccinated children would be completely unethical and:

[T]he committee concludes that a randomized controlled trial comparing the recommended schedule with any alternative schedule would be unethical and infeasible and could increase the risk of vaccine-preventable diseases in individuals and in the community.

While I don’t necessarily completely agree that testing alternative vaccination schedules would be inherently unethical, depending on the precise parameters of the schedule being tested (after all, we do that in essence when we add new vaccines to the existing vaccination schedule and it probably wouldn’t be unethical to test schedules in which certain vaccines are moved up or extra doses are added), I agree completely that a prospective randomized “vaxed versus unvaxed” study would indeed be completely unethical. Moreover, even though a study testing various “alternative” vaccine schedules might be ethically acceptable, depending upon the specific schedules being tested, absent compelling evidence of harm from the existing vaccine schedule, there is no scientific rationale to do such studies. (Hint to antivaccinationists: Just because you want one is not a scientific rationale.) Given that such a study would be very expensive and that the end result of “spreading out” the vaccine schedule would result in more visits and more time for children to be unprotected against vaccine-preventable diseases, such a study would be a waste of time and money.

In fact, for the benefit of antivaccine activists who might read this, I’ll explain why a randomized study comparing unvaccinated children versus vaccinated children or alternative vaccine schedules in which children are left undervaccinated too long would be completely unethical no matter what you believe. If vaccines are not dangerous and do not cause autism, as science shows and I accept, and the current vaccine schedule is safe and effective then doing a “vaxed versus unvaxed” study in which one group is randomized to receive no vaccines or a schedule that unnecessarily spreads out vaccines is completely unethical because the unvaccinated (or undervaccinated group) would be knowingly and intentionally left unprotected from vaccine-preventable diseases. Now, even if vaccines did cause autism and were a major cause of sudden infant death syndrome, asthma, and all the other diseases that antivaccinationists try to pin on vaccines, and there was compelling evidence to suggest that this was true, then the study would still be of questionable ethics, because the vaccinated group would then be knowingly placed into a group that would be likely to be harmed by the vaccination schedule. In this latter case, if there were truly evidence of harm, then decisions would likely have to be made on the basis of what that evidence is, what the specific harms suspected are, all balanced against the known harm that would come from cutting back on the vaccine schedule. None of this is to say that a randomized controlled trial of different vaccine schedules would always be unethical. The principle of clinical equipoise holds, after all. However, the classic “vaxed versus untaxed” randomized study some of the more clueless antivaccine activists want would indeed be unethical under pretty much any imaginable circumstance.

None of this stops Olmsted from laying down swaths of flaming antivaccine stupid:

So, it’s prospectively unethical. OK, then what about a study of people who are already unvaccinated — you know, the Amish, homeschoolers, the HomeFirst practice in Chicago? Chiropractors, Christian Scientists, Bushmen, Waldorfers, Spenglerians, Hippie-Dippies (not my term!) in Ashland.

No way. The report says: “Some people have suggested comparing vaccinated children with children in “naturally occurring” populations of unimmunized individuals, such as certain religious communities. With less than 1 percent of the American population refusing all immunizations, however, it would be very difficult to recruit enough willing unvaccinated participants, the committee concluded. It can take tens of thousands of study participants to discover uncommon health problems. Moreover, these populations tend to be much less diverse ethnically, racially, socio-economically, and genetically than the general population, and because such factors can influence health, it would be difficult to determine if differences between the study groups are the result of vaccines or these other factors. The costs of conducting this kind of study or a randomized controlled trial likely would be prohibitive.”

The IOM, as it turns out, is completely correct about this. I’ve explained exactly why multiple times before, remarking that it’s so cute when anti-vaxers try to discuss epidemiology. Actually, it’s not cute, but it is ignorant. As I pointed out, even if a researcher could sign up 10% of the entire estimated number of unvaccinated children in the U.S., then the smallest difference in autism prevalence that could be detected would be around a 70% increase in autism prevalence. The reason for this is that there are only estimated to be 50,000 total completely unvaccinated children between 3 and 6 in the entire country. This study would cost millions of dollars to do, as well. If we were to do a more conventional study (say, 5,000 matched controls and 500 unvaccinated children), we might be able to detect a seven-fold increase in the prevalence of autism, but only if we accept a beta error (the chance of erroneously saying there is no difference when there is a difference) of 50%. Check out Prometheus’s post and my old post for the full details.

So the IOM is correct about this, and Dan Olmsted doesn’t know what he’s talking about when he rants and raves and insinuates dogmatism and conspiracy while dismissing scientists’ objections to “vaxed versus unvaxed” studies of the type advocated by epidemiology-challenged antivaccine activists as the “Epistemological Obscenity.” (So what else is new?) Of course, “Epistemological Obscenity” is a pithy phrase that makes Olmsted sound pithy and profound, but in reality his post and those of antivaccinationists about such “vaxed versus unvaxed” studies are the real Epistemological Obscenities because in them true ignorance about the validity and limits of human knowledge is not just demonstrated, but flaunted proudly, as demonstrated by Olmsted when he compares the simple analyses of ethics, statistical power, cost, and practicality that lead scientists to dismiss him to “some mad extrapolation of Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle to the macro-atomic level” when it is anything but that. Thinking himself more knowledgeable about vaccines, autism, and biology than scientists who have spent their entire careers studying these issues, Olmsted doesn’t even realize or accept that scientists and physicians are correct when they point out that one of studies that he so fervently wants (a prospective randomized trial) is completely unethical, and that his grudgingly suggested fallback (an epidemiological study of vaxed versus unvaxed children) is highly unlikely to give them the answer that they crave. This is not surprising, given that antivaccinationists like Olmsted seem to think that an incompetently performed phone survey or an Internet survey by a German homeopath named Andreas Bachmair that was even more incompetently performed (but that they tout anyway) represents good science.

Of course, ultimately I suspect that’s the point. They already “know” vaccines cause autism, SIDS, asthma, and many other problems, and no study, no matter how convincingly negative, will ever change their minds.

By Orac

Orac is the nom de blog of a humble surgeon/scientist who has an ego just big enough to delude himself that someone, somewhere might actually give a rodent's posterior about his copious verbal meanderings, but just barely small enough to admit to himself that few probably will. That surgeon is otherwise known as David Gorski.

That this particular surgeon has chosen his nom de blog based on a rather cranky and arrogant computer shaped like a clear box of blinking lights that he originally encountered when he became a fan of a 35 year old British SF television show whose special effects were renowned for their BBC/Doctor Who-style low budget look, but whose stories nonetheless resulted in some of the best, most innovative science fiction ever televised, should tell you nearly all that you need to know about Orac. (That, and the length of the preceding sentence.)

DISCLAIMER:: The various written meanderings here are the opinions of Orac and Orac alone, written on his own time. They should never be construed as representing the opinions of any other person or entity, especially Orac's cancer center, department of surgery, medical school, or university. Also note that Orac is nonpartisan; he is more than willing to criticize the statements of anyone, regardless of of political leanings, if that anyone advocates pseudoscience or quackery. Finally, medical commentary is not to be construed in any way as medical advice.

To contact Orac: [email protected]

168 replies on “Quoth the Institute of Medicine: The current vaccine schedule is safe and effective. Quoth antivaccinationists: Gahhhh!”

Dammit! Orac scooped me. I’m still reading the report. Extra-long hours at work and home life interfering with my blogging. I shouldn’t be surprised, though. Much easier for a box of blinking lights to stay ahead of me.

Nicely written, Orac!

While we often complain about credulous reporting on vaccination and other medical/scientific issues, credit should go to for an intelligent look at “alternative vaccine schedules” in light of the IOM report:


@Dangerous Bacon

I like how they include Dr. Sears’ opinion, then immediately show that it’s wrong.


She’ll almost certainly show up on the story Dangerous Bacon linked to, though. Considering the story was posted last night around 7pm, I’m actually rather surprised she hasn’t swooped in already.

I haven’t read the details of the study they want to do, but if it does involve homeschooled children, that’s sketchy. A lot of kids are homeschooled simply because they have special needs (like ASD) or health concerns (like food allergies), so in any homeschool cohort you will likely find vaccinated kids with ASD or health issues. You will also find plenty of unvaccinated kids (the opt-outers who refuse vaccines, public school, etc., on principle) who don’t have ASD, or may simply be undiagnosed due to parental paranoia about “labels” and The Medical Establishment.

On my local homeschool Yahoo Group message board, I see parents looking for doctors who won’t “push” vaccines and won’t criticize homeschooling. The moms will post things like, “I love our pediatrician!!! She lets me decide which vaccines my kids get and which ones we skip!”

Does an IRB review the quality of the science, or is it just there to make sure patients are protected? I thought the latter, and as it’s an internet survey they’re talking about all they need to show is good anonymizing and no collection of personal data to clear that hurdle.


The primary objective of the IRB is to ensure the safety of the subjects. Some review of the quality of the science can play a part, especially if there is increased risk to the subjects.

For an internet survey, I could see the IRB raising questions if there was a risk of loss of confidentiality that could lead to social repercussions against the subjects. Exposure of medical information is also a risk, both in terms of social impact and economic (e.g., if an insurance company finds something out, that may impact current or future coverage/fees). Loss of confidentiality could also have some ramifications on employment, depending on the info leaked. For this, that doesn’t seem to be a huge issue to worry about. There is no physical risk from the study, so that part’s okay.

As long as the researchers have adequate protections in place to guard against loss of confidentiality, even if the science sucks, I could see an IRB approving it. They’re more concerned with studies that pose a genuine risk to subjects.

On the proposal to compare the small unvaccinated communities looking for correlation. Wouldn’t it also work the other way, and with a much smaller pool of study subjects? Even N>0 in that population would indicate vaccines are not the cause of autism. Kind of a black swan thing.

One Amish kid with Autism basically confirms vaccines are not the cause.



One Amish kid with Autism basically confirms vaccines are not the cause.


Nope. One Amish kid with Autism confirms that that particular Amish kid’s autism was not caused by vaccines (if he/she were unvaccinated; remember, the Amish do vaccinated).

In other anti-vax news:

It appears that John Stone ( AoA) is not at all happy with Dr Larson’s ( of LSHTM, JCVI) position on mercury, which is, like that of WHO and the AAP.

She has a conflict of interest because of her connections with the Gates.

A commenter mentions the situation in Gouro, Chad that appeared in the “Journal du Tchad” and “La Voix” ( which several of us here read ).

Perhaps that will be their next big story: paralysis after vaccines.

“What’s a Thinking Mom to DO?” ( @ TMR) :
ah yes, what to do when you find yourself in a difficult situation…
well, compare yourself to the late Dr ML King, that’s what!
I’m sure that that’s absolutely appropriate.

@ Mike:

I wonder if they would attribute ANY un-vaccinated child’s ASD to the child’s MOTHER’S vaccination – that’s what their editor did when her third child, who is unvaccinated, was diagnosed with autism.

Either that or some type of a time warp or quantum entanglement, I suppose.

@Denise – isn’t that what that nutjob in England has done? He doesn’t believe there are any unvaccinated autistics – and he’ll also throw in Mom’s vaccines, plus dental fillings, right?

Tony Bates!**

Maybe I shouldn’t have said his name: it might conjure up an appearance- perish rthe thought.

** I was refering to Kim Stagliano.


Indeed, yeah.

But given their logic of “the court awarded damages to a kid with (maybe?) Autism, therefore we have proof that vaccines caused it!” it seems the same kind of game.

I was over-simplifying it there, obviously. The anti-vaccine crowd seems agile enough to say “vaccines are only one cause!” rather than the only cause.


Yeah, they do like to move the goalposts. It’s the Mercury! Take out the Mercury. It’s too many too soon! Etc., Scary to think they blame the mother’s vaccines and probably would try the quantum entanglement bit.

@ Mike:

rather than “agile”, I’d call it sloppy, using loosely associated material etc.

But I know what your mean.
They’ll use anything they find, even if they have to twist and manipulate it so much that it no longer resembles its former self..

The groupies at AoA were notified about an ABC TV story on the IOM report and some of them have posted there.

Look for my two posts about the IOM Report and the value I place in the Vaccine Safety Datalink which resulted in the removal of RotaShield vaccine in 1999.

Somehow (I must have posted under a different ‘nym years ago), my ‘nym there is “abcnurse”. Does anyone want to come out and play with me?

As the mother of a child on the spectrum, I blame all the exotic fruit that is now imported into Canada year round. The kind that were unheard of when I was child, especially the mangoes. Oh yes, the presence of mangoes in the grocery store where I shopped when I was pregnant with my ASD daughter is what caused her austism. I just know it. And if it wasnt the presence of the mangoes, it was the number of mangoes especially when combined with the star fruit. It is an unholy alliance, I tells ya…..the Canadian government is covering all this up because they are in the pockets of big fruit (Richard Simmons??) and are only in it for the money……… other children were never exposed to these fruit because I then only shopped at the local gas station and that is why they are not on the spectrum…..


the Canadian government is covering all this up because they are in the pockets of big fruit (Richard Simmons??)

you win the Internet for this. My Diet Coke can nearly became a neti pot when I read it. 🙂

offtopic: On the St. Lawrence

isn’t it cold to be on the St Lawrence at this time?


Over on Facebook, there’s an anti-vaccination, anti-circumcision activist named Hollie [redacted]. There is also a pro-science, pro-vaccination activist named Dorit Reiss, who is also a professor of law.

In this video (also at The Poxes Blog), Hollie threatens Dorit. At Dorit’s work number. You know, the one at the law school.

Hollie “…was reported to CPS over having a pox party for her 6 year old and looking for a pertussis party. She has an infant.  She was also smoking pot while pregnant and while giving birth. Out of everyone who was outraged, she picked the Jew to harass at work, and I’m not just playing the race card as she anti ritualistic circumcision and spends a ton of time critical of Jewish brisses.”

@Liz Ditz

Wow…just went through a couple of fire extinguishers to put out the stupid.

Thanks Liz, saw that and commented. I’d love to know what, if any action the lawyer takes.

Heh, you’re such a smart alec Liz. Catherina snuck that one right under my nose.

For more burning stupid, see Dr. Bob Sear’s latest Facebook idiocy:

Why does this wanker keep supplying me with so much blog fodder in such a short amount of time?

He doesn’t understand study ethics and cites a study which is not even applicable to the U.S. and EU. And I only just started reading his stupid screed.

Science Mom,

“Why does this wanker keep supplying me with so much blog fodder in such a short amount of time?”

The IAS does the same for me… (Admittedly I rarely convert it into actual blog posts, however.)

To any anti-science lunatics who are planning on unleashing their “If [vaccine] is safe then whyyyy are so many people living with chronic conditions like asthma, allergies, and diabetes?” schtick, let me save you the effort.

They’re living with chronic health problems because they’re living. That’s it, full stop. Without scientific advances such as bronchodilators and corticosteroids, emergency preparations like epi-pens used alongside simple antihistamines, and synthetic insulin. and testing devices, a good chunk of people would not make it to double digits. The same goes for vaccines – not dying from measles,related encephalitis means you get to live with whatever else you have.

So please, don’t go there.

@Jake – so you finished your 666 degrees of separation between everyone on the planet (except yourself, of course) and the vaccine industry yet?

OOOOooooohhhhh Jake!

Is it a drive-by posting or you’re here to stay for our enjoyment?


Indeed. Maybe Jake will actually try to make an actual argument this time, rather than ad hominems and “six degrees of separation” conspiracy mongering!

Wait. I don’t get it. The “signature” at the end states that Jake will attend GW in August. I thought he was already in.

I’m kidding, of course. It was from his GW account that he emailed my bosses, clamoring that I be fired.

What we have in his latest post is the same old thing. This person has a conflict of interest. That person is corrupt. Dr. Offit is a millionaire vaccine industrialist. Unlike other MPH students at GW who volunteer their time in the underserved areas of DC and surrounding counties, Mr. Crosby seems to choose to sit at a computer and dream up stuff.

I wonder how the real world is going to treat him?

I’m still pissed that my alma mater would house a student as f’ed up as Jake, though with the issues GW has had lately, I guess any paying student will do…..


Wow. I’m a little amazed at how readily Dr. Sears displays is ignorance of science and ethics. I shot him a little email (or at least tried, but it bounced ’cause his mailbox was full) with links to my series on the ethics of a prospective vaxed vs. unvaxed study.

@ Ren:

I believe that that’s an old post ( I recognise the photoshopped image)- it’s not on today’s AoA page ( where the continuing -and endless and meaningless- saga of Frua Koma- continues)

I wonder about his future as you do.

Elburto — Every time I take antibiotics, I think of all the times where, without modern medicine, something or other would have killed me. I probably would have died at birth , to be honest (I got cerebral palsy instead), but if that didn’t kill me, the rubella I got as a tiny baby might have, or the bronchitis, or one of the two bouts of pneumonia I’ve had…and that’s without taking all those now-rare vaccine-preventable illnesses (like polio, diphtheria, mumps, and so on) into account.

If I had actually lasted until adulthood, probably that bout of pneumonia/sinusitis/throat-ear infection I had in graduate school secondary to influenza would have killed me; it was well on the way to doing so before antibiotics beat it back.

I’ve had a lot fewer genuinely vicious bouts of sinusitis since Hib vaccination in children became widespread, I’ll tell you that. I’m convinced I get fewer really bad ones because the damn little germ vectors aren’t giving me Hib anymore…

More people should think seriously about stuff like that, rather than just sitting on their privileged asses and thinking they’d stay totally healthy because [insert spurious rationale here].

I’d probably have gone deaf from repeated ear infections. If I’d actually made it to be born and not been miscarried some time in the second trimester.

Not sure where to ask this, but what states keep county-by-county data on immunization levels, and how can one get the (summary) data? (I think Michigan does, & I think I didn’t get a response from asking California.)

Yes vaccines are “generally” safe. Like it appears the 1983 schedule under which my children were vaccinated is safe- not many vaccine injuries reported. But now! I believe the science in the movie “The Greater Good” explains it all.
“Too many, too soon”

@ken – the vaccine schedule is 1983 contained a heck of a lot more antigens than the current one, even though there are more vaccines on it…..

Also, the 1983 schedule did not include the disease that gave my kid seizures, and some others that are now either in decline or almost gone.

Back again “ken”…with your nonsensical post about the 1983-vs-2012 vaccine schedule?

Here’s where “ken” *sources* his inane post:

It’s also the *source* for the anti-vaccine trolls who post at AoA, the Ho-Po and all the other anti-vaccine blogs.

Have you got any other *sources* ken…that prove that newer vaccines that have been added to the “Recommended Childhood Vaccine Schedule” and their rare “serious adverse events” exceed the number of “serious adverse events” associated with contracting the actual diseases that newer vaccines prevent?

Oh, and let us not forget that included in the American 1983 schedule is the MMR vaccine.

Fancy footwork to avoid the obvious- Why the increase in childhood diseases including autism? Where’s the research brilliance displayed in trying to solve this puzzle?
Ped Drs are not neuroscientists- the brain is involved in immune reactions.


Why the increase in childhood diseases including autism?

Have they really increased? From my perspective as a parent of college age children there has been a decrease in childhood diseases like measles, mumps, chicken pox, etc. Or has there been more autism awareness due to the Internet? Or is it organic food sales?

Whatever your “beliefs” it is unethical to “mandate” vaccinations
when there are known risks as stated in pharma inserts.
A parent has a right to choose. Hep B shot? No way for my grandchildren.

A parent has a right to choose. Hep B shot? No way for my grandchildren.

My condolences on the loss of your actual children.


@chris- silly graph

Exactly. It points out the silly associations people make with things that are not associated with each other, like autism and vaccines.

Ken, newspapers are not actual citations. And from a glance, it looks like the organic food is leading to an increase in obesity: “Doctors and public health officials should be bracing for a wave of chronically ill young adults with weight-related ailments that include diabetes and heart disease, researchers said.” Must be too much organically grown soy burgers and gluten free pasta.

And from what I can see, the autism numbers correlate to the rise of the Internets.

@ Chris
Oops it should be encephalopathy not


You do know that since children are not getting and dying form VPDs, the chances of getting other diseases increases, right?

You also do know that there are a lot of factors contributing to this, including poor diets and sedentary lifestyles, all of which are causative of chronic disease in children than what you think.

And your last link, encephalitis is NOT autism.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: