ADVERTISEMENT

The GOP’s dangerous ‘debate’ on vaccines and autism

cigaretteman

HB King
May 29, 2001
78,477
60,604
113
Republican presidential candidates Ben Carson, Donald Trump and Rand Paul responded to a question about vaccines and autism at the GOP debate. (CNN)
The CNN moderator laid out the question for Ben Carson like a baseball on a tee, just waiting to be crushed.

“Dr. Carson, Donald Trump has publicly and repeatedly linked vaccines, childhood vaccines, to autism, which, as you know, the medical community adamantly disputes,” Jake Tapper said. “You’re a pediatric neurosurgeon. Should Mr. Trump stop saying this?”

[The fraudulent origins of Donald Trump’s vaccine theory]

For months, Carson has touted his medical expertise while on the campaign trail. And in the weeks since the first debate, the famed surgeon has risen in the polls as a milder-mannered, more rational alternative to Trump.

Now was his chance for a home run; a big hit as swift and incisive as any surgical operation.

Instead, Carson bunted.

“Well, let me put it this way,” he began hesitantly. “There has — there have been numerous studies, and they have not demonstrated that there is any correlation between vaccinations and autism.”

[Jousting with Trump signals new stage in race]

Carson’s tepid response drew immediate criticism from doctors and pediatricians across the country.

“No Ben Carson,” Baltimore pediatrician Scott Krugman wrote on Twitter. “The answer is ‘yes’ Donald Trump is wrong. Vaccines don’t cause autism. What are you talking about?”

Yet, on an issue that could prove prickly for Republicans in the general election, Carson’s comment was actually the most forceful of the night.

Trump essentially doubled down on his past statements by again suggesting that vaccines, or concentrations of them, cause autism.

“Autism has become an epidemic,” he warned. “Twenty-five years ago, 35 years ago, you look at the statistics, not even close. It has gotten totally out of control.”

Rand Paul, like Carson, a doctor, also equivocated on the issue.

“I’m all for vaccines,” he said. “But I’m also for freedom.”

The exchange, particularly Trump’s comments, drew a sharp response from autism groups.

“Despite a wealth of scientific evidence debunking any link between autism and vaccinations, tonight’s Republican primary debate featured prominent commentary from a leading candidate repeating inaccurate information suggesting a link,” the Autistic Self Advocacy Network said in a statement. “Autism is not caused by vaccines — and Autistic Americans deserve better than a political rhetoric that suggests that we would be better off dead than disabled.”

Whether or not the vaccine “debate” did any damage to Carson, Trump, Paul or the GOP among voters is still unclear. But it was a talking point from a testy night full of politicians pushing back against science and “big government.”


Technically, Carson’s answer was in line with the overwhelming scientific consensus that vaccines don’t cause autism. (The research Trump has cited has been roundly debunked; its author stripped of his medical license. In contrast, over the past 12 years, nine consecutive CDC studies have found no link between vaccines and autism.)

But even Carson’s tepid initial response quickly began to unravel.

[Winners and losers from the CNN debate]

“This was something that was spread widely 15 or 20 years ago,” he said of the supposed vaccine-autism connection, “and it has not been adequately, you know, revealed to the public what’s actually going on.”

Already fuzzy, the neurosurgeon’s statements then grew hazier and hazier, like a patient’s vision as he slips under anesthesia.

“Vaccines are very important,” Carson said, before qualifying: “Certain ones. The ones that would prevent death or crippling. There are others, there are a multitude of vaccines which probably don’t fit in that category, and there should be some discretion in those cases.”

Tapper had couched his question not only in contrast to Trump, but also in reference to the recent measles outbreak in California, where Wednesday’s debate was held.


The outbreak began in December after dozens of kids became sick with the virus at two Disney theme parks in Southern California. Nearly 200 Americans caught the disease in 2015 — 15 years after it was declared eradicated — because of the growing anti-vaccine movement, according to the CDC.

Nobody died in the outbreak, however. So does that mean Carson thinks opting against the measles vaccine is okay? It’s unclear, at least from his answer Wednesday night.

When asked again if Trump should stop saying that vaccines cause autism, Carson dodged the question.

“Well, you know, I’ve just explained it to him,” he said. “He can read about it if he wants to. I think he’s an intelligent man and will make the correct decision after getting the real facts.”

But the surgeon went further, appearing to stoke anti-vaccine sentiment by adding that: “You know, a lot of this is — is — is pushed by big government.”

Much of the criticism came after Carson echoed Trump’s concerns over grouping vaccines together.

“The fact of the matter is, we have extremely well-documented proof that there’s no autism associated with vaccinations. But it is true that we are probably giving way too many in too short a period of time,” Carson said. “And a lot of pediatricians now recognize that, and, I think, are cutting down on the number and the proximity in which those are done, and I think that’s appropriate.”

(Both the CDC and Institute of Medicine have said that giving children multiple vaccines at once is completely safe.)

If Carson’s equivocations raised eyebrows because he’s a doctor, Trump’s stirred outrage because … well … Trump.

After asking Carson about vaccines and autism, Tapper turned to The Donald to see if he would defend his past statements, which have repeatedly linked “massive” injections and the neurodevelopmental disorder.

I am being proven right about massive vaccinations—the doctors lied. Save our children & their future.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 3, 2014

“Mr. Trump, as president, you would be in charge of the Centers for Disease Control and the National Institutes of Health, both of which say you are wrong,” Tapper said. “How would you handle this as president?”

“Autism has become an epidemic,” Trump answered. “Twenty-five years ago, 35 years ago, you look at the statistics, not even close. It has gotten totally out of control.”

[Fact checking the second round of GOP debates]

That claim, however, is disputed by many autism groups and studies.



https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-on-vaccines-and-autism/?tid=trending_strip_5
 
I don't get the poutrage/danger here. Carson clearly said Trump is wrong, he just said it in a nice way. Trump even said he's not against vaccines, but just wants them to be spread out over time a little more, not delivered all at once.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TexMichFan
I don't get the poutrage/danger here. Carson clearly said Trump is wrong, he just said it in a nice way. Trump even said he's not against vaccines, but just wants them to be spread out over time a little more, not delivered all at once.


...except for that little nugget about how they 'cause autism', which is completely inconsistent with the medical literature.

What a true Conservative (against 'Big Government' and for 'Personal Responsibility') would say on this issue is:

Vaccination is an important reality in our society today, particularly with people living in close quarters where diseases can spread rapidly and uncontrollably, as we have seen with recent measles outbreaks. Gen Xers and Millennials today have no experience with the effects that polio, smallpox, etc had on our populations just 50 and 100 years ago; thus it is easy for people to be complacent on this important societal health issue.

In our alignment with 'less Big government', vaccinations should not be considered 'mandatory' in our society, but those who choose to not vaccinate, putting their neighbors at risk, need to bear the responsibilities and costs associated with non-vaccination.

I will champion legislation which either requires mandatory vaccinations OR requires parents/guardians to sign off that they will bear 100% of associated costs to others around them if they or their children acquire a vaccinatable disease, and that disease spreads to others in their vicinity or community. They will not be allowed to protect any asset in conjunction with the costs to others for the spread of these preventable infections; thus, if a neighbor's baby acquires measles and becomes deaf, the unvaccinated family will bear the medical and schooling costs associated with the resulting care, for life. No insurance company will be forced to pay out reimbursements for care related to vaccinatable diseases acquired by those who choose to not be vaccinated; insurers will be allowed to and encouraged to recoup direct costs from those who voluntarily choose non-vaccination who can be identified as 'vectors' for the spread of vaccinatable diseases. Accommodations for non-vaccination will only be for those with illnesses or medical conditions which prevent vaccines from being administered.

It's a free country - you can choose to not vaccinate, and thus choose to accept responsibility for the financial and health risks you are imposing upon others. End of story.
 
I don't get the poutrage/danger here. Carson clearly said Trump is wrong, he just said it in a nice way. Trump even said he's not against vaccines, but just wants them to be spread out over time a little more, not delivered all at once.
He delivered a line about someone working for him taking their child in for shots and one week later they have a high fever that led to Autism. It was a painfully stupid stretch of the debate to see supposed doctors not pummel Trump, but, Paul has pandered before on this issue, and Carson seems to be confrontation adverse.
 
From the article it sounds like he fumbled around with the question a bit. . . Maybe it was one he didn't anticipate. But he didn't really "blow it".

Honestly my answer would have been something to the effect of. "It's not my job to decide what people should and should not say. . . but I can tell you that in my professional opinion he's wrong."
 
1. Republicans seem to hate science. It's almost like a badge of honor for some of the candidates to show they are more ignorant than the rest of the field.
2. Paul's answer about it being a choice was worse than Trump's bungling of the science. People choosing to avoid vaccination is what leads to epidemics. It shouldn't be a choice at all. Maybe a massive outbreak of polio is what some people need to remind them why we have vaccines.
 
From the article it sounds like he fumbled around with the question a bit. . . Maybe it was one he didn't anticipate. But he didn't really "blow it".

Honestly my answer would have been something to the effect of. "It's not my job to decide what people should and should not say. . . but I can tell you that in my professional opinion he's wrong."

LOL. That's funny stuff. Republicans chime in all the time on what President Obama should or should not have said in certain situations. Now he wants to take the high road? Dr. Carson's response should have been the truth (Not only in my professional opinion is Donald Trump wrong, but his statements are dangerous because they will lead to fewer children being vaccinated -- with a corresponding increase in disease), and most people recognize that fact but are too scared to anger the crazy, anti-vaccers.
 
This was the moment in the debate where Carson finished losing me completely. His waffling and fear to confront Trump could get someone killed. I mean, idiots watching could walk away believing the meandering make-believe of Mr. Trump. And, Dr. Carson, you didn't help!

And, yes, if we try very hard we can imagine that the solution was to take vaccines over time. But reality is that little conversation did nothing to convince dolts of the safety of vaccines. If anything, it scared them worse.
 
The GOP doesn't want to let the facts get in the way of a good argument. The medical community has known for a very long time that what was discussed last nite was mostly incorrect. You could pick a few words, here and there, that weren't totally wrong, but in general... the exchange was awkward and basically untrue.

Carson just doesn't appear capable of commanding a situation. That's why it's almost unimaginable to see him in a crucial geo-political situation and trust him to make an important decision. He looked intimidated and tepid against Trump. And Trump certainly doesn't look like he respects Caron.

Overall. I didn't think CNN was concerned with asking important questions, only in inciting attacks between the candidates. I was watching their pundits today and learned it was the most watched program in the history of CNN.

To summarize... MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!
 
The GOP doesn't want to let the facts get in the way of a good argument. The medical community has known for a very long time that what was discussed last nite was mostly incorrect. You could pick a few words, here and there, that weren't totally wrong, but in general... the exchange was awkward and basically untrue.

Carson just doesn't appear capable of commanding a situation. That's why it's almost unimaginable to see him in a crucial geo-political situation and trust him to make an important decision. He looked intimidated and tepid against Trump. And Trump certainly doesn't look like he respects Caron.

Overall. I didn't think CNN was concerned with asking important questions, only in inciting attacks between the candidates. I was watching their pundits today and learned it was the most watched program in the history of CNN.

To summarize... MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!

I think you just hit on a great point. Not only is it ridiculous to have eleven people on a debate stage, but the method of the debate was more show than go.
 
I think you just hit on a great point. Not only is it ridiculous to have eleven people on a debate stage, but the method of the debate was more show than go.
I'm guessing NBC, or the cable side...will pare this thing down to no more than eight or so. Only my opinion. It's a bit unreasonable to expect detailed answers from the candidates with such a small reply time. I think Paul, Huckster, and Cruz are gone.
 
1. Republicans seem to hate science. It's almost like a badge of honor for some of the candidates to show they are more ignorant than the rest of the field.
2. Paul's answer about it being a choice was worse than Trump's bungling of the science. People choosing to avoid vaccination is what leads to epidemics. It shouldn't be a choice at all. Maybe a massive outbreak of polio is what some people need to remind them why we have vaccines.

No. Liberal and Conservative extremists (both sides) ignore and 'make up' science to fit their extreme left and extreme right views.

Pick an issue that either of them have a stake in, and you'll find the same pattern of science denial. Whether it's GMO's, vaccines, energy or climate, they will make up whatever narrative fits their political agendas.

This is what is most disturbing to me about the candidates who pander to those on their respective party's fringe: if you cannot get the facts straight, or the basic science straight, it's pretty much impossible to get policies in place that make any sense, or that don't do more harm than good. The science may not match your political views/goals, but you do a tremendous disservice to your populace when you completely ignore it and push nearsighted policies that will fail in the long-run.
 
...except for that little nugget about how they 'cause autism', which is completely inconsistent with the medical literature.

What a true Conservative (against 'Big Government' and for 'Personal Responsibility') would say on this issue is:

Vaccination is an important reality in our society today, particularly with people living in close quarters where diseases can spread rapidly and uncontrollably, as we have seen with recent measles outbreaks. Gen Xers and Millennials today have no experience with the effects that polio, smallpox, etc had on our populations just 50 and 100 years ago; thus it is easy for people to be complacent on this important societal health issue.

In our alignment with 'less Big government', vaccinations should not be considered 'mandatory' in our society, but those who choose to not vaccinate, putting their neighbors at risk, need to bear the responsibilities and costs associated with non-vaccination.

I will champion legislation which either requires mandatory vaccinations OR requires parents/guardians to sign off that they will bear 100% of associated costs to others around them if they or their children acquire a vaccinatable disease, and that disease spreads to others in their vicinity or community. They will not be allowed to protect any asset in conjunction with the costs to others for the spread of these preventable infections; thus, if a neighbor's baby acquires measles and becomes deaf, the unvaccinated family will bear the medical and schooling costs associated with the resulting care, for life. No insurance company will be forced to pay out reimbursements for care related to vaccinatable diseases acquired by those who choose to not be vaccinated; insurers will be allowed to and encouraged to recoup direct costs from those who voluntarily choose non-vaccination who can be identified as 'vectors' for the spread of vaccinatable diseases. Accommodations for non-vaccination will only be for those with illnesses or medical conditions which prevent vaccines from being administered.

It's a free country - you can choose to not vaccinate, and thus choose to accept responsibility for the financial and health risks you are imposing upon others. End of story.
Are you quoting someone there or is that your characterization? I like it and am curious to know who said it.
 
Pandering is basically what the primary season is about. The popularity of Carson and Trump is, for now, based on them being free of that. Funny as this sounds... if either somehow becomes the GOP nominee, they will need to pander to win, imo.

The general election looks to be another "vote for the lesser of two bad choices". Scary thoughts.
 
Oh please there are just as many nuts on the left as there are on the right about the vaccinations.
 
No. Liberal and Conservative extremists (both sides) ignore and 'make up' science to fit their extreme left and extreme right views.

Pick an issue that either of them have a stake in, and you'll find the same pattern of science denial. Whether it's GMO's, vaccines, energy or climate, they will make up whatever narrative fits their political agendas.
I disagree. Maybe I'm too partisan to see it but if you look at those issues, yes, people on both ends of the political spectrum can get confused about the science of the things they feel strongly about. So, for example we have too many liberals who go a bit goofy about GMOs. I'm with you up to this point

The BIG difference is that it's a small population of the liberal demographic that goes goofy. Whereas it's often a majority or a large plurality of the conservatives who go goofy - as for example on climate change.

The other difference is that most liberals when they get it wrong, don't get it totally wrong. And they don't want to flush the world down the toilet or start wars over it. Instead they want GMO labels. Or no new pipelines.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
No. Liberal and Conservative extremists (both sides) ignore and 'make up' science to fit their extreme left and extreme right views.

Pick an issue that either of them have a stake in, and you'll find the same pattern of science denial. Whether it's GMO's, vaccines, energy or climate, they will make up whatever narrative fits their political agendas.

This is what is most disturbing to me about the candidates who pander to those on their respective party's fringe: if you cannot get the facts straight, or the basic science straight, it's pretty much impossible to get policies in place that make any sense, or that don't do more harm than good. The science may not match your political views/goals, but you do a tremendous disservice to your populace when you completely ignore it and push nearsighted policies that will fail in the long-run.

You don't state it specifically. Just to be clear, I assume you feel GMOs are safe and science supports that?
 
You don't state it specifically. Just to be clear, I assume you feel GMOs are safe and science supports that?

GMO's? There really isn't any peer reviewed evidence that they are harmful. Although, using a term like "genetically modified organisms" is so broad that it doesn't actually mean anything. Here's the thing, I'm willing to bet that every single thing you eat (and any organic fibers in your clothes) is the result of genetic modification. Humans have been doing this for over 25,000 years.

This is where the far left falls pretty badly. You can't chastise conservatives who deny the science of climate change and then turn around and deny the science that hasn't found any links between GMO's and health issues.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
GMO's? There really isn't any peer reviewed evidence that they are harmful. Although, using a term like "genetically modified organisms" is so broad that it doesn't actually mean anything. Here's the thing, I'm willing to bet that every single thing you eat (and any organic fibers in your clothes) is the result of genetic modification. Humans have been doing this for over 25,000 years.

This is where the far left falls pretty badly. You can't chastise conservatives who deny the science of climate change and then turn around and deny the science that hasn't found any links between GMO's and health issues.

A modified anthrax is a GMO...that's the problem with the term. Each GMO has to be considered on its own terms. Bt corn planted improperly has the very real possibility of producing pests that are resistant to the Bacillus thuringiensis toxin that is an insecticidal staple of organic farmers. Are ingested GMO food crops a health hazard? No. Can they be an environmental hazard? Absolutely.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
Mr. Trump can say anything he wants to say about anything. He has a lot of money. Therefore he is entitled to say anything he wants to say.
The balance of the GOP field (except the good doctor) are too naive and ignorant to understand the source Mr. Trump (and the questioner) referred, was immediately and has been since, thoroughly debunked. It was a bad summation based on tainted facts but it made great headlines.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
A modified anthrax is a GMO...that's the problem with the term. Each GMO has to be considered on its own terms. Bt corn planted improperly has the very real possibility of producing pests that are resistant to the Bacillus thuringiensis toxin that is an insecticidal staple of organic farmers. Are ingested GMO food crops a health hazard? No. Can they be an environmental hazard? Absolutely.

It's not a possibility, it will happen. That's how evolution works. However, it has been shown that switching back to normal seeds, or even finding another path can "reset" the pests to what they were before the introduction of the new strain (these studies were done with bacteria and antibiotics, but the principle is the same). So, effective crop rotation can prevent the development of this. You did mention that the corn would have to be planted improperly, which is basically what you would be doing if resistance were able to develop. However, if we operated on the idea that something that could be harmful if used improperly shouldn't be used we'd all be nomadic cavemen that couldn't even light a fire to warm ourselves.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
1. Republicans seem to hate science. It's almost like a badge of honor for some of the candidates to show they are more ignorant than the rest of the field.
2. Paul's answer about it being a choice was worse than Trump's bungling of the science. People choosing to avoid vaccination is what leads to epidemics. It shouldn't be a choice at all. Maybe a massive outbreak of polio is what some people need to remind them why we have vaccines.

Republicans, and members of the traditionally Republican coalition like conservatives and the religious, are criticized for rejecting two main areas of science: evolution and global warming. But even those critiques are overblown. Believing in God is not the same as rejecting science, contrary to an all-too-frequent caricature propagated by the secular community. Members of all faiths have contributed to our collective scientific understanding, and Christians from Gregor Mendel to Francis Collins have been intellectual leaders in their fields. Collins, head of the Human Genome Project and an evangelical Christian, wrote a New York Times bestseller reconciling his faith with his understanding of evolution and genetics.

Numerically speaking, according to Gallup, only a marginally higher percentage of Republicans reject evolution completely than do Democrats. Yes, an embarrassing half of Republicans believe the earth is only 10,000 years old—but so do more than a third of Democrats. And a slightly higher percentage of Democrats believe God was the guiding factor in evolution than Republicans.

On global warming, conservative policy positions often seem to be conflated or confused with rejection of the consensus that the planet has been warming due to human carbon emissions. The climate trend over the last several hundred years is not one anybody credible disputes—despite the impression you might get from GOP presidential primary debates. Of the many Republican members of Congress I know personally, the vast majority do not reject the underlying science of global warming (though, embarrassingly, some still do). Even Senator Jim Inhofe, perhaps the green community’s greatest antagonist in Congress, explicitly endorses environmental regulation.


The catch: Conservatives believe many of the policies put forward to address the problem will lead to unacceptable levels of economic hardship. It's not inherently anti-scientific to oppose cap and trade or carbon taxes. What most Republicans object to are policies that unilaterally make it more expensive in the United States to produce energy, grow food, and transport people and goods but are unlikely to make much long-term difference in the world’s climate, given that other major world economies emit more carbon than the United States or have much faster growth rates of carbon emissions (China, India, Russia, and Brazil all come to mind).

The more important question on climate change is not “how do we eliminate carbon immediately?” but “how best do we secure a cleaner environment and more prosperous world for future generations?”

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...ty-isnt-really-the-anti-science-party/281219/
 
5lMmJkq.png


NNGLVTw.png
 
Oh please there are just as many nuts on the left as there are on the right about the vaccinations.
When pols on the left start rolling out the anti vac rhetoric you can make this point. Until that day, this position belongs to those who advocate for it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joes Place
When pols on the left start rolling out the anti vac rhetoric you can make this point. Until that day, this position belongs to those who advocate for it.

I agree.

It seems that although there ARE many leftwing nuts who are just as wacky as the conservative nuts, the Dem platform does not pandering to them as much. That's a far cry from how far the right has moved into the backwoods fringe on many science issues.

One thing both parties won't touch is the nuclear power issue: newer thorium/molten salt reactor designs are being built in France and India, and have none of the typical 'meltdown' issues of our present designs. They also produce no weapons-grade byproducts, and almost no waste materials requiring disposal. Additionally, thorium is far more abundant than uranium or plutonium. A 'Manhatten Project' to help bring that technology online could replace ALL of our coal, natural gas, wind and solar energy and virtually eliminate CO2 emissions within a few decades. Unfortunately, those with the monetary interests in the 'energy status quo' aren't going to promote it as an alternative; many AAAS scientists agree we should be investing in it. I think India, China and France are actively researching thorium power, while we simply haggle over silly things like gay marriage, abortion, guns and email servers....
 
I agree.

It seems that although there ARE many leftwing nuts who are just as wacky as the conservative nuts, the Dem platform does not pandering to them as much. That's a far cry from how far the right has moved into the backwoods fringe on many science issues.

One thing both parties won't touch is the nuclear power issue: newer thorium/molten salt reactor designs are being built in France and India, and have none of the typical 'meltdown' issues of our present designs. They also produce no weapons-grade byproducts, and almost no waste materials requiring disposal. Additionally, thorium is far more abundant than uranium or plutonium. A 'Manhatten Project' to help bring that technology online could replace ALL of our coal, natural gas, wind and solar energy and virtually eliminate CO2 emissions within a few decades. Unfortunately, those with the monetary interests in the 'energy status quo' aren't going to promote it as an alternative; many AAAS scientists agree we should be investing in it. I think India, China and France are actively researching thorium power, while we simply haggle over silly things like gay marriage, abortion, guns and email servers....
I like this idea a lot. I'm going to need to google up on thorium do I can pretend I know something.
 
"Findings suggest that U.S. male neonates vaccinated with the hepatitis B vaccine prior to 1999 (from vaccination record) had a threefold higher risk for parental report of autism diagnosis compared to boys not vaccinated as neonates during that same time period. Nonwhite boys bore a greater risk."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21058170
 
JAMA Study Implicates Early MMR Vaccine in Causing Autism

"Yet the crude findings are similar to results from a study conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that was published in the medical journal Pediatrics in 2004 and has also been cited to deny autism’s association with MMR. Those findings showed an odds of earlier MMR vaccination that was more than two-fold higher among African-American children with autism spectrum disorders compared to their non-ASD counterparts of the same race. According to study coauthor William Thompson who has come forward as a federal whistleblower, that finding was omitted from the published manuscript in breach of final study protocol. Pediatrics has refused to consider the paper for retraction, even though it should be considered according to the guidelines in publishing ethics that the journal claims to follow. Now what CDC researchers found more than a decade ago seems to only be confirmed by the results of this much larger study published in JAMA."

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/blog/jama-study-mmr-vaccine-autism/
 
"CONCLUSION: Vaccines manufactured in human fetal cell lines contain unacceptably high levels of fetal DNA fragment contaminants. The human genome naturally contains regions that are susceptible to double strand break formation and DNA insertional mutagenesis. The "Wakefield Scare" created a natural experiment that may demonstrate a causal relationship between fetal cell-line manufactured vaccines and ASD prevalence."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/26103708/?i=2&from=vaccine+contaminants
 
DTaP Vaccine Insert

"Adverse events reported during post-approval use of Tripedia vaccine include idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura, SIDS, anaphylactic reaction, cellulitis, autism, convulsion/grand mal convulsion, encephalopathy, hypotonia, neuropathy, somnolence and apnea. Events were included in this list because of the seriousness or frequency of reporting."

http://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedProducts/ucm101580.pdf
 
CDC Whistleblower's Statement
"My name is William Thompson. I am a Senior Scientist with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, where I have worked since 1998.
I regret that my coauthors and I omitted statistically significant information in our 2004 article published in the journal Pediatrics. The omitted data suggested that African American males who received the MMR vaccine before age 36 months were at increased risk for autism. Decisions were made regarding which findings to report after the data were collected, and I believe that the final study protocol was not followed."

http://www.morganverkamp.com/august...-relationship-between-mmr-vaccine-and-autism/
 
From the Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry:
"By satisfying eight of the Hill's criteria for establishing causality applicable to our study (Table 9), we show that Al-adjuvanted vaccines may be a significant etiological factor in the rising prevalence of ASD in the Western world. We also show that children from countries with the highest ASD prevalence appear to have a much higher exposure to Al from vaccines, particularly at 2 months of age. In addition, the correlation between ASD prevalence and Al adjuvant exposure appears to be the highest at 3–4 months of age. Of note, these periods (i.e., first 4 postnatal months) coincide with several critical stages of human brain development and biobehavioural transitions that are known to be impaired in autism (i.e., onset of synaptogenesis, maximal growth velocity of the hippocampus [3], onset of amygdala maturation"

http://omsj.org/reports/tomljenovic 2011.pdf
 
"A positive and statistically significant relationship was found: The higher the proportion of children receiving recommended vaccinations, the higher was the prevalence of AUT or SLI. A 1% increase in vaccination was associated with an additional 680 children having AUT or SLI. Neither parental behavior nor access to care affected the results, since vaccination proportions were not significantly related (statistically) to any other disability or to the number of pediatricians in a U.S. state. The results suggest that although mercury has been removed from many vaccines, other culprits may link vaccines to autism. Further study into the relationship between vaccines and autism is warranted."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21623535
 
From the Journal of Toxicology:
"Here we show that a subpopulation of four individuals with autism, along with some of their siblings, have B-cells exhibiting hypersensitivity toward thimerosal that can be attributed to their mitochondrial phenotype. Thus, certain individuals with a mild mitochondrial defect may be highly susceptible to mitochondrial specific toxins like the vaccine preservative thimerosal."

http://www.hindawi.com/journals/jt/2013/801517/
 
"Furthermore, over 90% of MMR antibody-positive autistic sera were also positive for MBP autoantibodies, suggesting a strong association between MMR and CNS autoimmunity in autism. Stemming from this evidence, we suggest that an inappropriate antibody response to MMR, specifically the measles component thereof, might be related to pathogenesis of autism."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12145534
 
"The ethylmercury-containing preservative thimerosal inhibited both IGF-1- and dopamine-stimulated methylation with an IC(50) of 1 nM and eliminated MS activity. Our findings outline a novel growth factor signaling pathway that regulates MS activity and thereby modulates methylation reactions, including DNA methylation. The potent inhibition of this pathway by ethanol, lead, mercury, aluminum and thimerosal suggests that it may be an important target of neurodevelopmental toxins."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14745455
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT