Truth in Media: Vaccine Court and Autism

By: Ben Swann
446
Vaccines and Autism Court

The claims that autism is caused by vaccines have been completely disproven, right? We have all heard that claim, maybe most famously by actress and model Jenny McCarthy.

But is the claim untrue? What if I told you that while HHS says there is no link between autism and vaccinations, the federal government has quietly awarded families of autistic children damages as a result of vaccine injuries?

The first step toward truth is to be informed.

The story we are talking about today is something that just doesn’t get attention from the mainstream media, and on the rare occasion when it does, the story is predictable. Scandal surrounding a doctor who claims autism and vaccines are linked. The bizarre parents who believe that their child has autism because of a vaccine, a claim clearly not based in science.

But is there more to this story than what the media has told you?

The real story behind vaccines begins in 1986.

That is because it was in 1986 when the U.S. Congress created National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act. Now that alone is worthy of a story, because what most Americans don’t know is that a family who has child injured by a vaccine, cannot simply sue the vaccine maker. Under this 1986 law, Congress took that power away from families and instead created a “vaccine court” if you will.

So what is the vaccine court? It is a Federal Claim’s court that deals specifically with vaccine cases where families can go for injury compensation if their child is injured by a vaccine.
The official name, the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“VICP”). Of course, this program is seen as necessary because virtually every child who attends a pre-school, daycare or public or private school is required to be vaccinated.

So what’s the problem?

In 1986 when the VICP was first created vaccine makers were protected from lawsuit by the public. The VICP insulates vaccine manufacturers from liability and requires that petitioners bring their petitions solely against HHS. They may not sue manufacturers or healthcare practitioners. The rationale for this industry and professional protection was to ensure a stable childhood vaccine supply and to keep prices affordable.

The 1986 Law also permits the vaccine makers the right to not disclose known risks
to parents or guardians of those being vaccinated. Based on something called the “learned intermediary” doctrine, manufacturers bear no liability for giving, or failing to give, accurate or complete information to those vaccinated.

In exchange for being subject to the vaccine court, families of those injured would be compensated through an administrative process based on a table of presumptive vaccine injuries.

At its outset, 90% of claims were “on table.” But almost 30 years later, things are very different. Today, the vaccine schedule, meaning the list of vaccines offered to children has tripled, but the table of injuries has become much more restrictive, forcing 90% of petitioners into “off-table” litigation. And it gets worse. Because for families who believe that their children have been injured by vaccines, there are enormous roadblocks to overcome when seeking compensation for those injuries.

Mark Blaxill is the father of an autistic child. A child who he says has been injured by vaccines. Blaxill is part of a group called the Canary Party, a coalition of parents who are pushing for changes to the system through political means.

Blaxill: The Canary Party is a social movement that’s created to stand up for the victims of medical injuries, environmental toxins, industrial foods, the things that care causing these new health crises and epidemics that we are seeing.

Swann: Let’s talk about this issue of the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program because most Americans, I would guess have no idea that this even exists.


Blaxill: Well, the thing that people should know about the VICP is that it is unlike any other product liability circumstance that any of us deal with on a regular basis. In 1986, Congress passed a law that gave a blanket exemption to pharmaceutical companies from any liability at all for any injury that their products, in this case vaccines, may cause to consumers and especially to children and infants. And what that did, was that put in place a liability shield on the pharmaceutical industry unlike any other pharmaceutical product categories so that if anything wrong happens to any recipient of the vaccine, what the family has to do is to, instead of just going to regular civil court with all the normal checks and balances and procedures and protections we see in the American legal system, they are forced to petition of government to recognize the injury to their child and to decide on whether or not they deserve an compensation.

So for parents, like Blaxill, why does he believe the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program has failed?

That goes back to 2002 when nearly five thousand families filed petitions with the VICP claiming that vaccines had caused their children’s neurological disorder called “autism.”

According to the Pace Law Review, in an unprecedented proceeding, the VICP created and conducted the Omnibus Autism Proceeding that concluded in 2010. That means instead of taking the cases one at at time, they consolidated hearings for all these families. in the end, the VICP dismissed all the “test case” claims of vaccine-induced autism.

Blaxill: The original intent of the VICP was to provide a no fault, generous, rapid program of compensating victims. Now what we have a is a cover up. And a situation in which the government is trying to say, these things which people think they have observed, not only are we going to discount it, we are going to treat it with prejudice. We are going to say…

Swann: That this person is trying to get over on the system, that they are gaming the system.

Blaxill: That they are gaming the system, they are trying to blame, they are trying to get money from the government and that’s just wrong.

But there is more… A Review of Compensated Cases of Vaccine-Induced Brain Injury finds that The VICP has compensated approximately 2,500 claims of vaccine injury since the inception of the program in 1986.

Since that time, despite the official ruling that there is no link between vaccines and autism, there have been at least 83 cases of autism among those compensated for vaccine-induced brain damage.

Swann: The last thing that I would ask you is that in terms of outcomes what are you all hoping for? Because this is really a fight for other families, a fight for an entire generation of Americans, is it not?

Blaxill: We are asking for justice because you have many, many injured children and families that are struggling and they deserve support. We’re asking for awareness of this crisis in this health system. We have the worst outcomes in the entire industrial world here in America. We have the highest cost healthcare system, the most interventionist healthcare system in terms of medication and vaccination. We have a dramatic disfunction and we need awareness of that, that we have a problem and we need to shine a light on that. And then we need change. We need fundamental renovation of our way of dealing with parental choice, with the rights of consumers, authority in the healthcare system. Who gets to choose and then we need to find ways to treat and heal all those injured children and now adults who are suffering from this system.

What you need to know

Is that on the Department of Health and Human services website is this statement:

“HHS has never concluded in any case that autism was caused by vaccination.”

Parents point out that while number and use of vaccines is skyrocketing, the number of autism cases is skyrocketing as well. But remember, correlation does not equal causation. Agencies like HHS will say that doctors and medical professionals are just better at recognizing autism than they used to be and that may be true. But as one parent told me, while public statements have been made that there is no research supporting the assertion that vaccines can cause autism, families point to dozens of studies that do find a link between vaccines and autism that public health officials do not share with the public. And that families would like to present in a civil court, before a jury, which believe is their right under the Constitution.


  • Jonrox

    Please stop with the anti-vaccine garbage

    • Jonas Oblouk

      I do not and will not vaccinate. Garbage or otherwise. I personally know two people (one a close friend) who saw a change in their child only days after the vaccination.

    • http://AdventuresInAutism.com/ Ginger Taylor

      Take a look at just some of the research that shows that vaccines are linked to autism, and understand that the government has made it legal for medical professionals NOT to tell you this exists when selling you a vaccine: http://canaryparty.net/index.php/the-news/97-research-that-shows-that-vaccines-can-cause-autism

    • Qari

      What did you not like about what was presented?

    • Bob Loblaw

      The guy that INVENTED THE POLIO VACCINE said it was responsible for most of the cases of polio after it was introduced. Science and history is not garbage, and if you take the time to look you’ll find that it doesn’t support what the vaccine industry propaganda claims in norder to justify these mandated programs. Just like Obamacare, this is about bailing out these companies by mandating taxpayers purchase a bad product.

      ‘It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.’
      -Mark Twain

      • David Officer

        Right.

        ‘Spanish Flu’ that killed millions world wide? What was the documented historical cause of that? Primitive vaccines given to returning soldiers after WWI and to their families. WWI ended too soon, had a lot of expensive stockpiled vaccines, time to push them via fear. Death followed.

        They’ve sense cleaned up the stuff enough to keep death away from the door and down the hall quite a ways, but lives still being ruined by record numbers.

        Now the food industry joins in. What hope have we?

        Bill Gates can tell you:

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WQtRI7A064

        • ChrisKid

          Again, there is no evidence that an influenza vaccine even existed in 1917 or ’18, let alone that it was available and used worldwide, which would have been necessary for it to kill millions of people across the globe.
          As for that silly slander of Bill Gates, the simple explanation is that, clearly, he was talking about population *growth*, as you’d know if you weren’t so bent on misinterpreting anything to do with vaccines.

          • David Officer

            Ignore the Paid Shill (ChrisKid) and inform the rest of us:

            http://www.activistpost.com/2013/11/bill-gates-polio-vaccine-program.html

          • ChrisKid

            Ignore the lies of David, who can’t counter facts with anything but insult and libel.
            David, just why do you find it necessary to lie? Is it because you don’t really have an argument that will hold water?
            Oh, and while you’re at it, who pays you to comment here? Is it by the post or by the hour? Either way, you must be raking in the dough.

      • ChrisKid

        Care to show a source for that claim, that ‘the guy who invented the polio vaccine’ (which one, by the way?) said anything like that? You’re going to need something besides that ‘abstract’ link that doesn’t actually say anything.

        • Bob Loblaw

          What’s that, you found the source confirming this fact, and insist I need something besides that? Maybe you do, but I don’t. The live virus is known to cause vaccin-strain polio and Salk did not hid this fact, andit’s why he advocated the killed virus vaccine rather than Sabin’s.

          • ChrisKid

            No, the point is, there isn’t a valid source for that claim. What passes for one is nothing but a supposed abstract about Dr. Salk’s testimony in Congress. That’s literally all there is, so I was trying to forestall your use of that ridiculous bit of nothing as an actual source. I see you don’t even have that. All you have is your bare assertion.

          • Bob Loblaw

            “nothing but a supposed abstract…”

            At least you found the source, unlike many that simply expect others to walk you through it.
            But unfortunately facts are often “bits of nothing” to airheads like yourself. Keep living in your fantasy kid.

          • ChrisKid

            Oh, and here I thought we were having a civil discussion. Why do you find it necessary to resort to cheap insults? Is it to avoid admitting that you don’t have a source for your statement, and you never did? You heard it from somebody and that’s all you needed? The fact is, that supposed abstract, all of two lines long, exists nowhere but on antivaccine and antiscience websites. You’re making a claim that simply has no support.

          • ChrisKid

            Actually, if you ever find it, I’d truly love to see where it came from.

          • David Officer

            ChrisKid = Troll, Paid Shill, or Evil Guy.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shill

            That means inform but do not directly reply to ChrisKid’s attacks.

            We came to inform and be informed.

            He came to do this:

            http://www.scribd.com/doc/146324242/The-Gentleperson-s-Guide-to-Forum-Spies

          • ChrisKid

            By generally accepted definition, a troll is one who claims views he does not hold, simply to stir up reaction. So, score -1 for you.
            By definition, a shill, paid or otherwise, is one who promotes a product or idea, often one he doesn’t agree with or cares nothing about, simply for reward.
            Score -2 for you.
            “Evil” is just a label you use for those who disagree with you and have the audacity to do it publicly. You aim to derail discussion by calling names and deriding your opposition.
            It makes me wonder why you feel the need to bring the conversation to that low a level. Do you not have anything substantive to provide?
            “Guy” is an assumption you’ve made, without evidence. Seems to be a habit of yours.
            So far, you’re well below zero here. Maybe you can keep trying to participate on an adult level. It might be worth a shot for you.

          • Bob Loblaw

            I wouldn’t call it an insult, but rather a statement of fact. To ask for a source, when you have found it, and moronically deemed it invalid based solely on denial and tobacco science propaganda proves beyond all doubt that you are a fool.

            There is no need for me to post the source when you’ve found it already. That “supposed abstract” is from a 1977 publication, and simply because it is not part of the digital record, does not mean that it doesn’t exist, or doesn’t support the fact that Salk stated this.

            Go to Congress and ask them for the testimony if you are so fervently in denial about his statement instead of being a troll for the industry.

          • ChrisKid

            So, ‘airhead’ aimed at someone you don’t know, based on their asking for a source for a claim you made, is not an insult? And you back up that ‘non-insult’ with ‘fool’. Interesting childhood training you must have had. The fact is, as I’ve explained to you more than once now (ignoring that or just having trouble grasping the concept?) that there is no valid source for your statement. That’s not based on denial. It’s based, first, on repeated attempts to find more than the so-called abstract, and second, on the fact that the only places even that very brief abstract shows up are antivaccine websites. And no, ‘Abstract’ is not likely to be the name of the article. That doesn’t even make sense.
            So now you’re citing a video, and claiming that there was some article in Science magazine, but obviously you don’t have access to that. See, what I don’t understand here is why, when asked a perfectly civil question in a discussion about factual information, you chose to be nasty and insulting (as you’re still doing) instead of just providing the citation requested, as anyone who knows anything about reasonable discussion would have done.

            Oh, and while you’re at it, could you explain what you mean by ‘troll for the industry’? Unless you’re trying to claim that anyone who takes the time to comment on this subject is being paid by someone, in which case we’ll have to ask who writes your paychecks.

          • Bob Loblaw

            You’re not asking for a source for a claim I made. You’re asking for a source, for a fact I stated, even though you found a source. I was never nasty. You asked for a citation which you already found and cited yourself. This is undeniably foolish. I’m not telling you I think you are are a fool, I’m telling you that you’ve proved it beyond any doubt. That’s no insult but an obvservation.

            As I’ve explained more than once now, you aare CLAIMING that the source is not valid, and that there is no valid source, when in fact you found one, and I gave you another completely valid source. You are simply in denial of their validity.

            When did I cite a video? Are you delusional too? I cited the Washington Post.

            Everywhere that referrence you have is cited, it is listed as “Science 4/4/77 “Abstracts””. I’m not claiming it’s a magazine article, I’m saying that this looks like a reference to one or a newsletter or something. Science (magazine?) April 4, 1977 “Abstracts”. Notice it’s not “an abstract”, but “Abstracts” with a capital “A” as though it is a title of some sort; perhaps a section of the magazine.

            The very fact that you are engaging in such childish games and blanket denying the veracity of facts simply because the source is cited only on websites which aiming to inform the public of the dangers, shows that you are in denial and go around having childish arguments(trolling) which do nothing but prop up fallacious claims made by industry propaganda. The fact that I have to explain this stuff reminds me of a bit of advice from an old friend of mine that you should remember.

            “It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.”
            -Mark Twain

            Later kid.

          • ChrisKid

            You’re right, you didn’t directly cite the video. Your quotation from, allegedly, the Washington Post led to it. So I did find an interview of Dr. Salk making that statement. I did not, however, find any evidence of the Washington Post article you mentioned, nor, still, the original citation you used. Now, had you provided the simple source for your statement when asked, as any reasonable person would have done, instead of playing semantic games, we could have avoided all this protracted conversation, and you could have refrained from calling a complete stranger an airhead and a fool. It would seem that you’d rather play the games.
            I notice you’re ignoring my last question.
            Oh, and while you’re at it, could you explain what you mean by ‘troll for the industry’? Unless you’re trying to claim that anyone who takes the time to comment on this subject is being paid by someone, in which case we’ll have to ask who writes your paychecks.

          • Bob Loblaw

            There’s no semantic game. It’s ridiculous and moronic to ask someone for a source as you cite one. That’s like asking someone to open a door for you as you yourself open it. I’m not calling you names, I’m stating the obvious, deal with it, instead of getting all offended because someone told you a fact you don’t like to hear- that you are being an airhead.

            I have no idea how it “led to” a video. I quoted the Washington Post, and there’s a good chance since it’s from 1976 it’s not online- you’ll have to find a hard copy.

            I did not ignore your last question. It is answered in the last paragraph just before the Mark Twain Quote.

  • Linda

    PROOFREAD! PROOFREAD! PROOFREAD!

    • David Officer

      It’s a transcript from video. It’s therefore perfect.

  • KennyBC
  • settheline

    Where are these “dozens” of research papers on the link between autism and vaccines? I’ve only seen the one’s by the discredited doctor Wakefield….

  • David Officer

    My 18 month old son got 8 shots at the same time. Lost his eye contact and his words right after this (within a week). No more peekaboo behind the curtain, no more smiles. He’s now 10 and extremely aggressive, dangerous to the family. I want to know MORE about vaccines, their additives and the effects on the human nervous system (like hydrolyzed glutamate, etc), and what parents/public can do to protect themselves and their loved ones.

    • Bob Loblaw

      Homeschool and get religiouus exemptions or move out of the few states that make it difficult. That’s about all youu can do other than demanding change and accountability I think.

      • David Officer

        Achievement Unlocked! :D

    • http://www.immigration-weaver.blogspot.com/ weaver

      So sorry for the injury to your son, giving the battery of shot all at once should be malpractice.

      There is a lot of work around diet for recovery, keyword “leaky gut syndrome” — where the digestive system absorbs food abnormally. Changing diet works in some cases and you might also look into Licorice as a treatment for digestive problems.

      • David Officer

        weaver, welcome! Thank you. :)

        We tried many, many things to help out our boy, the Great Stephen Officer. Only thing that made a difference was the Gluten Free Casein Free Diet.

        Why?

        What is Leaky Gut Syndrome?

        What does morphine have to do with it?

        From Princeton.edu:

        “It is well known that casein (from human or cow milk) will break down in the stomach to produce a peptide
        known as casomorphine, which, as the name implies, will have opioid activities. Similar effects are noted with
        gluten from wheat and some other cereals [notably oats, barley and rye] in which the compounds formed are
        gluteomorphins [or gliadinomorphins.]”

        http://www.princeton.edu/~serge/ll/gfpak.htm

        • http://www.immigration-weaver.blogspot.com/ weaver

          Here is a blurb on “Leaky Gut Syndrome”.
          http://www.naturalnews.com/038709_leaky_gut_syndrome_healing_solutions.html

          There was also a theory that some children might not be able to pass heavy metals efficiently, look for low levels of mercury and lead in hair follicle tests – indicates the child is retaining the toxins.

          Again licorice (anise root) seems to have some propensity to heal lesions, my friend uses topically for shingles. Italian style is a great recipe, w olive oil and pepper.

    • ChrisKid

      What 8 shots are due for any child at 18 months? Considering that there are only ten vaccines ever given to a baby, one of those is orally administered, two of them are not given past 12 months, and for most of them the series is finished by 6 months, which ones are you trying to claim?

      • David Officer

        ChrisKid = Paid Shill = Paid to distract.
        People, have you been distracted or have you been informed about the dangers of shots?

        • ChrisKid

          He asks as he continues to lie about those who dare to question him, instead of actually responding to the comment made or answering the question.

          David, what 8 shots did your child have at 18 months? There aren’t 8 vaccines due at any time on the schedule, and certainly not at 18 months. If you’re telling the truth, why are you so desperately resorting to distraction techniques? Why don’t you just continue the discussion?

  • Jason

    Is mercury very bad for you? Yes.
    Do I want that in my body? No.
    Do I have the right to choose to not put something into my body? Yes.

    • ChrisKid

      Is there mercury in childhood vaccines? No.
      Was there ever mercury in childhood vaccines? No.

      • Jason

        Thiomersal is only now being phased out of childhood vaccines. I wonder why…

        • ChrisKid

          Thimerosal has been out of childhood vaccines in the U.S. for more than a decade now, with the decision to remove it having been made in 1999, out of an excess of caution.

          • David Officer

            Flu Shots Contain More than 250 Times the EPA’s Safety Limit for Mercury

            http://www.southmilwaukeenow.com/blogs/communityblogs/223702971.html

          • ChrisKid

            Seriously? You’re providing, as a source, an article that opens with accusations of eugenics? You really do need to learn how to vet a reference.
            However, the EPA level you’re talking about is for IV administration, over time. It has nothing to do with the one time amount in a vaccine. And, since you seem to have forgotten or decided to ignore the fact, there are flu vaccines available without thimerosal.

            Also, if you think it would help, you might want to let your source know that thimerosal is 49% mercury *by weight*. Volume is an entirely different thing. That’s why there’s disclaimer on cereal boxes.

          • David Officer

            It’s okay to have flu shots with mercury because there is “less” of it!
            Remember to get one every year! ;-D

          • ChrisKid

            There is no mercury in any flu shot, and there never has been. Saying there is, is like claiming your glass of water will explode because hydrogen is so volatile.
            Do yourself a favor and look up ‘dose response’. In other words, ‘the dose makes the poison’. ‘Less of it’ is indeed okay, if ‘less of it’ is orders of magnitude below any dangerous amount.
            It’s safe to drink water the way you do because the amount you drink is well below the lethal dose.

          • CriticalThinking101

            The Glaxo SmithKline form of Ped Hep B was just released in 2007….hardly a decade. Also according to the FDA, all pediatric vaccines are thimerosal free OR CONTAIN trace amounts, except the flu vaccine. It still comes available with thimerosal.

          • ChrisKid

            Which GSK vaccine. They have more than one. Although it hardly matters because there are others that are and have been available. Also, flu vaccine for children is available in thimerosal-free formulations, too. So, as stated, the childhood schedule has been available without thimerosal for at least a decade.
            Trace is trace, exactly what it says. Too little to matter, if any. Sometimes too little to measure.
            Not that any of that matters, since the amount of thimerosal in vaccines was never an actual problem. Action was taken to remove it, based strictly on the precautionary principle, not because of any evidence whatsoever of anything to worry about.

          • CriticalThinking101

            Too little to matter according to who? The government? The government said Agent Orange was safe. The government said burn pits in Iraq were safe. The government says a lot of things are safe that turn out not being safe… Science actually says there is no conclusive evidence whether or not it is harmful; science also states that it is plausible that it does cause neural damage. This is even posted on a CDC web page.

          • ChrisKid

            Link?
            Agent Orange was not used in fractions of micrograms. This isn’t about what ‘the government’ says. It’s about simple chemistry and biology. You’re making comparisons between something that was sprayed by the ton and something that’s too small to be accurately measured.
            Can you show me some evidence for your claim that ‘science says’ either of those things you stated? Where does ‘science’ say that?

          • CriticalThinking101

            No, I making comparisons about how the government says something is safe based off “simple chemistry and biology” and then later are found to be wrong. By the way, neither are simple and neither know everything.

            QUOTE: In its report of October 1, 2001, the IOM’s Immunization Safety Review Committee concluded that the evidence was inadequate to either accept or reject a causal relationship between thimerosal exposure from childhood vaccines and the neurodevelopmental disorders of autism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and speech or language delay. Additional studies were needed to establish or reject a causal relationship. The Committee did conclude that the hypothesis that exposure to thimerosal-containing vaccines could be associated with neurodevelopmental disorders was biologically plausible.

            The Committee believed that the effort to remove thimerosal from vaccines was “a prudent measure in support of the public health goal to reduce mercury exposure of infants and children as much as possible.” Furthermore, in this regard, the Committee urged that “full consideration be given to removing thimerosal from any biological product to which infants, children, and pregnant women are exposed.” FDA.gov (not CDC). http://www.fda DOT gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/SafetyAvailability/VaccineSafety/UCM096228
            .

          • ChrisKid

            Yes, there have been things that were reported to be safe, only to have further research turn up a problem. That’s why surveillance of vaccines is ongoing. (I’m curious, though, as to whether the government ever actually did say that Agent Orange was safe. And at what levels of exposure.)
            You quote from the 2001 IOM report but dismiss out of hand the later one, even as you say that later research should trump former. From your comments, you’re even relying on research results that don’t exist yet, assuming they’ll agree with you.
            There’s no indication that the later IOM report was based on a study that began after the former report was released. They weren’t, either of them, based on ‘a study’. They were based on epidemiological information from many research studies. What the later report did was follow up the information in the former one, adding and correcting with further information. As you say science often does. Why are you so anxious to accept it when it confirms your opinions, but not when it shows you something you don’t happen to want to hear?
            “The committee concludes that the body of epidemiological evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between the MMR vaccine and autism. The committee also concludes that the body of epidemiological evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism. The committee further finds that potential biological mechanisms for vaccine-induced autism that have been generated to date are theoretical only.”

            I’m sorry you don’t really understand scientific wording, but ‘favors rejection’ is actually a pretty conclusive statement. If you’re looking for ‘We know this is 100% true at all times, in all ways, and in all places,’ that’s not going to happen, and no one who knows anything about science and research would expect it.
            You know, something about proving a negative and all that.

          • CriticalThinking101

            I am not the one making the claim they are safe or not safe. You appeared to claim with certainty they are safe with no risks…my point was simply to counter to say there is a potential. You also claimed thimerosal was out of all vaccines, which it was not and is not. I didn’t say any research should trump another. I said they “favor” rejection in the 2004 report; ‘favoring’ is not based on conclusive, objective facts. Actually, I dismissed the 2004 report because 3 years is no enough time to perform any long term study that is needed. This “favoring” a conclusion is nothing but an OPINION just as it them previously saying neuro defects are plausible. My point was and is there is no conclusive, definitive fact either way. The correlation; however, is reason for further scientific inquiry as correlation is what studies after studies are based off of…a correlation of something previously discovered that needs further research.

          • ChrisKid

            Nowhere did I ever say that there are no risks. No responsible person would. However, the fact is, the benefits overwhelmingly outweigh the minuscule risks. Also, I definitely did not say that thimerosal is out of all vaccines. What I said was that thimerosal has been out of childhood vaccines for a decade, having been removed because of the precautionary principle. The only thimerosal containing vaccine that could be given to children in the U.S. is one for influenza, and there is a readily available alternative.
            Actually, ‘favors rejection of a causal rejection’ is based on conclusive evidence. I’m sorry you don’t like the language used, but what it means is there’s no evidence to support a causal relationship.

            Followed by this:
            “The committee does not recommend a policy review of the current schedule and recommendations for the administration of either the MMR vaccine or thimerosal-containing vaccines. The committee recommends a public health response that fully supports an array of vaccine safety activities.”
            it’s a pretty solid statement of support for the schedule already in place. Why? Because it’s safe and effective. As for your opinion that three years is not long enough for a long-term study, where is your evidence for it being only three years? What’s your expertise on the subject? It appears you’re rejecting the report because you don’t happen to like the conclusion, substituting your unsupported opinion for the knowledge of many trained experts. What the IOM looked at was long-term surveillance information, along with the results of studies done over time. Did you assume they simply started from scratch after the report in 2001? It’s not a ‘study’ as you seem to be thinking of it. It’s a report on several different kinds of available information, using both surveillance information and specific epidemiological studies. And of course, research and surveillance are ongoing, with still no evidence of causation.
            The 2001 report said, “There might be a plausible mechanism.” That’s not the same as “There’s plausible evidence of causation.” What it means is that there might be a possible biological explanation for how causation could happen, not that it has happened. Upon further review, in the 2004 report, they said there was no evidence of even that possible explanation.
            There’s never been anything but temporal correlation. And yes, it’s been studied. And studied. And studied.

  • http://AdventuresInAutism.com/ Ginger Taylor

    The Canary Party has a list of just SOME of the research that shows that vaccines can cause autism, and this is the research that parents have the Constitutional Right to present to a jury of their peers in civil court: http://canaryparty.net/index.php/the-news/97-research-that-shows-that-vaccines-can-cause-autism

  • Justin D

    The lack of proofreading and editing on this website is ridiculous…

  • Jan Kennedy Houston

    Thank you for covering this. It needs to be brought out into the daylight. Regardless of where you stand on the issue, everyone deserves informed consent. Everyone deserves the right to make INFORMED decisions for themselves and their families. We have been denied this right for too long.

    • ChrisKid

      Nobody has been denied access to information about vaccines in any way. The CDC and WHO both run public websites with that information included. Pubmed is a publicly accessible website with thousands of studies on the safety and efficacy of vaccines. Libraries, for decades, have had medical information available at no cost. Vaccine Information Sheets are given to each patient at time of administration, with signed consent required.
      The information might not be what you choose to believe, but it is widely available and you have not been denied the right to see it, ever. To say otherwise is simply dishonest conspiracy theory.

      • Jan Kennedy Houston

        Did you NOT watch the video? The companies that make BILLIONS off of the vaccines are not required by law to disclose ALL of the information pertaining to the manufacture and testing of their products. No one, not the FDA or CDC, performs testing on these products. The only testing done is by the companies manufacturing the vaccines. Is this not a conflict of interest? This product is being injected into millions of children around the world. The have never been tested for safety when given with other vaccines. Look at the schedule. Produce the tests. This is not a conspiracy theory. This is fact. And for those who claim these companies are not making a profit off the vaccines? Please, look at their numbers. The vaccination market is the MOST profitable for these companies.

        • ChrisKid

          Nobody tests them? Then what in the world are those years of development and clinical trials? Or the current surveillance? You can’t honestly expect anyone to believe that.
          What was going on for those twenty-five years at CHOP when the rotavirus vaccine was being developed? What was going on all those years in Australia where HPV vaccine was developed? Goodness, no testing at all? Anywhere in the world?
          Produce the tests, you say.
          http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=vaccine+safety
          11,913 results for those nonexistent tests you say have never been done. Don’t tell me you just blindly accepted what the video told you, without doing any checking of your own.

        • ChrisKid

          Actually, vaccines are such a small part of the profit for pharmaceutical companies that they could leave the market tomorrow and not really notice the difference. Where they make their profit are the drugs people use over and over and over, like statins or insulin or hypertension medicine. Or, of course, supplements, which seem to be so popular with the antivaccine crowd.

  • Qari

    I don’t care where people stand on the issue of vaccination, people should have the right to a trial in front of a jury of their peers.

    • http://AdventuresInAutism.com/ Ginger Taylor

      EXACTLY!!!

      • David Officer

        Ditto. Biggest, Fattest DITTO.

    • John Gary Whalen Jr

      Tripple ditto.

    • ChrisKid

      Why? What crime have you committed?

      • Qari

        It’s your 7th amendment right for crimes and civil court suits.

  • TruthSeeker

    Disappointed Ben didn’t mention the list of terrible additives that are toxic found in our vaccines as clearly stated by the CDC. Nuerotoxins anyone? There comes a point when you need to stop drinking the Koolaid people. Come on. You have eyes. You can see. One would presume you can think. Do it. I am willing to bet if I lined all of you doubters out there up and had a scientist measure the same proportions of mercury, aluminum, MSG, and many more of the stuff they put in the vaccines, you would point blank refuse to drink it. Injecting it does not make it better. A profit driven company promising no harm is not a reliable source. The facts are there. WAKE UP!!
    http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/additives.htm

    • David Officer

      MSG = hydrolyzed glutamate
      You need very little for brain cells to effectively communicate amongst themselves. You need only a little more to cause brain damage. Hit your head hard enough? Your brain cells release hydrolyzed glutamate that was stored inside and thus cause even more extant damage to the already traumatized brain. Give a child canned baby formula, this has a high amount of hydrolyzed glutamate. Shots? Also has a lot, but it’s quicker into the blood stream and then to the brain and has a stronger negative effect on the brain than eating the MSG.

      • ChrisKid

        MSG = found naturally in every tomato you’ve ever eaten. If minuscule amounts cause brain damage, everyone on the planet would be doomed.

  • Heather Rhodes White

    Great information! We have a pharmaceutical industry that is given all the responsibility to prove their product safety, then they are sheltered from all product liability, which is solely placed on the consumer. And when something does go wrong they have to file in a short window of statute of limitations under a contemptuous special masters court armed by the department of justice. Well, isn’t that fun!

    • ChrisKid

      For actual defect in the product, which is all you can sue for in any product, they are still liable. The NVICP only covers the rare injury that occurs as a result of normal use.
      And all product compensation lawsuits have statutes of limitations. There’s nothing about the NVICP that makes it any harder to either file or be compensated. In fact, ‘vaccine court’ has a higher rate of compensated cases than product liability cases in general. And much less stringent evidence standards.

  • Jen Rockwell

    How then do you explain kids who don’t get vaccinated but have autism and kids who do get vaccinated and have no health issues? You are talking about 10 million vaccines given per year to children under the age of 1. So since 1986, out of 27 million vaccines given, you have 2500 cases that have been paid out by the VICP and 83 of them were supposedly autism related. Yet autism affects 1 in 88 children. To say there is a link between vaccines and autism given the numbers provided by this article and by autismspeaks.org, well, it’s grasping at straws.

    • David Officer

      At least the government clearly stated in 83 cases that vaccines caused a United States Citizen, a child none the less, to have autism. It’s a foot in the door…a door they have constructed very well to keep shut, no matter the numbers ‘we’ or ‘they’ provide.

      It’s obvious the government is not there to work for the people, it never really has been, and from the beginning, the founding fathers knew this would always be so. The key was to keep it small. It’s not small now. So we get bigger problems, less truth, less protection of the populous (ie food labeling controversy, vaccine courts to protect corporations, Fukushima contamination of the Pacific Ocean media silence, etc) and more protection of the government (ie corporations that work with the government, political careers, Wall Street cash flow, etc).

      So for anybody to say “Look, the government has provided the numbers, and it clearly shows that there is little if no correlation between vaccines and autism, so please, investigative journalist Ben Swann, stop grasping at straws” is…well, what are you?

      • Jen Rockwell

        That’s not what was said. It said of the 2500 cases paid out by the VICP, 83 of the children had autism. It did not say that vaccinations caused the autism. You are making correlations where there are none…especially given that 1 in 88 kids have autism. By your standards 27 million children eat grapes. Of the 27 million, 2500 get sick from eating grapes and 83 of the 2500 have autism. Therefore grapes causes autism? Are you kidding?

        • David Officer

          Why defend them so vigorously?

          What kind of court is it? Vaccine Court.

          How does it pay out to the defendant? Proof that vaccines caused damage.

          Damage? Neurological damage. Is autism a type of neurological damage? Yes.

          And to tout twice that ’1 in 88 kids’ have autism as if that was a mighty trivial thing–amazing. Mostly it’s boys that have autism by a huge factor. You can correlate easily that it’s 1 in 44 boys approximately that have autism. SHOCKING. And this is autism, the most severe expression of neurological damage through a mix of genetic susceptibility to damage and toxins (hydrolyzed glutamate, mercury, etc). What about the less extreme but also life altering damages that is happening out our current generations such as ADHD, ADD, Asperger’s, and much more?

          • Jen Rockwell

            How dare you suggest that I tout the 1 in 88 stat as being trivial. It is an alarming statistic and one that is not going down in spite of all of you anti vaccine folks claiming that vaccines cause autism. 1 in 88 is growing and it’s happening to kids who don’t get vaccinated. So how about all of you anti vaccine people stop irresponsibly touting that “vaccines cause autism so don’t vaccinate your kids” and start trying to find the real cause like horrible diets or genetics. Because all you are really doing is ensuring children end up with TB, polio or worse.

          • David Officer

            Why so irate?

            Stay Calm and Carry On. -Your Goverment

          • Jen Rockwell

            As with the link between autism and vaccines, you make a lot of assumptions. Not irate in the slightest.

          • David Officer

            No assumptions necessary when you look at the gov websites saying there is a rise in autism related to the increase of vaccine use. Here’s one example:

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21993250

            Credit goes to Brandon M. Linker for that find. Scroll down for 10+ more links to the same gov website that states there are ‘link[s] between autism and vaccines’, Jen.

            BTW, I used to give children shots when I worked in medicine in the civilian side, and shots to soldiers when I was in the military. What I always tell my kids’ pediatrician is “I believe in shots, they protect you from Polio, Hep, etc. If you can find shots that don’t have preservatives such as aluminum, mercury, or other nuerotoxins such as hydrolyzed glutamate, then I want my kids to have those shots!” The doc blinks. I smile back warmly hoping this doc will care. The doc leaves the room. The doc never helps me in this.

          • ChrisKid

            Well, you can stop worrying about mercury. It’s never been in any vaccine, and even the compound preservative has been out of children’s vaccines for more than a decade. As for aluminum salts, why are you worried about something you ingest and breathe every single day of your life. If the minute amounts of aluminum compound in vaccines were as toxic as you claim, your baby would never have survived being fed.

          • John Gary Whalen Jr

            Oh my god, he provided actual proof of our government admitting the link between vaccines and autism, and all you have done replied with hyperbolic vitriol.

            Please refute the evidence presented and be more calm and polite.

          • Jen Rockwell

            So you believe the government when they agree with you but not otherwise? You can’t have it both ways…say the government is lying and then say they are telling the truth. The only thing I believe in without seeing it firsthand is God. The rest I want proof that I can see firsthand. My firsthand proof shows me that my entire family has been vaccinated and we have no health issues. I see my best friend’s son and nephew who were not vaccinated and who have autism.

          • John Gary Whalen Jr

            So….when we show studies proving the link between vaccines and autism in unpublished government studies that means nothing to you. That’s fine, I respect your opinion, but the evidence is still incontrovertible.

            Your experience with vaccines doesn’t mean anything. One of my family members and a close family were killed by vaccines, so I apologize if I don’t share your persistent optimism in the face of clear evidence and blatant government coverups.

          • Jen Rockwell

            I am so very sorry for your loss. In voicing my opinion, I mean no disrespect towards your experiences. And encompassed in my opinion is that when it comes to the potential loss of life, it’s hard to argue “acceptable risk” as all life is precious. All due respect, my comments have been focused on the link between autism and vaccines, not the link between vaccinations and death. Our chemical makeups are so different and complex. It would be insane and dangerous to think medicine is a one size fits all. Our reactions to medicine, like foods or animals or materials are all going to be different. My daughter can drink milk. Her best friend stops breathing if it touches her skin. But does that mean milk is bad? Not for everyone. Just like vaccines aren’t bad for everyone. And it also doesn’t mean that we should stop doing our best to advance medicine to make it better.

            The link presented to me that you suggest is “proof” says, “Hypothesis: conjugate vaccines may predispose children to autism spectrum disorders.”

            We all know “hypothesis” means educated GUESS. So this is not proof but rather an opinion that also says “may” and “spectrum”. Anyone who has dealt with said “spectrum” knows who incredibly vast it is.

            Our experience are our own. Neither is right or wrong, bad or good, smart or dumb. We each make choices based on our experiences and we do what we feel is best for our family. I assure you, though, that I am not closed minded to my opinion and mine alone. But I have come by my opinion though research and not lightly (it is after all my children’s health and safety which is of the utmost importance to me) and it would take something incredibly concrete to get me to change my thoughts.

          • John Gary Whalen Jr

            I think that’s not really how “hypothesis” is defined in a clinical study with references to other studies, but I still find it strange there are studies showing, proving or demonstrating there is a possible link between vaccines and autism, but nothing conclusively proving the opposite.

            Not one study in the history of the USA showing the health status of vaccinated vs non-vaccinated children or adults. Again, not one child has been shown to have autism been untouched by vaccines.

          • Jen Rockwell

            My best friend’s sister has 3 boys. Her oldest was vaccinate and he got autism. She was convinced up one side and down the other that vaccinations caused autism. She did not vaccinate her next son. He does not have autism. This only furthered her belief. She had her 3rd son. He was not vaccinated. He has autism. You are saying there is not one child who has autism that didn’t get vaccinated. That is simply not true.

          • John Gary Whalen Jr

            I doubt you have any reason to lie and I have no reservations accepting the validity of your friend’s experience. I believe you.

            But Jen, I also believe that there is a link. Nobody in my family has ever, and I mean ever had a positive experience with vaccines, especially the yearly flu shot that killed two of them. We didn’t get emotional and try to sue the VICP. We didn’t blame the nurse who didn’t warn us of the potential lethal side effects that we later found printed in black and white on the vaccine tube insert. We accepted we were ignorant, we accepted the government has protected and covered and defunded any study proving not all vaccines are safe and moved on with our lives as best we could.

            I also believe that vaccines are not the sole cause for autism. I am also aware the 75k + girls who have autoimmune problems immediately after taking Gardasil shot did not all get there strictly because of the Gardasil vaccine. I am saying there is a link. Just like smoking does not cause lung cancer. Lots of chain smokers never get lung cancer. But that doesn’t negate the link.

            If I had to choose between your opinion or Merck’s former top vaccine scientist, Dr. Maurice Hilleman, who claimed Merck routinely added cancer strains to random vaccine batches, I’d take Dr. Hilleman’s word and would carefully choose the right vaccine foe me and my family. I certainly will never believe any and all vaccines are safe.

          • ChrisKid

            Except that Dr. Hilleman never said anything of the kind. Please stop lying about a talented man who devoted his life to defeating disease.

          • John Gary Whalen Jr

            Except Dr. Hilleman did in fact say that on record. His interview is still online. Another conspiracy theory you espouse shot down. This is just too easy.

          • ChrisKid

            He said that the polio vaccine had been contaminated with SV40. Nowhere did he seriously say that Merck was in the habit of just dumping ‘cancer strains’ (what exactly does that mean, anyway?) into any vaccine. If you’re talking about the incredibly slanderous, doctored video floating around antivaccine websites, you really do need to learn to vet a source. And figure out how critical thinking works.
            And, please, stop throwing around that stupid ‘conspiracy theory’ phrase. You’re making yourself look like an addled twelve year old.

          • John Gary Whalen Jr

            Did your one blogger source tell you that? What a load of conspiratorial rubbish. He said it right at 7minutes an 23 seconds in the interview:

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13QiSV_lrDQ#t=406

            And Merck still distributed the contaminated vaccines anyway, against the advice of the world’s most prominent pioneer in safe vaccine development/research. But hey, if you want to be a vaccine denier, that’s your prerogative.

          • ChrisKid

            As I said, you need to learn to vet a source. Good grief, you’re gullible.
            How about you look up confirmation bias, and try again with all that ‘information’ you’ve supposedly gathered.

          • John Gary Whalen Jr

            Talk about lunacy. I provided the link proving Dr. Hilleman’s account from his own mouth yet you’re still in denial. There is no changing your deranged insanity if you can’t be reasonable or open to facts. I guess you’re comfortable being a vaccine denier. You deny the dangers vaccines could potentially have, you denied the VICP compensated over 80 cases of families with autism or autistic symptoms that even you admit seriously caused brain damage, and what’s worse you can’t cite anything to back up your delusions. I’m happy we had this discussion, now everyone can see just how crazy an obsessive, vaccine denier really is even when presented with facts in black and white. Just goes to prove how it’s impossible to appeal to your logic if you refuse to implore it.

            You are responsible for shooting yourself up with potentially unsafe vaccines. I hope neither you nor any of your family ever gets seriously injured by a contaminated vaccine, life will be very hard for you if that is the case. Have a nice life ChrisKid.

          • Jen Rockwell

            And I have been nothing but calm and polite. You must be confusing me with someone else.

          • John Gary Whalen Jr

            True, I apologize.

          • David Officer

            For anybody that has read this far down (but not a few comments farther down under TruthSeeker like our friend Jen) here you go:

            MSG = hydrolyzed glutamate
            You need very little for brain cells to
            effectively communicate amongst themselves. You need only a little more
            to cause brain damage. Hit your head hard enough? Your brain cells
            release hydrolyzed glutamate that was stored inside and thus cause even
            more extant damage to the already traumatized brain. Give a child
            canned baby formula, this has a high amount of hydrolyzed glutamate.
            Shots? Also has a lot, but it’s quicker into the blood stream and then
            to the brain and has a stronger negative effect on the brain than eating
            the MSG.

            What does this mean for countries like Japan and USA that don’t put mercury (exception: flu shots) in their shots anymore but autism is still on the rise? Diets full of harmful hydrolyzed glutamate.

            Jen, to imply it is the people’s fault that they eat diets that cause autism and it is their genetics that cause autism, end of story, is a terrible insult, takes away any responsibility to the corporations and governments that purposefully put/allow MSG into almost every food you can think (remember, even baby formula), keep it out of the media, pass laws that allow for bad food labeling, and…well, Jen, I think you miss the spirit of Ben Swann and his type of journalism by a mile.

          • ChrisKid

            Does influenza cause a cough? Is every cough influenza? No.
            Does a broken femur cause leg pain? Is all leg pain due to a broken femur? No.
            Your logic is faulty. The NVICP has never awarded damages for autism as a result of vaccines.
            You math is faulty, too. 1 in 88 for all children would only be 1/2 in 44, not 1 in 44. You’ve doubled the rate just by not being able to do simple division.

          • John Gary Whalen Jr

            Does smoking cigarettes cause lung cancer? Is every lung cancer a cigarette?

            No.

            But…after years of denial and avid smokers supporting the myth that there was never a link between smoking and lung cancer the truth comes decades overdue. I hope one day there will be actual science backing up the safety and validity of vaccination. Not more anecdotal stories.

          • ChrisKid

            Your analogy isn’t working, John. Bob Loblaw is trying to claim that neurological damage is necessarily and always autism. It isn’t. It’s like claiming that a diagnosis of lung cancer is the same as cystic fibrosis because they both affect the lungs, and that the cystic fibrosis was caused by smoking.
            There is actual science backing up the safety and validity of vaccination. Study after study after study, all over the world, for decades now. The anecdotal stories are on the antivaccine side.

          • John Gary Whalen Jr

            I’m not sure where any of these phantom “science backing up the safety and validity of vaccination. Study after study after study, all over the world, for decades now. “

          • ChrisKid

            “Since the first National Vaccine Injury Compensation (VICP) claims were filed in 1989, 3,429 compensation awards have been made. Over $2.6 billion in compensation awards have been paid to petitioners”

            Against the numbers of doses of vaccines given in that same time frame, this comes out to a rate of compensation of about .0003%. Not a bad percentage, that. The numbers as you post them sound impressive, but they aren’t much when you break it down.

            I was not the one who brought up the tobacco industry. I only responded to your blatant attempt to change the subject. I think you misunderstand the meaning of ad hominem (note spelling). I’ve responded to your arguments, poor though they were, without ever trying to discredit them by impugning your character. The same cannot be said for your compatriots in this discussion.

            You don’t know where the science is on vaccines? Again you demonstrate a lack of knowledge on a subject you seem to want to argue passionately about.
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=vaccine+safety
            There would be a reasonable place to start. Nearly 12,000 studies on something you say you can’t find any information about. As to that vaccinated vs unvaccinated study you asked about. Are you willing to volunteer your children for it, to be randomly chosen to be either vaccinated or not, with you not knowing which for their entire childhood at the very least? Implying that that’s the only way to do any research on the safety or efficacy of vaccines only points up your total ignorance of how science actually works.

            And again, the NVICP has not compensated one person for autism as a result of vaccination. It’s not conspiracy theory. It’s fact. Vaccine injury, yes. Autism, not once.

          • John Gary Whalen Jr

            Ok…so let me get this straight…are you saying vaccines kill or seriously injure .0003% of our population and you’re fine with that? Not to mention there is no scientific process for that imaginary figure you dreamed up. I’m confused as to whether vaccines are in fact safe and perfectly injury free as you so adamantly assert .

            Secondly, 83 cases have been awarded to families injured by vaccines claimed to have caused autistic symptoms described as vaccine-­induced brain damage–most notably, “encephalopathy,” “residual seizure disorder,” “developmental regression.”:

            http://www.ahrp.org/cms/content/view/804/9/

            As researched by the Pace Environmental Law Review:

            http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/pelr/vol28/iss2/6/

            Additionally, see the web page you recommended to me, Age of Autism’s article:

            http://www.ageofautism.com/2013/08/forbes-willingham-wrong-on-courts-vaccine-injuries-and-brain-damage.html

            Your claim that: “The NVICP has never awarded damages for autism as a result of vaccines.” is a conspiracy theory.

          • ChrisKid

            Conspiracy theory. You throw that phrase around as if it means something the way you’re using it.
            We’ve been over this before, John. All brain damage is not autism. In fact, autism is not brain damage. So, yes, 83 autistic children have been compensated for other injuries by the NVICP, but not one has been compensated for autism.
            Am I saying that an injury rate of 0.0003 % is wonderful? No, obviously not. It would be nice if we lived in a perfect world and no one ever got hurt by anything. We don’t. The ‘scientific process’ I ‘dreamed up’ to come up with that number is basic math. As I explained to you in the previous post, comparing the number of compensated injuries to the number of doses of vaccines given in the same time period, gives us that incredibly minuscule percentage. It’s a simple calculation.
            John, please stop trying to put words in my mouth. No matter how much you want to interpret it that way, I’ve never in my life said that vaccines are ‘perfectly injury free’. Nothing in life is, or can be. If I thought they were, I wouldn’t have given you that percentage you want to dispute.
            Seriously, you’ll get much further in discussion with people if you stop using expressions you don’t understand and if you pay attention to what people actually say.
            Again, I’m sorry for your pain. My main motive here is to keep more and more families from suffering, as they will if diseases that can be prevented come back because people refuse vaccines.

          • John Gary Whalen Jr

            Of all people who accuse a lack understanding in what other people say.

            Sir, you deny a possible link between autism and vaccines yet the VICP has awarded compensation for vaccine induced autism.

            You made up imaginary stats to justify your bias.

            You made up the claim that the VICP has never awarded families compensation of vaccine induced autism.

            You deny that vaccine manufacturers are immune to lawsuits if their products hurt or kill patients.

            You choose to continue denying clear facts as reported in this article and that’s your problem. Vaccines are neither unanimously safe nor prevented scores of diseases. There is no proof or science to back that up. Vaccines are in fact uninsurable risk. The risks are too great to afford, hence why Congress made vaccine manufacturers immune to lawsuits. The vaccine harm is real in my opinion and much greater than you are willing to admit. But that’s your opinion, and you are entitled to one.

          • ChrisKid

            The difference between your opinion and my opinion is that mine is backed by science and history and yours is backed by assumption, logical fallacy and fear.
            I know you prefer to believe that brain damage = autism. That’s your opinion. Medical science says otherwise, which is why the NVICP has compensated claimants for various types of brain damage, but not once for autism. If your opinion were based on fact, the Autism Omnibus cases would have ended quite differently than they did. You can keep repeating your statement until we’re all blue in the face, but that won’t make it true.

            The statistics I used were based on numbers you provided. I’m sorry simple math evades you.

            The NVICP was set up largelty to keep vaccines available to the American public. Lawsuits based on feelings and fear had already driven several companies out of the business (explain that if vaccines are the major profit driver you claim they are) and the government needed to take steps to keep all of them from following suit, along with providing compensation for those actually injured by vaccines. They set up a program that makes it easier for plaintiffs to be compensated (partly by providing for their legal costs, win or lose), and would also allow manufacturers to stay in business, thereby protecting us all.
            And yes, in spite of what you keep saying, it is possible to sue a manufacturer directly if the product is defective. It’s just claims of harm in the normal course of use that go through the NVICP, which actually has a higher ‘win’ percentage for plaintiffs than the average civil court. You never did explain why you’d prefer the more rigorous evidence standards in civil court over those in the NVICP.

          • John Gary Whalen Jr

            Sir, the sky isn’t purple, and you can’t sue a vaccine manufacturer in the USA. You would have to petition the VCIP. Contrary to that is pure fiction. Repeating fictitious assertions is repeating fiction. Period.

            “Medical science” with no citation is an opinion. Which you’re entitled to and I respect that.

          • Tim

            This kind objective analysis and safety will come ONLY when batches of vaccines are analyzed for foreign elements, contamination, steriliants, live viruses, etc. Currently, there are whistle-blowers and even some past interviews where scientists have admitted having deployed DEADLY vaccines which were unknowningly contaminated with monkey virus that causes cancer, which happened in the 70′s.

            Currently, it’s rather clear that an ingredients listing and safety testing are NOT part of what’s being done in the vaccine industry. What’s being done, IMO, is covert sterilization of mass populations and silent eugenics programs.

          • John Gary Whalen Jr

            I agree, just like Dr. Hilleman from Merck.

          • ChrisKid

            Batches of vaccines are tested for all of those things. Quality control in vaccine manufacturing is stringent and constant.
            Yes, one of the original polio vaccines, in the early ’60s, not the ’70s, was contaminated with SV40. (Do check your facts before you state them.) However, that was fifty years ago and nothing like it has happened since. Also, there’s no evidence, over a number of studies, that SV40 has caused any cancer in humans. The age cohort that received that polio vaccine has no higher rate of cancer than others.
            And, of course, you opinion about mass sterilization and eugenics programs is just about worth the paper it’s printed on. As I think you can tell from the fact that life expectancy has gone up since vaccines have been in widespread use, and childhood death rates have gone down. If it’s a eugenics program, they’re doing it way wrong.

        • Bob Loblaw

          Not all of the cases go to this litigation. The reportinng is voluntary and parents are largely ignorant of the danger; so most of the 1 in 88 families with autistic kids are never compensated for that reason while many that try run into road blocks and hurdles like the VICP kangaroo courts to get any justice out, and that is why the numbers that are given don’t show a definitive link. They’ve been suppressed and not tallied accurately through this policy.

          If they had their day in court, and families knew about this, and could present the science that shows it in a court of law, you would see a far larger number.

          All they are asking for is to be able to present their case in a real court rather than a kangaroo court.

          But because the numbers are basically doctored and suppressed in this manner, you think there is no link, and therefore this should continue.

          • ChrisKid

            That’s a huge amount of assumption you’ve got going on there, Bob. No evidence again, I see. Just your own statements.
            Since expert witnesses of the plaintiffs’ choosing are allowed in the NVICP, I don’t see what your objection is. And since their evidence standards are less stringent and their percentage of compensated cases is higher than normal civil courts, what else do you think you could accomplish by taking those cases to civil court?

          • John Gary Whalen Jr

            Actually, this report conclusively provided all the evidence Bob Loblaw was referring to.

          • ChrisKid

            This ‘report’ is a blog post of an interview with an antivaccine activist. There’s nothing in it but a couple of people’s unsupported opinions.

          • John Gary Whalen Jr

            Your opinion is noted. However nothing stated about the rules of the VCIP was incorrect.

            Nothing about how “Learned Intermediary Doctrine” allows vaccine manufactures “the right to not disclose risks” is correct.

            The fact that the VICP conducted an unprecedented bundle of over 5k cases as one case and dismiss them without hearing ANY evidence is correct.

            The fact that the VICP gives a blanket policy exempting vaccine manufactures from any liability whether their vaccines kill or harm patients, is correct.

            The the VCIP has awarded injury compensation for families who were hurt by vaccines, is correct.

            We get it, you don’t like the individual(s) delivering these facts. It doesn’t negate what they said.

            NOTE: Nobody said “vaccines cause autism” Nobody said “vaccines are not safe” This report only focused on the state of injustice in the VICP as of late. So, stick to the topic and quit trying to make this into a different discussion.

          • ChrisKid

            The NVICP has awarded compensation to people injured by vaccines. That is its purpose.
            Your statement that vaccine manufacturers have blanket immunity from liability is not correct. They are just as liable as any other company if they produce a defective product. It is true that plaintiffs are required to first go through the NVICP for claims that occur as a result of normal use of the product if there is no defect.
            The Autism Omnibus plaintiffs agreed to present their strongest cases, representing the three different theories of causation they were claiming, and abide by the rulings in those cases. If the best evidence they had could not prove the case, why would they want to continue to put forth the time and effort to make claim after failing claim? It’s interesting that you try to say that the court heard no evidence when it’s well known that expert witnesses, for both plaintiffs and defense testified. In the Cedillo case, videos were presented by the parents to show that Michelle became autistic after she was vaccinated, videos that were then used by one of the expert witnesses for the government to point out that the child was exhibiting autistic traits well before she received the vaccine in question. Your claim of ‘without hearing ANY evidence is simply not true.
            It’s also not true that the Omnibus cases were bundled into one case and simply dismissed.
            In fact, the only thing you presented there that is true is that the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program has actually done its job and compensated people for the rare vaccine injuries that occur.

            And honestly, I have no feeling whatsoever about the individual(s) making those statements. I don’t know them.

          • John Gary Whalen Jr

            “Your statement that vaccine manufacturers have blanket immunity from liability is not correct. They are just as liable as any other company if they produce a defective product.”

            Another blatant conspiracy theory.

            You cannot have a trial by jury or a bench trial anywhere in the USA if you wish to sue a vaccine manufacturer for making a vaccine that harmed one or one’s family, nor can you sue the doctor who administrated it. You would have to petition the VICP…if they want to hear your case…and if you’re injury falls somewhere onto the cart of presumptive vaccine injuries.

            But hey, according to you all vaccines are safe and never have potential lethal side effects, even if those lethal side effects are printed in black and white on the vaccine insert, or if it killed a family member and a close friend of my family.

          • ChrisKid

            Please don’t put words in my mouth, John. It’s not nice to tell lies and it makes your argument look bad. I’ve never said that all vaccines are always safe in all circumstances, for every person, and ‘never’ have potential lethal side effects. I think we’ve covered this once already.
            Vaccines can have serious adverse effects, very rarely. The chance of such a thing happening has been calculated at maybe one in a million, or even less. Some of them are so rare they can’t actually be measured, or it’s impossible to tell if they’re related to the vaccine. So, yes, it can happen. It’s just that it happens very, very, orders of magnitude very, much less often than those same kinds of lethal consequences caused by vaccine preventable diseases.
            Also, it isn’t necessary for the claimed injury to be listed as a ‘table injury’ to present it to the NVICP. But, in that case, you have to prove causation.
            Question, though – since the percentage of cases compensated by the vaccine court is higher than the average of civil courts, why would you want to take the lesser chance?

          • John Gary Whalen Jr

            Well I’m glad you admitted vaccines can injure and kill. However, there is no evidence of any of these adverse/lethal effects occurring “very rarely”. There is no data on how many vaccines are administered each year. Cases of children magically dying or having adverse effects shortly after taking vaccine/vaccines are not counted either. On top of that the VICP does not report, publish, or tally the number of petitions to their court.

            There are no civil cases available to show another conspiratorial claim you assert:

            “…the percentage of cases compensated by the vaccine court is higher than the average of civil courts…”

            Where do you get these fake stats from? Seriously. There’s no data available to draw any conclusions from. Your best argument thus far is to just blindly be spoon fed claims from the feds and not question anything. That’s ignorance my friend. And that’s how you end up saying ridiculous things like:

            “The NVICP has never awarded damages for autism as a result of vaccines.”

            “…the percentage of cases compensated by the vaccine court is higher than the average of civil courts…”

            “…it isn’t necessary for the claimed injury to be listed as a ‘table injury’ to present it to the NVICP.”

        • PJ Carroll

          It needs to be stated that it was not 83 cases of autism out of 2500 that were conceded, it was 83 cases out of only 171 cases that the authors of the paper were able to find.
          Most records in the VICP are kept hidden, so it was not easy to track down and interview these families. But of the families that were interviewed, about one out of every two had children that got autism as a result of their vaccine-induced brain damage.
          And more cases have been discovered since the peer-reviewed paper was published in 2011.

        • John Gary Whalen Jr

          Not exactly, of those 83 families, they were granted compensation under the condition the government was not going to admit their child was injured by the vaccines. But most cases are not made public.

          On a side note, it’s curious how there has yet to be a case showing one single child that has autism than was never vaccinated.

          • Jen Rockwell

            That is just pure blind ignorance on your part. My best friend’s son and nephew have autism and they were NOT vaccinated.

          • John Gary Whalen Jr

            I thought you said you were in fact being calm and polite. Please refrain from any more hyperbolic vitriol. I would like to keep this civil.

          • ChrisKid

            Why don’t you ask Kim Stagliano, from Age of Autism, about her youngest child? She’s autistic, as are all three of the Stagliano children, and was never vaccinated.
            I’d stop repeating that lie about no unvaccinated autistic children before you make yourself look even worse.

          • John Gary Whalen Jr

            Sir, vaccines killed one of my family members and a close friend of the family.

            Lots of chain smokers never gate lung cancer but that still doesn’t negate the link. Lots of vaccine deniers refuse to believe there’s a link to vaccines and a variety of unusual conditions. If you believe being in that latter category makes you look “good” that is your opinion, and I respect that. However, I can’t say my experience was good at all.

          • ChrisKid

            You claim that there has never been a case of an unvaccinated autistic child. Shown evidence that you’re wrong in that, you run off to the next subject, rather than admit that you didn’t have a clue. Or were talking out of your hat and hoping not to get called on it.
            You’re right that lots of chain smokers don’t get lung cancer. My parents-in-law were two of those.
            However, science, such as epidemiological studies, shows a link between smoking and lung cancer. The same kinds of studies, along with clinical trials and after-license surveillance, don’t show a causal linkage between vaccines and any of the conditions/diseases you try to claim for them. Your logic doesn’t work.

            And, honestly, I couldn’t really care less how it makes me ‘look’. Why would I? I do think, though, that you’re confused with your use of ‘vaccine deniers’. I don’t fall into that category at all.
            I am sorry for your loss. I know how hard it is to lose a loved one.

          • John Gary Whalen Jr

            I have never personally seen or even heard of anyone born with autism. Period. Every parent I have met in person claimed their child was healthy and happy until the last of three rounds of vaccine shots. Now I’ll admit I haven’t scoured the internet for hours on end looking for a medical study/hypothesis examining autistic children that were born autistic, nor have I seen one.

            If you have a medial study/hypothesis to cite, I will be happy to look into it. I’m not a doctor nor do I pretend to be at a Bioethicist’s level either.

            Then you throw out one singular name I’ve never heard of that’s still not a medical study or hypothesis and is supposed to discount the experiences of my life that you so kindly demonized as “looking worse”. To top it off the Age of Autism website has articles brining up “Malicious Defamation” of Dr. Andrew Wakefield.

            Again sir, just like the hyperbolic, anecdotal evidence the tobacco industry used singling out individuals who were chain smokers since their late teens that never got lung cancer, I felt that you too were using the same talking point.

          • ChrisKid

            You made the quite extraordinary claim that there has never been an unvaccinated autistic child. You were given the lie about that ridiculous statement by two people, here in this thread. I gave you the name of a well-known autism activist and writer whose unvaccinated child is autistic. I don’t really care whether you’ve heard of her. I will say that saying you haven’t doesn’t say much for how much you know about autism or the culture surrounding it. For you to say that you’ve never heard of Kim Stagliano and then act as if your limited knowledge should count for something is kind of odd, actually.
            I don’t honestly care what you felt I was doing. You made a claim, it was shown to be an outright lie, you changed tacks and ran in some other direction. Do you think you could stick to the subject you brought up?
            Oh, and do you think you could stop assuming that you know anything about me?

            http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-autism-babies-eye-contact-two-months-20131106,0,7124658.story#axzz2maCQK95Z

          • John Gary Whalen Jr

            You made the extraordinary claim that: “The NVICP has never awarded damages for autism as a result of vaccines.” this is a conspiracy theory.

            You attempted to discount the fact that I have never met any family in person that had a child born with autism. Still you’ve yet to produce one single scientific study or medical hypothesis showing your claim that there are children born with autism.

            Then you throw out some name on the internet I’ve never heard of before that publishes articles on Dr. Wakefield and you think that is supposed to satisfy the majority of American’s suspicion of the possible vaccine/autism link? One blog? Are you serious?

            Only one credible person here told me this was not the case in this forum, and based on how polite, open minded and forthright she was I believe her.

            You sir, are not credible. I can’t in good conscience take your word for anything when you’ve staunchly refused to address your inconsistent assertions:

            1. Peer-reviewed scientific study published in a medical journal or an unpublished medical hypothesis showing cases of children born with autism.

            2. The blog you referred to has articles on Dr. Wakefield

            http://www.ageofautism.com/dr-andrew-wakefield/

            the Italian court’s finding that there is in fact a link between autism and vaccines:

            http://www.ageofautism.com/2013/08/forbes-willingham-wrong-on-courts-vaccine-injuries-and-brain-damage.html

            and vaccine side effects like injury and/or death (just to name three):

            http://www.ageofautism.com/2013/12/vaccine-side-effects-and-the-role-on-the-caregiver.html

            3. To retract your conspiratorial statement:

            “The NVICP has never awarded damages for autism as a result of vaccines.”

            When a peer reviewed study published in the Pace Environmental Law Review by Mary Holland, Research Scholar and Director of Graduate Legal Skills Program, NYU School of Law; Louis Conte, Robert Krakow, and Lisa Colin, proved 83 cases of autism compensation was awarded to families by the VICP for vaccine-induced brain damage. Most notably “encephalopathy”, “residual seizure disorder” and “developmental regression.” Eighty three cases unpublished and unreported by mainstream media ChrisKid. That’s 83 cases proven in a peer reviewed study published in a nationally respected law journal. I’m interested to see if you’re mature enough admit when you made a mistake, or if you continue to resort to more denial and appeals to “science” with no citation.

          • ChrisKid

            John, please explain how a simple statement of fact can be a conspiracy theory? What’s the conspiracy behind the statement that the NVICP has never awarded compensation for autism as a result of vaccines?
            I’m sorry, but your comments are all still public here. You did not say you’ve never met a family who had a child born with autism. You said there has never existed one single unvaccinated child with autism. I gave you an example of a well-antivaccine blogger/writer whose youngest child is completely unvaccinated and autistic. I really don’t care, nor does it matter, who you have met. I’ve never met the Queen of England. That doesn’t mean she doesn’t exist. See, I never said anything about ‘America’s suspicion’, or anything anywhere close to that. I responded, very specifically, to your very specific, if vastly broad and overstated, claim. I have no idea why you keep yammering about AoA. I simply mentioned it to provide background for Kim Stagliano, in response to your extraordinary claim that no unvaccinated autistic child existed. For some silly reason I thought you might be more inclined to accept facts if they came from your own side of the court.
            I’ve asked you before not to put words in my mouth. It really doesn’t add to your argument. Besides, it makes you look as if you have trouble concentrating.

            As for that article in the Pace Law Review, you keep claiming that all of those cases, in which the ruling was something other than ‘vaccine induced autism’, were indeed compensated for ‘vaccine induced autism’. You’re directly contradicting the court rulings in every single one of those cases. How can you expect anyone to take you seriously when you don’t follow the facts in front of you?
            “This assessment of compensated cases showing an association between vaccines and autism is not, and does not purport to be, science. In no way does it explain scientific causation or even necessarily undermine the reasoning of the decision in the Omnibus Autism Proceeding based on the scientific theories and medical evidence before the VICP.”

            So, not a peer reviewed scientific study, but rather a report, which does not even claim to show what you way it does.
            Now I think I’ll be the one waiting to see if you’re mature enough to admit your mistake. And while you’re at it, you might want to admit to the outright lie you told in the beginning of your comment. As I said, your comments are still public and anyone can see the quite extraordinary claim you made.

          • John Gary Whalen Jr

            If you replied with facts then you wouldn’t be accused of the numerous conspiracies you espouse.

            Like calling a peer reviewed study in a respected law journal an “article” and a “report”. I’ve never heard such ludicrous conspiracies that the Pace Environmental Law Review publishes “articles” or “reports”. Or the fact the study proved compensation was awarded for 83 families for vaccine-induced brain damage, most notably “encephalopathy”, “residual seizure disorder” and “developmental regression.” All of which you still deny ever occurred.

            I don’t care if you wish to cite one blogger as a substitute for scientific evidence that you can’t cite.
            Or the fact that you are now putting words I never said. For example:

            You claim I said: “You said there has never existed one single unvaccinated child with autism.”

            When clearly, straight up in this very mile long chain of responses my public comment says in black and white:

            “I have never personally seen or even heard of anyone born with autism. Period.”

          • ChrisKid

            “On a side note, it’s curious how there has yet to be a case showing one single child that has autism that was never vaccinated.”

            What, exactly, were you trying to say here? I took it to mean in general, because you couldn’t possibly be expecting the NVICP to be dealing with the case of an unvaccinated child.

          • John Gary Whalen Jr

            And you still have yet to cite one case. Citing one blogger as a substitute for scientific evidence is still a poor, and inexcusable in my opinion.

          • ChrisKid

            I’m still trying to figure out what you mean by ‘one case’. You said there was no child. I told you about a child who fits your criteria. As I asked you before, what ‘case’ are you referring to? At this point it looks as if you’re playing semantic games to avoid admitting you were mistaken.

          • John Gary Whalen Jr

            I’ll repost my quote so you can understand “one case”:

            “On a side note, it’s curious how there has yet to be a case showing one single child that has autism that was never vaccinated.”

          • ChrisKid

            Repeating it doesn’t explain it. Do you mean there never has been an unvaccinated autistic child? If so, you’ve been shown to be wrong. Why are you still hammering that nail?

          • John Gary Whalen Jr

            Then read it again. I’ve made myself clear numerous times already. I’m not going to repeat myself just because you feign ignorance.

          • ChrisKid

            You keep talking about ‘citing one blogger.’ Except that’s not what I did. I gave you an example of what you said didn’t exist (because you’d never seen it).

          • John Gary Whalen Jr

            You keep citing one blogger. It’s what you did. It’s what you do I suppose.

          • ChrisKid

            John, I know you feel out of your depth here, and you’re flailing, but do try to be rational, okay? You’re making me sad.

          • John Gary Whalen Jr

            Any more nonsense or conspiracies you’d like to share?

          • ChrisKid

            Courts of law don’t ‘prove’ anything scientific. Italian courts also sent seismologists to jail for not predicting earthquakes, something that cannot be done. One obscure, rural Italian judge does not undo decades of scientific research, no matter how much you like his ruling.
            And since when to law reviews publish peer-reviewed research reports? Even Age of Autism, who fawned all over it, called it an article. Which, of course, is what law reviews publish. Articles.

          • John Gary Whalen Jr

            There you go again substituting the word of a blogger over the fact that the Pace Environmental Law Review is a peer reviewed journal. If you claim “And since when to law reviews publish peer-reviewed research reports?” A simple cursory google search would tell you the answer. See the university’s website.

          • ChrisKid

            I did just that.
            “Participation in law reviews is an important component of your legal education. Many law reviews are operated and edited entirely by students. Student participation is highly encouraged because it aids in the development of essential legal writing skills.
            All three law reviews are in the journal format in the Digital Commons. The articles are searchable by author, title, and keyword, and are arranged by volume and issue. The display for each article includes the Bluebook citation. On the right-hand side of the screen is a pull-down menu listing each issue.”

            And I quote, ‘The *articles* are searchable by author…’, ‘the display for each *article* includes….’

            Any other questions? Pace Law Review, as the name should tell you, is not a peer-reviewed scientific journal. They publish articles, not peer-reviewed scientific reports.

          • John Gary Whalen Jr

            Unfortunately, you performed no objective research plus you’re once again attempting put words I never said.
            “Pace Law Review, as the name should tell you, is not a peer-reviewed scientific journal.”

            It’s a law journal I never once said it’s a medical or space, or biology or science journal. The university even classifies it under “Journals & Publications”:

            http://www.law.pace.edu/journals-publications

            Pace Environmental Law Review was vetted by Mary Holland, Research Scholar and Director of Graduate Legal Skills Program, NYU School of Law. The pride in this peer review process was stated clearly:

            “The research results, articles, and opinions authored by the students and faculty working in our centers educate and advise legal professionals, clients, and the community on issues such as land use and women’s justice. Our faculty members, many considered authorities in their field, are frequently quoted in articles and books, and are themselves prolific authors of books, articles, and memoranda.”

            http://www.law.pace.edu/journals-publications

            So between Mary Holland and you, I’d pick the expert opinion over your bias.

          • ChrisKid

            Except for the fact that nothing in that description equates to peer review. You really don’t understand what peer review is, do you?

          • John Gary Whalen Jr

            On the contrary, the law review was in fact peer reviewed as all the journal’s publications are. These peer reviewed studies are so thorough the university claims the following:

            “The research results, articles, and opinions authored by the students and faculty working in our centers educate and advise legal professionals, clients, and the community on issues such as land use and women’s justice.”

            http://www.law.pace.edu/journals-publications

          • ChrisKid

            John, John, John, I’ve asked you several times now not to put words in my mouth. I most definitely did not say that those 83 families were not compensated for vaccine-related or induced brain damage. I didn’t address the matter of that compensation at all. What I did say is that none of those 83 cases were compensated for vaccine-induced autism, because, as much as you keep claiming it is, all brain damage is not autism. In fact, autism is not brain damage at all. So, yes, of course, those 83 families received compensation from the NVICP. They did not, however, receive compensation for autism.
            As for lethal vaccine risks, they are, as CDC statistics show, and as you fully well know, orders of magnitude less than the lethal risks from vaccine preventable disease.

          • John Gary Whalen Jr

            On the contrary, you did in fact clearly state the following:

            “What’s the conspiracy behind the statement that the NVICP has never awarded compensation for autism as a result of vaccines?”

            Unless you actually read the Pace Environmental Law Review’s report, the case they cited clearly awarded compensation to 9 year old Hannah Poling, who was diagnosed with autism. Yes, ChrisKid, she was diagnosed with autism. Let me repeat that so you don’t continue to desperately repeat your conspiracy theories. Hannah Poling was diagnosed with autism shortly after she was vaccinated. The VICP conceded Poling’s case was “rare” but did not result in autism, but autism related symptoms. Other families have been awarded compensation on the basis they would agree to the court the vaccine did not cause autism, but caused autistic like symptoms, most notably “encephalopathy”, “residual seizure disorder” and “developmental regression.” All of which you still deny ever occurred.

            You made the extraordinary conspiratorial claim: “The NVICP has never awarded damages for autism as a result of vaccines.” this is a conspiracy theory my friend. To think your content with being spoon fed the claim that because the VCIP merely said there is no vaccine/autism link while delivering compensation to autistic children in hand, that is the undeniable truth. You, sir, are persistently showing willful, arrogant ignorance of the facts, or simply very, very stupid to merely take the government’s word at face value.

          • ChrisKid

            Hannah Poling was compensated for mitochondrial damage exacerbated by vaccines. The court ruled that the vaccines caused autism-like symptoms, but they absolutely did not rule that she was being compensated for vaccine-induced autism, as you, yourself, stated in your comment. I’m sorry, but you don’t get to have it both ways. The court did not rule that Hannah Poling was compensated for autism. I know you’d like to believe otherwise, but the facts don’t support you. Again, brain damage is not autism. Autistic children have received compensation for vaccine injury, but not for autism.

            As to conspiracy theories, you’re the one claiming that the NVICP is one. Please explain.

            And the fact that you keep calling me sir is a good indication of how quick you are to jump to conclusions and how reluctant to check facts.

          • John Gary Whalen Jr

            Mitochondrial damage is an autistic symptom. Her doctor diagnosed her with autism before the parents petitioned the VICP. She was compensated for the damage the vaccine caused. This case was kept secret. A law review uncovered over 80 other similar cases. I’m sorry to shatter your reality, but whether you’d like to admit it or not there is a high chance that there is in fact a link between vaccines and autism.

          • ChrisKid

            If the case was kept secret, how do you claim to know so much about it? I’m really sorry you have such trouble understanding this, but mitochondrial damage is NOT a symptom of autism. Yes, there have been 80-some children who have been compensated for vaccine-induced brain damage of various kinds, who also have autism. There have been no children compensated for autism. I know you don’t want to admit it, but there is a difference between brain damage and autism, since autism is not damage. It’s a condition one is born with.

          • John Gary Whalen Jr

            Mitochondrial damage is an autistic symptom. Hanna Poling was diagnosed with autism before her family petitioned the VCIP. That makes one of many cases where the VCIP has compensated autistic children due to vaccine damage.

          • ChrisKid

            And one more time, I’ve never denied that “encephalopathy”, “residual seizure disorder” and “developmental regression.” happened. In fact, I fully admitted that it did. You’ve gone past putting words in my mouth, all the way to just outright lies. You make yourself look foolish.

          • Sullivan ThePoop

            Well, since people with autism have larger brains and more neural connections there is no way it happened after birth. It obviously had to happen during neuronal development.

          • Sullivan ThePoop

            My niece was definitely born with autism.

          • http://winterpatriot.com NJT

            maybe you’re not old enough to remember for how many years it was “scientifically” in doubt that smoking causes lung cancer. It wasn’t until the 1980′s that the government could no longer refuse to act and required manufacturers to label cigarettes as the dangerous poison they are.
            With vaccines we are somewhere around 1970 – people are talking and some know they are bad, but the accepted science hasn’t caught up yet.

          • ChrisKid

            I’m old enough to remember accurately what happened with cigarettes. You probably should have checked before you posted. The Surgeon General’s report came out in 1964, indicating that the dangers of cigarette smoking were being studied well before that. The law requiring warning labels on cigarette packages was passed in 1965. The law banning cigarette ads on on TV was passed in 1971. With vaccines we are well ahead of where cigarettes ever were, since decades of research have been done showing them to be safe and effective. The accepted science has been done, is being done, and will continue to be done, and it doesn’t show what you want it to show.
            “Could no longer refuse to act”? Cigarette packages have carried warning labels from very shortly after the report was published, showing conclusively that they were linked to lung cancer as well as other diseases. They couldn’t have acted much faster.

          • http://winterpatriot.com NJT

            Thank you for correcting me. It’s not a matter of what I want it to show, it’s a matter of looking at the bigger picture than studies designed to succeed. With vaccines we are around where cigarettes were in 1960. The link is not as clear and the water will be muddied but the truth will out.

          • ChrisKid

            See, the problem with your analogy is that, with tobacco, there hadn’t been a lot of valid study done on a link between smoking and various diseases until around the ’50s. Then, when it was done, the links were discovered, or evidence of them was found, and official action began to follow on that information. With vaccines, the research has been ongoing for at least a hundred years now, and is getting better all the time. It’s not that the link is not as clear. It’s that the link has been studied and not found to exist.
            If you’re going to compare it to smoking, we’d have to be in a situation where the tobacco studies were done over years and years, with large numbers of people and smoking was found not to lead to cancer.

          • http://winterpatriot.com NJT

            here’s where you are wrong. Unlike the effects of tobacco, each vaccine is different and needs to be studied separately, and in combination with other vaccines. Most vaccines currently in use were only invented in the past 2 or 3 decades. So to say that they have been studied for a hundred years, is absolutely incorrect.
            “we’d have to be in a situation where the tobacco studies were done over years and years, with large numbers of people and smoking was found not to lead to cancer” – yes this is exactly what was going on around 1960 – large numbers of smokers had not come down with cancer so there must be another cause, was the argument of the cigarette scientists.

          • ChrisKid

            Was the argument of the tobacco companies, maybe. You really haven’t looked into this very much, have you? First you got the history all wrong (intentionally, or because you were just vamping?) and now you’re trying to frame tobacco company arguments as those of the actual research scientists.
            Let’s see, MMR in 1971, with the individual components developed in the decade before that. DTaP in 1981, with the diphtheria and tetanus components quite a long time before that, as parts of DTP, polio vaccine in the mid-fifties, smallpox vaccine has been out of use for more than thirty years because it was successful enough to eradicate the disease. Your definition of ‘most’ is an odd one.

            Yes, varicella, Hib, HepB, are newer, but even though each specific vaccine needs to be developed separately, that doesn’t mean they don’t build on what’s already known and being used. You way that each vaccine needs to be studied separately and in combination with other vaccines. You’re right. That’s exactly what is done, with each one. And all of those studies, in aggregate, give us the overwhelming body of evidence that says that vaccines are safe and effective. Not perfect, as nothing is, but much better than taking random chances with diseases that can maim and kill, and did just that to thousands of people every year until they were brought under control by vaccination of nearly all the populace.

          • http://winterpatriot.com NJT

            so you could not name a single one that’s been studied for a hundred years, as was your claim. of course not! 1981 is 32 years ago but somehow 3 decades is wrong and one hundred years right?
            Clearly you have no clue as to the damage being done by vaccines, your willful ignorance notwithstanding, science marches on.

          • ChrisKid

            With vaccines, the research has been ongoing for a hundred years now, and is getting better and better. That’s a factual statement, as much as you’d like to play semantic games in order to try to dismiss it. Research on vaccination and related subjects, such as germ theory, for over two hundred years, but I kept it to what’s absolutely covered by modern method and theory. So, yes, discount it as you might, vaccine research has been ongoing for the past century (and more). I didn’t say three decades is wrong. I questioned your claim that ‘most’ current vaccines have only been around that long. Looks to me as if at least half the schedule is older than that. On top of which, as I explained, and which you seem to want to ignore, nobody starts completely from scratch with any new vaccine. Three decades of research builds on the decades and thousands of studies, the bast body of work already done.
            Yes, science does march on, as I told you, using better and better to keep improving the safety and efficacy of vaccines, and to prevent disease with them. Isn’t it great?

          • http://winterpatriot.com NJT

            Nov 27, 2013 the FDA says ChrisKid is wrong: http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm376937.htm
            Just think how much more we’ll learn in another 20 years!

          • ChrisKid

            What, exactly, does that report say that proves me wrong? I’m guessing you jumped on a few key words, but let’s see.

          • http://winterpatriot.com NJT

            this proves that (A) despite whatever’s been done over the past 100 years, there are still things to learn about vaccines and (B) vaccinated individuals are more likely to spread pertussis, therefore the FDA are now questioning the current vaccination policy and schedules.

          • http://winterpatriot.com NJT

            it says A) society would be better off without pertussis vaccine B) you’ve been talking out your ass far too long, clinging to a false ideology

          • Sullivan ThePoop

            I have a nephew who has autism and was not vaccinated until after his diagnosis.

      • ChrisKid

        “The government” has not provided the numbers. Researchers the world over have provided the numbers, which are similar in developed countries all around the globe.
        If that ‘door’ you mention is so well constructed to stay shut, why is it open wider than that in civil courts, having a higher ‘win’ percentage for plaintiffs than for product liability cases in general?

      • Dorit Reiss

        This is inaccurate. As Jen Rockwell pointed out, in those cases the children had autism, but that’s not what they were compensated for. The NVICP never compensated a child on the theory that vaccines caused her autism and in fact rejected that claim in the Autism Omnibus Cases.

    • Heather Rhodes White

      1. Vaccines do not cause all autism. Autism is epigenetic so it depends on the individual, their window of susceptibility, and the environmental toxin(s) that pushes them over the edge. As the understanding becomes clearly one can see there are many culprits at play. The UC Davis MIND Institute is doing a lot of great work in this area.

      2. “you have 2500 cases” As eluded to in the clip that number is just the tip of the iceberg. Many cases are thrown out because off table injuries need to be proven in a contemptuous court of special masters. If the government is not comfortable with the claimants injury they do not pay.

    • misterkel

      Can you find any actual unvaccinated children who have autism?
      It does not always give autism – that depends on the child’s tolerance, ability to move out mercury, number of doses, amount of mercury and gender (testosterone enhances the neurological effect, while estrogen mutes it). but you sound like someone who isn’t really interested in the opposite position, only someone who toes the official line.

      • Jen Rockwell

        My best friend’s son and his nephew are both NOT vaccinated and both have autism.

        • David Officer
        • http://AdventuresInAutism.com/ Ginger Taylor

          Vaccines are not the ONLY cause of autism. It is largely a toxicly induced brain injury, and vaccines are not the only source of the chemicals that can cause the brain injury. I believe they are likely the largest cause, but we know that some meds taken during pregnancy (valproate, thelidimide, terbutaline…) can cause it, pesticide exposure is implicated, and now there is evidence that GMO’s are at play.

          The physical syndrome that these kids have include autoimmune disorders, GI disorders, mitochondrial disorders and more, that cause brain inflammation and brain damage.

          Vaccines are just ONE of the things that can cause this domino effect that ends up with a child regressing into “autism.”

          Ginger Taylor, Canary Party Vice President

        • Bob Loblaw

          Might test them (and yourself) for heavy metals. People forget that thimerosol or not, things like lead and mercury may yet have as they are in the air or even food as is the case with mercury in tuna fish.

          Also, many neuro-transmitters are produced in the gut, and there are anecdotal reports of pro-biotics, and gluten free diets making a sometimes profound impact (even going from illegible hand writing to perfectly legible), in theory because the gut is not making these neuro-transmitters due to “leaky gut”, “gluten intolerance” or something like that.

          Incidentally, it is also theorized that this is the reason there are reports of pro-biotics helping clinical depression.

        • Tim

          No one anywhere is saying vaccines ALONE cause Autism. Autism was a condition BEFORE vaccines. We all know that there are plenty of modern environmental potentials that can come into play, such as exposure to chemicals at factories, etc.

      • george

        The mercury in vaccines isn’t just mercury, it’s a part of a carbon-mercury compound. And when you combine two elements to make a compound, the chemical nature of the new substance is radically different from the chemical nature of the two elements by themselves. For instance, carbon is what we are made of. Nitrogen is also part of what we are made of, and is in every single amino acid, and therefore protein in your body, every single virus in the vaccines, and everything you have ever eaten. But carbon and nitrogen can combine and become cyanide. But you don’t sound like someone who is really interested in ACTUAL bio-chemistry, only someone who wants to be wrong all the time, about everything. Idiot.

        • David Officer

          George, misterkel, the person you hit ‘Reply’ to, agrees with you, it seems.

        • misterkel

          It’s difficult to take someone seriously who posts gratitiously aggressive replies. I am aware of thiomersal and the organic mercury discussion. Being organic in this case is a weak chemical bond, more of a vehicle than a substantive change in the nature of the mercury The bond is easily broken and the mercury acts as per its normal nature.
          Not sure why you have so much hatred about this issue. Consider psychiatric help, perhaps.

      • ChrisKid

        AS mentioned above, Kim Stagliano’s youngest daughter is unvaccinated and autistic.

        • Bob Loblaw

          I’d be interested to see some blood and maybe hair tests that look for heavy metals such as mercury. People sometimes forget that such things couuld be under our feet and we may not realize it. Like lead paint for example.

      • Andi

        Fragile X Syndrome. Common genetic cause of autism.

  • misterkel

    See http://www.redpillpress.com/shop/a-spiritual-autopsy-of-science-and-religion/
    for details on this and many other scientific scandals and deceptions. Pretty cool book.

  • ekimdam

    Stop perpetuating the myth that vaccines cause autism. You have just done a grave disservice to humanity. Time and time again it has been proven that the original study that sparked this whole ‘controversy’ was complete and utter bunk. I’m all for your parental right to choose what you want for your children, but not vaccinating is the worst decision a parent could make IMHO.

    Also, no, I’m not going to debate this. Do your own research. make sure you read BOTH sides. if you don’t understand the big words, ask for clarification.

    This article is a massive disappointment.

    • jb

      What, exactly, was untrue in this article? Use google and do your own research. The “debunking” was debunked.

    • David Officer

      ‘Do your own research’ schtick is a great turn off from those that have allotted only a specific time to the info in the article/video above.

      Knowing time is short, I provide one link for you here showing the government recognizing the link between vaccines and the rise of autism.

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21993250

      Scroll down to Mr. Linker’s comments to find more.

    • Jens_disqussion

      Actually, that “original study,” guessing what study you mean, did not start all this, nor was it bunk. It was a case series by a group of researchers in the U.K. that honestly reported the parent observation of regression post MMR in some of the cases, calling for more research, and mainly informed the research community of observations of intestinal disease in these children. That latter part has been replicated in research several times. The research regarding possible MMR role in regression has not been allowed to be done.

  • LoneWiseMan

    So instead of thousands of parents swamping our court system, they’re (just for vaccines) forced to used a specific type of court system.

    There’s still no proof whatsoever about vaccine causing autism, just some parents who point to disproved “research.”

    And there we have it, right back where we started: proof needed and correlation does not equal causation.

    • David Officer

      Proof needed. Proof given by the government. Scroll down and click on Brandon M. Linker’s links he provides at the bottom of this page. 10+ links to government website where the talk about the relationship between vaccines and the rise of autism. To hard to scroll that far down, not that interested, don’t care that much? Here’s one to wet your appetite served hot from my keyboard via this site to your eyeballs.

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21993250

      • LoneWiseMan

        Specific type (not all) and may, not “is.”

    • Jens_disqussion

      If you can call an administrative procedure that allows HHS to judge whether a child or adult was harmed by a vaccine HHS recommended/mandated a “court”…

      We don’t have a lot of “proof” for many of the assumed cause-effect relationships we believe are truths such as the assumption that vaccines are a major reason for perceived decline in disease, nor the assumption that autism is genetic, but there is a lot of evidence that immune dysfunction and environment toxicity issues are involved in autism.

    • http://AdventuresInAutism.com/ Ginger Taylor

      It is not just an alternate “court system” it is a kangaroo court system. It is a joke that is rigged against families. We produced a video that highlighted what fraud this “court” system is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6S1-LgYyjQg

      • David Officer

        BEST. VIDEO. EVER!

      • LoneWiseMan

        Idiotic video started off with a lie.

        If the premise is wrong, the rest of the video doesn’t matter.

        • http://winterpatriot.com NJT

          maybe you wouldn’t be “lone” if you weren’t such a dickhead

          • LoneWiseMan

            Lone because only the extreme minority have working brains.

    • CriticalThinking101

      Who disproved the “research?” Where is the research proving there is link? What about the trials of Gardisil that were stopped after the manufacturer got the FDA to fast track approval? It’s all about money and the pharmaceutical industry is protected. Too bad the medical industry as a whole is not protected from lawsuits…healthcare might be affordable then. Oh and you don’t need proof in civil court – just look at all the other medical claims out there that succeeded based on correlation.

      • LoneWiseMan

        What? There is no research. That’s the point. Hence the quotes.

        Healthcare costs have nothing to do with lawsuits. You’re a fool.

        • CriticalThinking101

          Anyone that resorts to ad hominems is not worth the time nor do they have any credibility in the argument they are trying to make.

          • LoneWiseMan

            Anyone that doesn’t know anything they’re talking about but chooses to speak as if they’re informed is a fool.

            “Oh and you don’t need proof in civil court – just look at all the other medical claims out there that succeeded based on correlation.”

            Exactly. This is why it’s a GOOD THING that idiots aren’t capable of taking it to court countless times and being awarded god knows how much based off of the “pity” of the jury instead of scientific facts.

            And healthcare costs are not high because of lawsuits. That stupid notion has long since been disproved in areas where litigation is harder to take place.

          • CriticalThinking101

            Another ad hominem; not worth my time reading the rest of you rant.

          • LoneWiseMan

            Facts and reality clearly don’t bode well with you.

          • CriticalThinking101

            Fallacies don’t bode well with me. Write an argument not based in logical fallacies and then I will finish reading it.

          • LoneWiseMan

            I don’t have to prove a negative. It’s your job to show proof. “Parents accounts and opinions” are not proof. Whereas all available evidence (lord knows how many studies) points to autism just being genetic.

            At *best*, there’s correlation, but no actual science or definitive link.

          • CriticalThinking101

            You made the initial claim, “There’s still no proof whatsoever about vaccine causing autism…” I questioned it…asking for the proof. Instead of providing proof…you engaged in continual ad hominem arguments.

          • LoneWiseMan

            It’s not up to me to prove a negative. Try to keep up here. It’s not difficult of a concept…

            If you want to make a claim:
            “Vaccines cause autism!”

            It’s up to YOU to prove that. The onus is on you.

          • CriticalThinking101

            I never claimed that. Again, you made an initial claim and failed to provide any proof. Yes, it is up to you, when you make any claim to provide claim of that proof if you want to make a reasoned argument. If not, then you are just another person spouting off nothing but opinions that bear no weight.

          • LoneWiseMan

            No assertion was made except the observation of a lack of evidence.

            Try again.

          • http://winterpatriot.com NJT

            sounds like someone needs some anger management. Everyone is a fool and idiot but me. Andrew Jackson must be embarrassed in his grave.

          • LoneWiseMan

            Crying, no content. Move along.

  • Jens_disqussion

    Thank you for covering this serious health crisis.

  • David Officer

    Flu shots, they cause the flu sometimes, right?

    Maybe more, even if you are super healthy:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7k0e3kpoxE

    • trt123

      I suggest you go speak to a few infectious disease doctors, and get all your answers from experts, not youtube.

      • Bob Loblaw

        I suggest you sacrifice your first born to the sun god because the high priest knows what’s best and has spent a lifetime training to know things about the mystic arts we could never hope to comprehend. We are unfit to judge if we should be sacrificed. Only he knows the mystic arts well enough to say if we should sacrifice someone.

        • David Officer

          +1

  • David Officer

    Mark Blaxill and many others (including a female ‘Ben Swann’) attest against vaccines:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3IMSUApeW4

  • Nate B

    Ben, you’re doing a great job, and I really appreciate your journalism.
    Keep up the good fight!

  • David Officer

    Did you know that “The interview was filmed before the Oversight and Government Reform Committee abruptly cancelled the Congressional NVICP hearing that was to take place on December 4th” ?

    http://canaryparty.org/

  • David Officer

    http://canaryparty.org/index.php/the-news/136-hearings-on-vaccine-injury-compensation-program-qdelayedq

    Written by The Canary Party

    Wednesday, 20 November 2013 13:00

    Yesterday The Canary Party and her partners who have worked for a
    year on getting hearings on vaccine injury in Congress were informed
    that the hearings on the VICP that was set for December 4th has been
    postponed until next year. We had a call this morning with the staff of
    the House Committee on Oversight and Government to get more clarity on
    their decision, and were informed that while the community of vaccine
    injured families is eager to testify, they were finding “reluctance”
    from others to participate in the hearings.

    Our response? Of course they don’t want to participate in these hearings!
    Those both inside and outside of government who are involved in the
    Vaccine Injury Compensation Program and the monumental injustice that is
    being inflicted on untold thousands of vaccine injured children do not
    want to have to show up and explain what they have done under oath!

    One thing is clear… Vaccine interests have been fighting this hearing in a way we have never seen before.

    Boiling down the message we received from OGR… they still want to work with
    us on things, and they may reschedule the hearings for next year. Do
    they mean it, or is it just a stall tactic? We don’t know.

    We STRONGLY encourage you to take time today and call the Committee on
    Oversight and Government Reform and let them know how disappointed you
    are with their decision to pull the plug on hearings for our injured
    children a mere two weeks before the event. Feel free to share with
    them your story.

    Phone: (202) 225-5074 And call your Congressional representatives and tell them you want hearings on vaccine injury.

  • J. Nev
    • David Officer

      Thank you for this link.

  • David Officer

    I found this amazing video in a comment below. Thanks Ginger Taylor.
    Most important video I have seen all day.

    Even better than Ben Swann’s.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6S1-LgYyjQg

  • http://AdventuresInAutism.com/ Ginger Taylor

    7th Amendment to the Constitution:

    “In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law”

    • Qari

      I love it

    • john

      Unless it is the government. i think that part is written in the small print at the bottom of the document.

  • kev in AB

    People better stop demonizing vaccines. Not too long ago, kids died in droves due to these illnesses. I’ll take a 1 in a million chance of autism (if it can actually be proven) over a 1 in 10 chance of getting one of these diseases.

    • PJ Carroll

      Autism is now 1 in 50 in America, Kev – not “1 in a million”. What rock have you been living under? And BTW – autism is FOREVER, while most childhood diseases are short lived.

      • trt123

        “most childhood diseases are short lived”, youre right, and so are the children that contract them. short painful deaths. good point PJ

        • PJ Carroll

          Nice try, trt123. Despite the fear-based BS spewed by “public health” officials, there are far more daily reports of children being injured or killed by vaccines than by the diseases the vaccines are supposed to protect against.

          • john

            Very good point. the reality is that while vaccines do prevent diseases the diseases they prevent are for the most part minor and will go away after a couple of days or even weeks. pertussis, vercalis, tetanus, diptheria wete all slightly dangerous many years agi but with modern fever reducers, nebulizers and steroids they are not a big deal. it just sux for a kid to go through.
            This whole court system hasn’t kept up with the times and will not be changed because the pharmaceutical companies are the biggest lobbies in dc.

        • Bob Loblaw

          Ahem. My father contracted measles, mumps, and reubella…AFTER he was vaccinated. He lived.

          I got walking pneumonia when I was a kid(5) along with my mom; don’t remember who got it first but we didn’t get vaccinated, and we did need to take antibiotics, but we lived anywway. Who’d have thought?

          My father got chickenpox from me when I was 5 or 6 and it was hell on him- he got secondary pneumonia infection which is somewhat common and that was worse, but with a few antibiotics injections in each hip he didn’t skip a day at work. Neither of us got any chickenpox or pneumonia vaccine. We lived anyway. Imagine that. No short painful death. (Gasp!)

          Incidentally my uncle was vaccinated against pneumonia just a few years ago…and two months later he died of pneumonia.

          When they pushed it on my Grandma I asked for the manufacturer’s insert instead and noticed it listed a 1% risk of adverse reactions. It also expressed the risk of the disease as 1 in x thousand rather than percent. Doing the math, even what they define as “high risk” is actually 0.0% so they express iit as 1 in tens of thousands of people because it sounds like a big number and big risk. There is some minute risk if you extent it another decimal point, like 0.03% or something but um, I’m not buying that as a justification to stick a needle full of that junk in me or my family.

          Just sayin’.

        • http://winterpatriot.com NJT

          wrong, wrong, wrong. when i was a kid EVERYBODY we know got measles. EVERYBODY we know got mumps. EVERYBODY we know got chicken pox. And EVERYBODY survived to tell about it. go figure.

    • libertarian that is concerned

      Actually, the diseases supposedly being prevented by vaccines were already on a severe decline before vaccines even came around. And some of them (like the Polio vaccine) caused an increase in things like pertussis (which was also already in decline), so THEN, the vaccine makers ‘saved’ us with the DTaP. Goodness, we should be soooo grateful to these folks……. The pharmaceutical companies saw a way to make a huge profit while being shielded by the government.

      Its ironic that the polio vaccine was responsible for thousands of cases of polio. The CDC and the developer of the vaccine admitted that. Its ironic that the DTaP vaccine was shown to be ineffective, but instead of focusing on that; first the media tried to blame the whooping cough outbreaks on ‘the unvaccinated’. When it became clear that it was at least an even split between the vaccinated and unvaccinated, the media started reporting that we need MORE boosters. MORE vaccines. MORE injections. And people just believe it.

      Make sure you go get your flu shot…….you know, the one that ‘covers’ a fraction of the actual strains, and those that it covers are last years’? The one that the Cochrane database shows has never actually decreased mortality or hospital visits? But the media tells you will do both? Line up my friend.

  • Andi

    I haven’t read all the comments here, but I just wondered if anyone has mentioned the fact that Fragile X Syndrome, a chromosome disorder of the X chromosome and affecting boys more severely (due to boys only having one x and girls having two) than girls, is the #1 cause of autism. It is diagnosable and yet, largely under/undiagnosed.

    I’m not saying (by any stretch) that some cases of autism aren’t caused by vaccine injury, but, it needs to be mentioned that autism is not something you can blood-test for and therefore is just a symptom of something else. I have no doubt in my mind that vaccines injure people – the vaccine companies admit it will happen – but we shouldn’t be forced to vaccinate because there isn’t enough science to support the ‘vaccines cause autism’ narrative.

    I would love to see an investigation into actual documented injuries vaccines cause, as well as what unseen or unknown damage they could be causing that isn’t being mentioned in mainstream such as potentially causing food allergies, as well as alzheimer’s due to the acceptance by the general population of having heavy metals injected into our bodies for our own protection.

    Our bodies were designed to heal themselves – it is the job of our DNA. If we are constantly putting toxins into our bodies, whether it is pesticides, GMOs, fluoride, no-calorie-fats and sweeteners, nitrates, sulfates, prescription medications, etc., we create the necessity for wide spread use of vaccines because we are destroying our bodies ability to fight diseases on its own. Our immune systems are severely diminished and now we have to have the argument over why YOU think I should have to shoot a poison into MY body so YOU don’t have to take responsibility for YOUR OWN BODY, feeding it right so it can do its job of keeping you disease free.

    • Jens_disqussion

      Note: Fragile X is the #1 known genetic cause for autism (and doesn’t guarantee one will develop autism if I understand correctly), but the vast majority of autism cases have no identified genetic risk factors to date.

      • Andi

        Yes, no *identified genetic risk factors… Fragile X Syndrome also the #1 un/under-diagnosed cause of autism, meaning it is likely looked over in more cases than not. There is a specific test for Fragile X that is generally not given to those “diagnosed” with autism.. so it cannot be logically assumed that just because “the vast majority of autism cases have no identified genetic risk factors to date,” that there is not an unidentified genetic cause. Most people have probably never heard of Fragile X Syndrome and don’t realize how extremely common it actually is. The fact are: if dad is a “carrier,” he will pass it on to ALL of his daughters and none of his sons; if mom is a “carrier,” she will pass it on to half of her sons and half of her daughters. If/when mom and dad are both “carriers,” you end up with the risk of having more than one child that is affected with the potential of having a severely affected girl. The degree of the mutation affects the likelihood of the child being diagnosed with autism. Since boys only have one x, the mutation only needs to be very minimal (almost undetectable) for there to be symptoms of autism. This is also why girls are generally less affected. Think about it. What is the scientific reason given for boys being overwhelmingly more diagnosed with autism than girls? As I said – I realize that this isn’t the only cause, and I do believe that vaccines cause injury, but the notion that they are the only cause, or the major cause of autism, is (in my opinion) unlikely.

        • Jens_disqussion

          Different levels of impact between genders are seen with some chemical exposures.

          Researcher, Dr. Boyd Haley, rather informally, tried exposing neural material to thimerosal (vaccine preservative), thimerosal combined with testoterone, thimerosal with aluminum salt (also a vaccine ingredient), thimerosal with estrogen, as well as an unexposed control. If I remember correctly, the thimerosal combined with aluminum caused the quickest death of the cell culture. Thimerosal with testosterone killed the neural cells more quickly than the batch with thimerosal alone and estrogen appeared to have a protective effect, slowing the damage. There may be some androgen interaction with an environmental exposure involved.

          • Andi

            … and, what I said about Fragile X Syndrome (and it’s affects on boys) …

            so, Jens_ , are you saying that you believe the “vaccine ingredient” is the ONLY reason autism affects boys more than girls?

            You do understand that Fragile X Syndrome is also a scientific explanation, right?

            I’m anti-vax myself – (because) I agree that vaccines cause harm. I merely wanted to point out that there it another, very common, cause for autism … and that I would love for Fragile X covered in MSM since it is so common, and yet, still so unheard of.

          • Jens_disqussion

            I’m not an expert, but even Fragile X appears to have a cause to me. Why does our corporate-run culture default to calling various conditions genetic, especially when there appears to be inheritance involved, and with autism we’ve spending millions already to “find the proof” of this? I suppose this is where I’m coming from. I think we may be inheriting harm from environmental exposures (I’m not sure this inheritance involves DNA) in some autism cases, but that looking to the DNA isn’t likely to help address the harm or stop the source of the problem. In the case of autism, even the few “identified” genetic susceptibilities which are optimistically estimated to explain 10% of autism cases are “mutations” or “snips” or something that suggests to me the environment is either interferring or not healthy enough to support genetic function.

            I suspect the pro-genetic approach in our culture is motivated by desire, maybe unconsciously on the part of many, to avoid liability or pressure to change practices, but feel we risk destroying ourselves or at least the lives of whatever percentage of the population is most susceptible to favored poisons.

          • Andi

            Uhhh, no. Fragile X Syndrome is 100% a physical mutation of the X Chromosome. That=genetic. To YOU, it can ‘appear’ however you want it to, but the fact is, it’s a mutation, that can be found on the X chromosome of the carrier. It can be seen in a microscope. Not everyone has symptoms (smaller mutation= harder to see under a microscope). As far as the cause for the original mutation? We can look to other chromosome disorders such as Down’s syndrome and similar for those answers. But if you are a carrier, chances are, you will pass it on, and from there it will keep on going.

  • Delbert Hoson

    “Vaccines” are the way The Illuminati inject the mind altering cells into young Americans. The young that are inoculated now will be Obama’s army in the future. The Illuminati knows The Greatest Generation will not go into Death Camps without a fight, so they pump all sorts of MIND CONTROL drugs into their systems with Happy Meals and Skittles.

    SAY NO TO VACCINES AND YES TO Claeys Old Fashioned Hard Candies!!!

  • HalinTexas

    “Vaccine Induced Brain Damage” sounds to me like a much more broad definition than just Autism, which has a broad spectrum itself. Vaccines are many. This story, like most arguments supporting it, fails to mention what specific brain injuries are incurred by any specific vaccine. Vaccines are many. If a parent refuses to vaccinate their children and their child develops the disease the vaccine would prevent, which is the more likelihood than Autism, who’s going to be responsible for the care of the child at this point? This is a germane argument. Which care is cheaper in aggregate, Autism or the disease? VICP sounds to me like legislation to protect industry that is mandated to do something by the government from lawsuits. This story, like many offered by Swann, fails to probe deep enough into the weeds of definitions of argument. Just another flaming journalism log into the gas pit of fear.

    • David Officer

      Make the vaccines safer.

  • ChrisKid

    And that families would like to present in a civil court, before a jury, which believe is their right under the Constitution.

    What article of the Constitution would cover this?

    • Bob Loblaw

      Because I think these would be technically “civil cases” if they were allowed into court, the 7th amendment applies. But it is considered “voluntary”, however most states comply, withit being interpreted to give you a jury trial in any civil suit where the damages claimed are over $20.

      So, if that applies, then when they go to court and say “these people owe us more than $20″, there should be a trial asper the 7th amendment.

      • ChrisKid

        And does the Supreme Court agree with your interpretation? And what causes you to think that a civil court would be better for most of these cases?

        • Bob Loblaw

          It’s not “my interpretation”. Look it up- this is the generally accepted interpretation which has been used. I never said a civil court would be “better” so please refrain from putting words in my mouth. I said that they would be civil cases.

          They are claiming damages, rather than charging anyone with a crime, and therefore it would be a “civil case” rather than a criminal one which comes after a court of law rules that damage was done, and is used as evidence in a criminal case against the manufacturer.

          • ChrisKid

            Okay, if it’s the generally accepted interpretation, what does the SCOTUS have to say about it? Why aren’t these being classed as civil cases and brought to jury trial?

          • Jens_disqussion
          • ChrisKid

            So the Supreme Court has ruled that there actually is no Constitutional right to civil suit in these cases. In other words, the Constitutional issue has been settled and bringing it up in this article, as if it’s an open question, is just ignoring that reality.

          • David Officer

            I like that – don’t question the system, the system has decided. “The Constitutional issue has been settled and bringing it up in this article, as if it’s an open question, is just ignoring that reality.” How unAmerican to question a SCOTUS ruling. If it’s the law of the land, it’s final.

            Or is it? Slavery, war, abortion, etc, are worthy items of discussion, questioning even, long after SCOTUS has made a decision.

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6S1-LgYyjQg

          • ChrisKid

            Didn’t say it shouldn’t be discussed. I’m sorry you have trouble understanding that. What I said was that this article mentioned it as if it’s still in question. As did some of the posters here. There actually is a SCOTUS ruling on it. By all means, discuss it if you want. Just be accurate about it.

          • Shakewell

            ? It really goes without saying that Supreme Court decisions aren’t set in stone. List of overruled SCOTUS decisions… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_overruled_U.S._Supreme_Court_decisions

          • ChrisKid

            Again, I never said it shouldn’t be discussed, nor that it would never be overturned. Right now, however, and for the foreseeable future, it’s not an open question. Therefore, families’ belief that they have that right, in this time period where it’s being discussed, is incorrect. That they think they should, might be an issue to talk about. That they think they do, means they’re bound to be quite disappointed, and it does them a serious disservice to write it up as if they’re correct about it.

            enSwann_ on Twitter

          • Jens_disqussion

            This Supreme Court ruling IMO is more evidence that the entire federal government has been captured by special interests and acts in the favor of a few in violation of the law, the Constitution.

          • ChrisKid

            And the legal basis for that opinion is…?

          • Shakewell

            I agree with David Officer– let’s see what the SCOTUS says (if the case is even heard) about the constitutionality of the “indefinite detention” provision of the NDAA– whether it’s constitutional for the president to order the indefinite detainment without charge or trial of a “belligerent” journalist.

          • ChrisKid

            Interesting, but what does that have to do with vaccines?

          • Tim

            And you would be exactly right sir.

          • Tim

            The Supreme Court in that ruling basically committed TREASON by violating the 7th Amendment. So, just like many other rulings of their’s, despite CLEAR logic in ‘interpreting’ our RIGHTS, people like you would rather Totalitarians make decisions that fly in the face of reality due to their own political/financial allegiances? Next the Supreme Court will say it’s okay to cage people accused of terrorism in the town square for stoning without a trial despite all the Constitutional Amendments saying otherwise, and you’ll sit there like an IDIOT and say “so it’s ‘settled law’”…..

          • Dorit Reiss

            Article III, clause 3: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

            The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.”

            It does not cover an interpretation of the constitution that you do not like.

          • Dorit Reiss

            Article III, section 3, U.S. Constituion: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
            The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.” An interpretation by the S.Ct that a citizen does not like is not treason.

          • Bob Loblaw

            I think a case has to be brought to them first for the Supreme Court to rule on their own interpretation. They have ruled on cases regarding it, but nothing like this in regards to the 7th. Either they haven’t been brought forth or at least one hasn’t been allowed to be heard by the court. They have however ruled, (as far as I know without considering the 7th) that they have no right to sue. But if the 7th is applied to it and they make a case out of it I suppose the Supreme Court can, but probably won’t overturn their previous ruling.

            And of course they aren’t classed as civil cases because of the law that was passed to forbid such civil claims in favor of the VICP’s kangaroo court system for fear that the industry would go bankrupt from suits and no vaccines would be made. The lawmakers were convinced by industry lobbyists that this would lead to some catastrophic health crisis like the black death so they did this.

          • ChrisKid

            Actually, Barbara Loe Fisher was instrumental in getting the NVICP put into place. There might have been some involvement from the industry, but it’s not as if they were the main impetus.
            Yes, a case would have to be brought before the Supreme Court for them to rule on it, but it’s been nearly thirty years. You’d think, if there were a valid argument to be made, somebody would have made it by now.
            And seriously, with the higher ‘win’ percentage in the NVICP, why would anyone really want to take a case to regular civil court and pay their own expenses to do so?

          • Bob Loblaw

            My understanding is that Barbara Loe Fisher got the NVICP put in as an alternative to offering no compensation at all.

            “You’d think, if there were a valid argument to be made, somebody would have made it by now.”

            You say that as though simply having a valid argument is all it takes. You might ask them (rather than I) why they haven’t been able to file such a claim rather than implying the science/’argument’ is not valid.

            “…. seriously, with the higher ‘win’ percentage in the NVICP, why would anyone really want to take a case to regular civil court and pay their own expenses to do so?”

            Seriously? Children are going in and coming out with brain damage and parents may never even know to report it as possibly being vaccine related and when they do and make a big fuss they often get a check so you think that makes it okay?

            In other words, you think it’s okay that pharmaceutical companies knowingly push a product capable of such effects as autism and death, with *complete immunity for damages, so long as taxpayers foot the bill?*

            Well I guess if you’re for the bail-out of the banksters, the insurance companies(Obamacare), the airline industry, the mortgage industry, and the military/surveillance industry, you may as well bail out the pharmaceutical industry for their failures, willful negligence, incompetence, and malicious behavior too while you’re at it.

          • ChrisKid

            Missed the classes about risk analysis, did you?
            And you’re still yammering about vaccines causing autism, which isn’t at all true. Pretty much invalidates your whole comment, doesn’t it?

          • Bob Loblaw

            No, every comment you make invalidates your position. I haven’t ever yammered once whatsoever about vaccines causing autism. I simply stated the facts. You cannot come up with a single valid point to refute any single point or fact I stated. The best you can do is act like I need classes on risk analysis..

            The manufacturer’s inserts for the DTaP injection even said it was temporally associated with autism and SIDS. While you’re insisting it doesn’t cause autism, the fact is some kids are taking it and getting autism just after. You can insist it’s the doctor’s cologne if you like, but the parents think it’s the injections and want the companies held liable for their product.

            These are just the facts. No yammering or claiming vaccines cause autism. The insert for the DTaP shot, not just the parents of autistic kids listed it as a side effect so there is no need to make such a claim as it is confirmed fact.

          • ChrisKid

            Temporal association is not causation. Autism is temporally associated with thousands of events in a child’s life. Why do you not insist on studying each and every one of those? In the meantime, dozens of large scale epidemiological studies show no evidence of causation. I think I’ll go with the science, instead of the assumption.
            As for SIDS, there are actually studies showing that DTaP might well have a protective effect against SIDS. Vaccinated children have a lower rate of SIDS, so whatever the reported adverse events might be, again, actual studies show no evidence of causation.
            And one more time, the inserts do not list autism as a side effect of the vaccine. They list it as something that was reported after the vaccine was given, during clinical trials. They go on to say, as even you admitted right there in your comment, that that does not indicate any connection except temporal. Besides learning something about risk analysis, apparently you also need to learn the difference between adverse event and adverse effect. They’re not anywhere close to the same.

          • Bob Loblaw

            “And one more time, the inserts do not list autism as a side effect of the vaccine. They list it as something that was reported after the
            vaccine was given, during clinical trials.”

            Make believe if you like that health issues occuring after taking a drug are not side effects, but coincidental side “events”.

            If you like you can also believe tobacco science that says seizures, fainting, rashes, allergies, GI dysfunction, loss of speech, autism and death directly after getting the injection are all coincidence and that the shot prevents SIDS. You can even tell those families that their child’s autism could have been precipitated by the same baby shampoo or baby toy that they just happened to have been exposed to just after getting vaccinated.

            For the rest of us, there’s reality. There’s plenty of science to support, the hypothesis that vaccines and their adjuvants could precipitate or cause autism and other disorders. They just wanted to be able to present that science in court, hold the companies liable, and hope that this problem is taken care of rather than swept under the rug.

          • ChrisKid

            They presented three of the most prevalent hypotheses in court, put forth their best expert witnesses, along with plenty of parental testimony, and they couldn’t make the case.
            In the meantime, the problem has been studied, and studied, and studied, and studied, dozens of time, involving thousands of children, and NO evidence has been found of a causal connection between vaccines and autism. The reports of anything under that rug have been greatly exaggerated.

          • Bob Loblaw

            When did they presennt any of this in court?

            You keep repeating the lie that there is no evidence or no valid argument that supports a “causal” connection to autism(just as there was no causal connection between tobacco and lung cancer) despite it being among immediate side effects and plenty of science *suggesting* that this *is* happening. You now insist that reports to the contrary are greatly exaggerated.

            Abnormal measles-mumps-rubella antibodies and CNS autoimmunity in children with autism.
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12145534

            “Autoimmunity to the central nervous system (CNS), especially to myelin basic protein (MBP), may play a causal role in autism… Because many autistic children harbor elevated levels of measles antibodies, we conducted a serological study of measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) and MBP autoantibodies.

            ….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.”

            Notice that last sentence in particular. You may think that we should pretend this stuff is safe because “might be related” is not “evidence…of a causal connection” but some people think it’s enough that you should be able to not only refuse, but to sue to get further studies done to understand the threat and hold companies responsible for damages.

          • ChrisKid

            Who says you can’t refuse? You’re holding up one 11 year old study that says ‘might be related’ and absolutely refusing to accept at least a dozen other studies over the past couple of decades, and the meta-analysis of the IOM. That’s not a valid way to study the issue, my friend. It’s just a whole lot of confirmation bias on your part.
            And no, as much as you’d like to misread the product inserts, autism is not listed as a side effect.

          • Bob Loblaw

            I didn’t mention anything about refusal being prohibited.

            I’m holding up one of many studies that not only find correlation, but possible mechanism of action, and altogether, strongly suggest causation.

            I’m refusing only to accept industry sponsored studies that are clearly tobacco science. I’m not ignoring any IOM report. I simply had no reason to bring it up. You just brought it up because it was used in nindustry propaganda to say that few adverse effects are caused by vaccines.

            But since you mention it, they did find definite causal links between vaccines and 14 serious health effects including febrile seizures, and life threatening allergic reactions,

            The IOM also said:
            “For the vast majority, (135 vaccine-adverse event pairs), the evidence is inadequate to accept *or reject* a causal relationship.”

            This is important because the current state of science can’t prove that the vaccines aren’t doinng this while parents for years
            have reported multiple such injuries to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System(VAERS).

            Insufficient scientific evidence to make a call about whether certain vaccines do or do not cause a wide range of serious health conditions, such as encephalitis, encephalopathy, stroke, asthma, autism, SIDS, multiple sclerosis, arthritis, lupus, and blood disorders, is a good reason to not deny possible causation and to inject children with poisonous adjuvants and viral contagions.

          • ChrisKid

            Gee, Bob, why didn’t you include the rest of the quotation, instead of just the one sentence? Could it be because the rest of the paragraph says this:
            “In many cases, the adverse event being examined is an extremely rare condition, making it hard to study. In these cases, there was not adequate evidence to determine if the vaccine was or was not causally associated.”

            Why isn’t there enough evidence? Because the adverse events being reported are so exceedingly rare that there is no way to tell if there’s any relationship or not. If it only happens once in several million possibilities there’s no way to look for patterns or clusters. It might well be just a complete anomaly. You don’t want to accept that part of the picture, do you? The statistics don’t support your claims, Bob.
            And while we’re at it, as much as you’d also like to continue spreading fear and lies, vaccine adjuvants are not toxic in the amounts used.
            Take a minute, look up dose response. It’ll do you good.

          • Bob Loblaw

            “Rest of the quotation”? It’s an entirely different quote.

            You think it’s just an “anomaly” that some kids(rarely) go in healthy and come out with brain damage? You think the statistics don’t support my claims despite the fact that my “claims” are themselves staistics and studies.

            What I don’t accept is the tobacco science you are supporting with doctored and flawed statistics that can’t or won’t show or consider correlations with things like diabetes and asthma, which rely instead on flawed reporting methods to determine if a vaccine cased a reaction etc. Parents are telling you it caused a reaction. Get your head out of your rectal cavity and quit acting like tobacco science will ever disprove this.

            There is a mountain of evidence showing that they are not safe and that the rise in certain health problems correlate strongly.

            Dr. Tomlijenovic wrote a paper and in it, were transcripts showing among other things that JCVI was aware MMR vaccine can cause brain damage. The transcript from a 1990 meeting of the JCVI CSM/DH Joint Sub-Committee on Adverse Reactions notes that JCVI was aware that MMR was definitely linked to causing at least 10 known cases of both meningitis and encephalitis annd they covered it up.

            http://www.ecomed.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/3-tomljenovic.pdf

            That yours is a rational conclusion,- that despite a direct correlation it is a coincidental anomalous adverse health effect, rather than a rare side effect is something I reject.

            That sort of desperate attempt to justify this is either a symptom of denial, or no more than propagandna to accompany more tobacco science.

            Again you demonstrate immense ignorance by insisting these adjuvants aren’t toxic. They are being injected directly into the bloodstream and crossing the blood-brain barrier and in many cases alongside neurotoxic additives such as aluminum. This is a fact. This is not a lie, and there is no need to fear anything; just don’t inject poison even in minute amounts.

          • ChrisKid

            Yes, the rest of the quotation. It’s a different sentence but the same paragraph, and without the rest of it, you’ve taken what you quoted out of context. Deliberately, I think, because the context doesn’t support your conclusion.
            And your last paragraph clearly demonstrates your total ignorance of anything about this subject. You have no idea how vaccines are administered (hint: never into the bloodstream) and you have no clue that an aluminum salt is the adjuvant. It cannot be the adjuvant and also be administered alongside the adjuvant. And, as always, the amount being used is way too minuscule to be toxic.
            Dose response, Bob, dose response. Go learn something.

          • Bob Loblaw

            No, it’s not out of context. The context does not change the fact that the connection between these injections and autism and other disorders can not be ruled out. This fact along with a preponderance of data and parents’ experiences reveal that you know far less thhan you think you do.

            You speak of my ignorance while giving a dazzling display of your own. There are many adjuvants and additives, but in addition to substances which simply trigger an immune response, there are ones that are known to be neurotoxic such as aluminum that are added as adjuvants and preservatives. The fact that all you can say is “dose response” shows that you have absolutely no understanding of what’s going in the body or anything outside tobacco science and industry propaganda.

            The “miniscule” amounts are often well above FDA allowable levels and yes they can and do travel to the brain despite what tobacco science told you. But they don’t have to even go to the brain. Squalene is in the body naturally for instance. But when injected, it is recognized as a foreign body and an immune response is triggered; so squalene is used as an adjuvant. The problem is that your immune system can go on to attack squalene in your nerve tissue.

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12127050
            “These results suggest that the production of ASA in GWS patients is linked to the presence of squalene in certain lots of anthrax vaccine.”

            http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/11/99
            ‘*Intramuscular* injection of alum-containing vaccine was associated with the appearance of aluminum deposits in distant organs, such as spleen and *brain* where they were still detected one year after injection.”

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22099159
            “The application of the Hill’s criteria to these data indicates that the correlation between Al(aluminum) in vaccines and ASD (autism spectrum disorders) may be causal.”

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2819810/?tool=pubmed
            ‘Behavioural analyses in these mice revealed significant impairments in a number of motor functions as well as diminished spatial memory capacity. The demonstrated neurotoxicity of aluminum hydroxide and its relative ubiquity as an adjuvant suggest that greater scrutiny by the scientific community is warranted.”

          • ChrisKid

            The preponderance of data, the scientific consensus, shows no evidence of vaccine causation of autism. If you’re going to insist on following the preponderance of evidence, you’ll be admitting that nothing you’ve said is correct.

          • Bob Loblaw

            What you call the scientific consensus and preponderance of data, I call tobacco science.

            If you’re going to insist nothing I’ve said is correct, you have to ignore the science just as the JCVI did in the UK; knowingly rejecting independent studies and putting forth industry studies despite admitting in their own meetings that the science shhows the vaccinne can cause the sort of damage associated with autism spectrum disorders.

          • ChrisKid

            I started out asking you for evidence that the quote you posted was valid. You not only refused to provide that evidence, you didn’t have a clue what I was asking for.
            Call it what you will, preponderance of evidence and scientific consensus still remains what it is. You can like it or not like it. That doesn’t change the facts.
            You’d do yourself a favor if you’d broaden your sources beyond antivaccine websites. You might even learn something.

          • Bob Loblaw

            No, you asked for evidence you yourself provided. How does not providing you with something you already provided while asking for it, mean I don’t have a clue what you’re askinng for?

            Yes the scientific consensus remains that the connection between autism spectrum disorders and vaccines cannot be ruled out, and is likely. Your tobacco science ignores the facts.

            You’d do yourself a favor if you’d go to pubmed and read the actual studies I posted or the many others that make up the consensus. One showed aluminum adjuvants do make it to the brain and how. Another showed that they may play a causal role in autism spectrum disorders and you cannot refute this except by simple denial and tobacco science about the dosages being too miniscule to do what ALL of the legitimate science and many reports from parents shows it is doing.

          • ChrisKid

            “Conclusions

            Immunisations are associated with a halving of the risk of SIDS. There are biological reasons why this association may be causal, but other factors, such as the healthy vaccinee effect, may be important. Immunisations should be part of the SIDS prevention campaigns.”
            http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X07002800

      • Dorit Reiss

        The question of when a jury trial is required is actually somewhat more complicated than that. The basic point is that in some circumstances, Congress may give the power to adjudicate to a body that is not an article III court. If that’s done “permissibly”, there is no right to a jury trial. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/492/33.
        When it is permissible is somewhat unclear, but can easily cover this, whether because by making compensation come from the federal government this is now a “public right” or because this is an exception. See Granfinanciera, linked above.

      • Dorit Reiss

        It’s not quite that simple. The leading case is Granfinanciera, http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/492/33, and if it’s permissible for congress to create an adjudicatory scheme that is not an article III court, the right to a jury does not apply. when it is permissible is a little blurry but probably covers this, either because since the U.S. government undertook to compensate it’s a public right or through the exception to when a private right requires an article III court.
        So there’s at least a very powerful argument that there is no right to a jury here.

    • g.johnon

      right of redress under the first amendment.

      • ChrisKid

        The right to redress of grievances applies to the government. Not to private enterprise.

        • g.johnon

          you are correct kid, my bad. I was operating under the idea that the two are in cahoots, but that was not the point of your question.

  • Caroline

    You guys are TOTALLY missing the point here! Children born in the
    last 20 plus years have the most abnormal gut flora from generations of
    antibiotic use from their parents and their parents before them and so
    on. We are born into this world mainly sterile and when we move through
    the birth canal, this is our first inoculation with the outside world.
    Ideally our mom’s birth canal is teeming with beneficial microbes, but
    that’s not always the case in our modern world due to the over-use of
    antibiotics and the consumption of processed, devitalized foods that put
    a huge strain on our bodies through nutritional deficiencies, rancid
    and trans fats, food additives, etc., etc. Sadly, children born from a
    C-Section miss natural inoculation altogether and most women receive
    intravenous antibiotics at birth even when delivering naturally, which
    indiscriminately kills beneficial and pathogenic microbes alike, so our
    kids born today are pretty doomed when it comes to starting off with a
    hardy immune system, which is located in the gut… nearly 80 to 90% of
    it! Babies today receive little to no inoculation at birth and their
    immune system growth and maturation is halted or greatly stunted.

    When
    gut flora is imbalanced or the gut is in a state of DYSBIOSIS, the gut
    becomes a host of all sorts of pathogens. These pathogenic bacteria,
    which are supposed to be out-numbered by beneficial bacteria, create a
    toxic environment in the gut. Now the gut is a source of toxicity to
    the bloodstream rather than a source of nourishment. Undigested foods,
    toxins, and endotoxins are shuttled to the gut to leave the body through
    the bowel. Instead these toxins produced by the pathogens themselves
    now flood the bloodstream. This is the very beginning of the problem…
    dysbiosis, congested detox pathways (many children are born jaundiced
    these days – so much so that it’s considered “common”, but this is still
    NOT NORMAL!)

    We used to have A LOT LESS vaccinations at birth
    and the subsequent vaccines were spaced out as our immature immune
    system became more mature. NOW…. babies are given up to or more than
    17 shots AT BIRTH! The immune system is SO IMMATURE at this point!
    It’s the worst time to inoculate! We need to take EACH CHILD’S
    presentations into account to see if they are READY for a round of
    vaccines. All at once is just too much for most kids these days. They
    are our canaries in the coal mine! We have to bio-individualize
    vaccination plans instead of applying the same inoculation protocol to
    every child born!

    So, back to the gut…. Once it is a source
    of toxicity and the bloodstream and liver are overwhelmed and congested,
    in comes a vaccine! Many vaccines open up the BLOOD BRAIN BARRIER.
    This is a protective barrier in the brain’s blood vessels that guard the
    gates of the vessels to protect the brain tissue from being compromised
    by toxins and such crossing the blood brain barrier into the actual
    brain tissue. Well, many vaccines FORCE the blood brain barriers to
    open all of the toxins spilling in from the toxic, dysbiotic gut now
    FLOOD THE BRAIN! This is why so many parents see such a drastic change
    in their children after vaccination. They are literally drunk on toxins
    and their behavior changes drastically from that point on.

    So
    again, if we can take each child on a case-by-case basis and vaccinate
    them (or NOT) depending on the true state and maturation of their immune
    system (again, 80 to 90% of it is located in the gut!) we could save a
    lot of families a lot of grief and help our children to grow up to be
    healthy and thriving human beings. We owe this to them! The village
    raises the child! If you would like to read more about this “gut/brain
    connection” please read a wonderful book by Dr. Natasha Campbell-McBride
    titled “Gut and Physiology Syndrome” or GAPS for short. I think it
    will open many minds as to what is REALLY going on behind this whole
    vaccination debate. Happy Holidays to all and continued good health
    too! ~ Caroline

    • David Officer

      Good info! My kids pediatrician supported any parent that wanted to hold off on vaccines until the baby’s immune system was mature enough to learn from the vaccine…+2 years old.

  • Roy Blizzard III

    There was a recent finding about Tylenol and Inoculations that supported other findings in the last three years about the Mitochondria in the brain and that is Autism is caused by a shutdown of the mitochondria in the brain. With no energy sources the brain has the power to run,-lights are on but nobody is home sysndrome- but not perform high functions. What these studies found was that a combination of Tylenol taken within 24 hours of an inoculation had the potential to suddenly turn off the mitochondria in the brain in many children. What do Drs say after a child gets a shot? Just give them some Tylenol. Wow, instant recipe for disaster. There is only 1 product on the market that restarts up to 92% of the mitochondria in the body and Drs won’t tell you about it either so you are forced to go through years of food modification diets to try and overcome that cocktail that the Drs gave you.

    • DonL

      And that one product is..?

    • Laurie

      It depletes glutathione if I’m not mistaken. I’m interested in what this product is as well.

      • David Officer

        Glutathione is awesome.

        I just wish, for some kids like my son, the ability to form glutathione in the cells, especially the brain cells, wasn’t hampered by free glutamate in shots.

  • Brian Parsons

    I think what most people are missing is that the number of vaccinated vs. the number of claims is a drop in the hat. Vaccines aren’t very profitable, and thus to incentivize the Pharmaceutical companies to make them, they shield them from liability. There is a set % that will have a negative and sometimes severe reaction to vaccines. Though small, litigation would most assuredly decentivize the Pharmaceutical companies from producing vaccines, because the profit margins are low enough, that it’s a net negative product. Because HHS, the CDC, the WHO, etc. believe the benefits of the larger effect outweigh the costs of the minority, it is in their best interest to shield the Pharm. companies in order that the vaccines are still produced. It’s not necessarily right, but Civil litigation would most assuredly find in favor of families involved. There’s so much bad science out there, the public doesn’t know what to think.

    • David Officer

      Here’s a video even better than Ben Swann’s:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6S1-LgYyjQg

      • JoeOrange

        Thanks for this video!

    • Francois Arseneau

      That’s funny. Vaccines are a big business. The reason they wouldn’t be profitable is because no one would pay for them in the real world. But by using the government to subsidize the industry and the marketing of fear, they are able to keep the hoax going. Plus, now they are protected by their client. It’s a win-win for big pharma. They’re only looking for their own interests, none else.

      • Brian Parsons

        It’s about opportunity cost. The cost to develop vaccines and produce them makes their world wide profitability very minimal compared to the profits made on a single pharmaceutical drug. Not to mention (for the conspiracy nuts) that vaccines have the opposite effect of what the intended purpose of pharmaceuticals is. i.e. aid in treatment of disease. i.e. prevention vs. treatment

        A drug company would much rather put the same resources into creating pharmaceuticals than vaccines. Govt. subsidies and vaccine courts are all about ensuring they’re still produced instead of more profitable drugs.

  • anthonybgonzalez

    basically…correlation/causation. That people sued doesn’t make what they claim true, just that they won an argument. Courts aren’t bodies of science. Swan makes the point but writes in a piece sympathetic to the anti-vaccination crowd.

    • Shakewell

      But the hilarious thing is that every time a vaccine-induced autism case does not prevail in vaccine court, the media blares that science has proven that vaccines don’t cause autism. Pick a lane.

      • CriticalThinking101

        In its report of October 1, 2001, the IOM’s Immunization Safety Review Committee concluded that the evidence was inadequate to either accept or reject a causal relationship between thimerosal exposure from childhood vaccines and the neurodevelopmental disorders of autism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and speech or language delay. Additional studies were needed to establish or reject a causal relationship. The Committee did conclude that the hypothesis that exposure to thimerosal-containing vaccines could be associated with neurodevelopmental disorders WAS biologically plausible.

    • CriticalThinking101

      How much of science is based on correlation, hypothesis, and theories? All of which are not hard facts. Most of it…

      • anthonybgonzalez

        Red Herring.

        • CriticalThinking101

          You cannot selectively dismiss something based on correlation when a great deal of science is based on correlation. I agree correlation is not causation, but it does change that science bases a lot of opinions and more off correlation.

  • Draken

    Hey Ben you said in the video that you would put a list of sources on your website, where are they?

  • http://bashpr0mpt.com BaSH PR0MPT

    This guys premise is invalid. His argument is asinine. He’s spreading misinformation and poor home-research as fact to an already confused and unqualified audience who struggle to grasp science yet–due to Dunning-Kruger effect–feel confidently that they have an above average grasp, which leads to extremely poor judgment. MMR-Autism links were debunked a week after the Lancet mistake of publishing unverified claims. Nearly 30 years later we still have crack pot hippies and nutter mums spouting the same gobbledigook nonsense. Notice it’s always mums? Notice they’re always hippies to a degree? Wtf is the go with that? That’s a stronger correlation (+/= causation) event if you ask me.

    • David Officer

      “Nearly 30 years later we still have crack pot hippies and nutter mums
      spouting the same gobbledigook nonsense. Notice it’s always mums?”

      Well played. You’ve won the day and saved your fellow countrymen. -Your Goverment

  • Bjames

    This guy Swann gets it wrong right from the first graph. He doesn’t
    even know that Jenny McCarthy is the person who says that vaccines cause
    autism, not that they don’t.

    Give an error of that
    proportion it’s not surprising that he understands nothing about vaccine
    court or how compensation is awarded without any proof that vaccines
    cause damage. One of the whole points of the vaccine damage act was to
    give people money who had not proved that vaccines were at fault. They
    only had to show that an encephalopathy (which can be caused by any
    number of things, many of which have yet to be identified) occurred
    within 15 days of vaccination. Hence, even random cases of
    encephalopathy (of which there are countless numbers) who by chance fall
    into that window will get compensated if there is no other cause shown.

    Thus
    a handful of cases that go through the system, where people receive
    money on the basis of what may be – and certainly very often is – no
    connections with vaccines. And where encephalopathies occur in
    connection with vaccines, it is because many vaccines cause fever, fever
    causes seizures (usually benign), and seizures sometimes can reveal
    nascant brain problems that may have been evolving since birth. And of
    one thing we can be certain, those fevers would be incalculably greater
    in number and severity as a result of an infection that a vaccine can
    prevent.

    It’s a pity that someone who claims to be
    an “investigative journalist” seems unwilling even to investigate. All
    he does is scoop stuff up from crank websites and makes out he’s found
    something out.

    With regard to this guy, I’m pretty sure I’m wasting my time.

    • Zandar

      This guy Bjames gets it wrong from the first [para?]graph. He doesn’t even know that the ‘claim’ being spoken of in the second sentance is the same ‘claim’ that is mentioned in the first sentance. What is the claim? That vaccines cause autism. THAT is the claim made by Jenny McCarthy.

      Given an error of that proportion, it’s not surprising he intentionally misunderstands all other information on the topic.

      It’s a pity that someone who accuses another of mistakes, is so quick to make one himself. All he does is mis-read information to suit his prejudices.

      • Allahu Akbar

        Once again…re-read the 1st paragraph…I surely cannot be the only person that understands how to read & comprehend.

        So sad how many illiterate people there are in the world!

        • David Wayne

          Zander got it right. You are the illiterate one here.

          • Allahu Akbar

            David, you’re a moron…

            The “claim” he’s referred to that we’ve all heard is that Jenny McCarthy “claims” vaccines cause autism.

            He didn’t say Jenny McCarthy said that claim was untrue…Learn to read!

            ***”The claims that autism is caused by vaccines”*** (statement by Jenny McCarthy)… have been completely disproven, right? (this part of the sentence is a question)

            We have all heard that claim (see above, special characters added for emphasis for those who are unable to critically think), maybe most famously by actress and model Jenny McCarthy.

            Go back to school David

    • John

      You are wrong from your first paragraph.

    • Allahu Akbar

      Learn how to read…

      He saying that Jenny McCarthy “does say” that vaccines cause autism…

      Re-read and re-post. ;)

    • Paracelsus

      You ever read the Vaccine court docket cases ? You ever peruse the VAERS database ? What is your “expert” opinion on the percentage of non convulsive seizure activity reported in infants with fevers after receiving vaccines ? What actually is occurring in the brain when a seizure occurs ? Do you march to the AAP discussion of seizures being benign, or ACEP version that any seizure is a serious condition ? What, you mean they are different ? Because she is beautiful and paraded around in her birthday suit doesn’t make her any less of a qualified observer, or any parent for that matter. A much more qualified observer than a white coat whose office revenue from vaccines is about 50%. Nascant brain problems ? Nascent developmental progress has been covered up even more when they got tired of hearing from parents that were screaming about loss of skills developed from 12 months to 18 months. To many voices forced the powers that be to shift the MMR recommendations to 12 months, thus downplay the regressions being reported. BTW-What is the average fever incurred by someone suffering from whooping cough ? Next time you want to criticize a good piece of reporting simply about the VICP and its Kangaroo Court, get informed. VICP is controlled opposition nothing more, nothing less. Look ! A squirrel.

    • lucks

      She changed her position.

    • AmaraGrace

      This^…is what a vaccine profiteer sounds & acts like. I agree; wasting your time – on all accounts, not just with Mr. Swan.

    • Becky

      What he said is:

      “The claims that autism is caused by vaccines have been completely
      disproven, right? We have all heard that claim, maybe most famously by
      actress and model Jenny McCarthy.”

      The claim being that autism is caused by vaccines, a claim made by Jenny McCarthy. He is saying she claims that vaccines cause autism not that she isn’t.

  • Svein Michaelsen

    Excellent work, Ben. Thanks!

  • Editor

    One thing that I see in this article is an unclear writing style, bad grammar, poor typing skills and bad editing. Maybe if all of the above were corrected the articles on this site would be better understood.

    • tzakrajsek

      This article is a transcript of the video…

      • Draken

        The fact that it is a transcript in my mind makes things worse. Don’t get me wrong it does excuse some of the grammar issues as we tend to use a lot of slang terms in speech. The problem is that Ben (or whoever posted this on his behalf), didn’t even take the time to say that the ‘article’ was a transcript. Nor did anyone take the time to compile and post a list of sources, despite the fact that near the closing credits of the video, Ben said that they would.

        I agree with Editor that the formatting of the article/transcript looks amateurish, and drags down the overall quality of the work. It really does look like an intern just slapped it together. I also take issue because if you follow the article/transcript while listening to the video, you’ll see mistakes.

        For example at 02:08 Ben states that families can file for an exemption from needing vaccines to be able to attend school. This line is not in the article/transcript. On the flip side at 03:32 there is an extra line in the article/transcript that is not in the video. This lack of proofing bugs me.

        Also following Mr. Swans speech, listening to pauses, breaths, stops and emphasis I agree that the placement of commas, periods, dashes, and even parenthesis in the article/transcript does not match the inflections of Mr. Swan’s voice.

        I’m not a grammar expert, I would dare argue it is my worst subject (any mistakes in my response so far should prove that). But following along reading the article/transcript while listening to the video, I agree with Editor things don’t look right.

        • g.johnon

          and yet on the other hand, everything written in the new York times and wall street journal are so fastidiously edited that they just have to be true.

          • Draken

            First off my comment had nothing to do with the truth of the matter asserted, only professionalism – or the lack there of. Secondly I don’t read either of those news papers so I can’t tell you. What I can tell you is that if you think my critique is harsh look at some of the comments from YouTube.

          • g.johnon

            all I am saying is that immaterial minutia should not detract one from content. yes ben could use an editor, but his positions remain well stated. well, in most cases anyway.

          • Draken

            Let’s be realistic, if someone doesn’t take the time to make their work look professional, then why should I assume they also took the time to do proper research?

            You are correct that perfect formatting does not equal perfect research, but my problem is deeper than just this one article, I would almost say that 90% of the content on this website is only half researched and half done.

            This entire farce of an article/transcript is Ben not saying that there is a link, but allowing others to say it for him. He doesn’t cover both sides of the issue, he allows one person state their opinion on the topic and then calls it news. Did Mr. Swan reach out to anyone from the vaccine court to do an interview? Did he interview any doctors, any medical professionals, people who are actually researching autism? What about lawyers who practice in front of the vaccine court? Other than Mr. Blaxill from the Canary Party, did Mr. Swan talk to anyone? Not that I see. Ben quoted a HHS website (without providing the link mind you) but I see no attempt at research outside of a single source.

            The vaccine courts are tort reform, not science. 83 cases out of MILLIONS vaccinated somehow shows that autism is caused by vaccines?

            Look, I’ve been trying to keep out the the primary debate over the science of vaccines and autism because there is too much dis-information, and too high of emotions. I figured I would be critical of the quality of the article/transcript instead. I’ll admit that I didn’t offer the most constructive criticism, but if Ben wants to be taken seriously, then he and this website with his name on it needs to step it up.

          • g.johnon

            draken, I just spent nearly an hour writing a response to you. I hit the post button and sat here for 10 full minutes watching the little blue ball mover through the three round dots as the response refused to post. of course it was some of my very best work ever, so now I have a criticism for the site.
            short form, I come for the debate so the article itself only needs to provoke one.
            it is apparent that your standards for the site differ and you made your case quite nicely.
            so keep posting your critiques and maybe they will have an impact on the quality of the site.
            you will no longer get interference from me in this regard.
            I have disagreed with you on other topics here and look forward more healthy debate with you in the future.
            keep having fun and good luck with improving the site.

  • Meatbyproducts

    I would have to take hours out of my life to explain how wrong much of this is. Ben Please do more research. The court dose exist. But it pays out not for autistic children. It pays out for the slim margins that something does go wrong. A child is allergic to eggs and it is not known or the child is the 1 in 1 million that has a reaction. In the 1990s they expanded what the label autism covers and with that expansion we now have under a 1% rate of all forms of autism (there are even talks to move ADD and ADHD it to Autistic Spectrum Disorder). I will take the 1% chance my child could get autism over the infant mortality rate of pre vaccination era USA. Small pox? Measles, Mumps, Rubella? A woman that is pregnant and ends up with rubella has a greater than 20% chance of having a miscarriage. I think know that the over 600 studies showing that there is 0 link of autism and vaccines should make you feel okay since the 2 showing that it does have both been shown to be faked. One even resulted Dr. Wakefield losing his ability to practice medicine in the UK.

    • JoeOrange

      I think you need to do more research. Prior to this news cast I found most of the same facts that Ben has stated in this video. He did post some things that I didn’t know that I have since verified.

      The good thing about the way Ben gives his stories is that he gives the sources of his statements in the video. So please take the time to go and look at the laws and government papers that he references. If you feel like you don’t need to that’s fine, but I will say that what he says is true both from a personal experience and from researching.

      • David Officer

        Hooah!

    • Arun

      The govt. concessions of vaccine induced autism were well publicized, not a secret. The study was done by Pace Law School, not a fringe outfit. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2s0BRaYH_rI

      You say “600 studies” prove autism is not caused by vaccines but the CDC claims less than 20 key studies, all of which have been problematic. Speaking of research, you can read the studies themselves here as well as the counter-research and also studies that found positive association between vaccines, vaccine components and autism: http://www.fourteenstudies.org

      Everyone is concerned about communicable disease. Questioning the safety of vaccines is not tantamount to being “anti-vaccine” anymore than, say, Sinead O’Connor or Joni Mitchell are “anti-music” because they called the music industry and attendant rock media a “cesspool” full of “pimps” and “motherf**ckers,” In other words, science and preventative medicine as concepts are not defined by Pfizer, Merck, GlaxoSmithKline and Sanofi Pasteur anymore than Mozart is defined by RCA. At least I hope not since these pharmaceutical companies have all been caught committing lethal fraud in almost every marketing niche they touch.

      • Paracelsus

        Does no one care that the Jews are making billions of dollars selling posion as “vaccines” to kill this country’s kids?

        • Meatbyproducts

          The Jews? Really?

    • Paracelsus

      You’re really are obtuse. Quit waving the Wakefield crusade. 28 studies to date have vindicated him. Perhaps 20 hours of research on your part would be a small price to pay to help someone avoid a lifetime of neurological death. 40 % of autistic kids are non verbal and remain such. Of your 600 studies, why not grab 10 and post here, of course after you find their sponors. BTW-How many post vaccine seizures have you seen or treated ? You really are a byproduct.

    • Francois Arseneau

      Since you mentioned egg allergies..How interesting that allergies to eggs and peanuts have also skyrocketed in the last 20 or so years. When you know that they’ve been using these ingredients in vaccines… Let’s see, peanuts and eggs ingredients injected in a person by a vaccine designed to illicit an immune response. 2+2=4 in my book. If you ask me, the vaccines are causing many of today’s allergies in people. Vaccine supporters keep exonerating the medical procedure of all harm when it’s well documented that they’ve caused a lot more harm than good since the initial smallpox(cowpox) vaccine.

  • Editor

    I just posted a comment that was deleted immediately. Can’t take the criticism?

    • David Officer

      Can’t post correctly?

    • g.johnon

      that would be user error. happens to me all the time. repost and make sure its up, and It will stay up.

  • kimp

    My son has autism and I am one of the crazies out there that truly believe his autism is a result of the MMR shot. He is now 31 years old and life has been a struggle for him and the entire family. I have questioned this since he was two and the Doctors have always told me no way! He was perfectly normal and even started doing things at a very young age but received his MMR shot at the age of one like instructed. Three days later he came down with a bad cause of the Measles and consist ear infections. At that point his world changed.

    • David Officer

      I believe you 100%.

    • JoeOrange

      Thanks for sharing your story.

    • Crispa

      You should blame your bad parenting, not the vaccine.

    • John Gary Whalen Jr

      I believe you, thank you for sharing.

  • savage905

    I know I doctor who told me that when he was in med school in the 70′s his class was introduced to a autistic patient, the class was told that this condition was vary rare and they would probably never encounter a autistic person in there career. since around that time autism has gone from 1 in 25000 to 1 in 50 today, and doctors encounter these cases all the time. for somebody to say that this increase is from better screening/testing I have to say BULL!!!
    people need to wake up and get informed.

    • David Officer

      Thank you for your rare story!
      *shakes head* I can’t believe it but for most people believing a lie is easier than believing the truth.

      • Bob Loblaw

        Mark Twain — ‘It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.’

    • Bill “Danger” Robinson

      The CDC doesn’t really support your data:

      http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/data.html

      • savage905

        your info is old, the newest CDC report put it at 1 in 50, but even if it is a little more that’s still a LOT more than what it used to be. lets not argue over small details.

        here’s the link.

        http://www.forbes.com/sites/emilywillingham/2013/03/20/autism-prevalence-is-now-at-1-in-50-children/

        • Bill “Danger” Robinson

          Plenty of caveats in that story. And it’s not a small detail. The consensus is that autism is vastly over diagnosed. I’m sure you know what I’m talking about. You can blame conspiracies or whatever you want, but I’ll take my chances with the type of science you won’t find on a website like this. Look around and see what else rears it’s head and ask yourself if this website is credible.

      • Dude

        A .gov link is not credible. The fda and other “safety agencies” are in bed with the big pharma companies, altering reports and studies to make the companies look good.

        • Bill “Danger” Robinson

          I’d trust the worst any government has to offer before I’d start listening to “benswann.com.” I mean, c’mon.

          • Tim

            You do realize that the former head of the CDC is now a VP at Merck, the vaccine company? That’s like a judge rigging a case to help a defendant in a lawsuit, then 2 years later the defendant the judge helped now works in a high level position. Yet YOU are going to trust the judge and think the trial was ‘fair’? You’re an idiot.

          • Bill “Danger” Robinson

            No, it’s not like “a judge rigging a case” at all. If you have a cogent argument, you should present it without calling people names.

          • Tim

            Wow, dismissing a clear conflict of interest and you don’t want to be called names? You’re a Govt Stooge.

          • Bill “Danger” Robinson

            If you had a cogent argument, you would present it without calling people names. Yes, the most likely explanation is that I am a government stooge. You got me there genius. I surrender.

          • John Gary Whalen Jr

            Another useful idiot.

          • Bill “Danger” Robinson

            “Useful idiot”? Who? Ben Swann? Enjoy your tinfoil chapeau.

  • David Officer

    I’ve worked hard in this comment area in hopes that some parents out there will say to their representatives “I want clean vaccines.”
    I wish I had someone in my early parenthood take the time to show me their story, what they learned, what could happen to my children if they get shots.
    I can’t take back the time and tell the younger me “Don’t give your kids shots until they are at least 2 years old, don’t give your kids formula. Please, I beg you!”
    But I can tell you this. And I have. And I will continue to do so.

    • AmaraGrace

      There is, nor has there ever been nor ever will there be…’clean vaccines’; vaccine has *always* consisted of diseased matter first, filth & toxic contaminants, and unknown inclusions to round it out. ‘Twas ever thus, and ever shall be.

      Good warning, and good to be crystal clear about the very find points.

  • Arun

    What’s really interesting is seeing the recovery videos. Part 1: happy, smiling, engaged baby making eye contact, meeting milestones, attempting speech, etc. Part 2: toddler with evident severe developmental issues and symptoms of autism, nonverbal, completely disengaged, looks terribly ill. Part 3: Same kid talking, conversing, making eye contact, joking, interacting after years of treatments targeting vaccine injuries. You could say proof is in the reverse engineering. The problem is that parents can lose custody of children for making these claims or attempting these treatments, some of which are quite standard for other acquired medical conditions… but suddenly verboten when it comes to autism. Weird science.

  • Jennifer Senn

    Wow Ben, tip of the hat!! Fantastic job!!!

  • Chris D

    I have tried spreading this story everywhere, I have never been moderated as much

  • heman

    Wake up folks!!! Vaccines are poison to the brain. All the toxic chemicals added cross blood/brain barrier and destroy neurons and much more. I wish folks in America would wake up from their trusting trance. Instead of signing your rights away with signature of no liability to those issuing poison; why don’t you demand healthcare worker or physician to sign form saying they are responsible for child, if he or she is damaged from vaccine. Not one healthcare personnel will sign form. They will tell you to step out of office. Under constitution each state has exemption forms-religious, medical, and philosophical. Most parents do not know this. Yes, your child can go to school if one of these exemptions is complete. Government in future will try to continue push for everyone to get vaccinated. Vaccinations are invasive, thus you have a right to refuse all of them under Constitutional Law and Bill of Rights. I have been a healthcare professional for over 20 years and have plenty of evidence vaccines injure, kill, and destroy the family. For example, the flu vaccine has thimerosal(mercury) and formaldehyde in them. Who is their sound/sane mind would allow this to flow in their blood stream. I’ll take my chances without these damn chemicals thank you. We are slowly being soft killed by allopathic(Rockefeller) type medicine. All drug companies need to be held accountable for millions of children’s injuries and deaths. Prison should be housing these individuals. There is a curve that reveals when vaccinations started autism, ADD, and many other diseases occurred and increased as the number of vaccines increased. Before vaccines most of these illnesses rarely occurred. Wake up America!!!!!!! You have been hijacked by elite, sick bastards.

    • Malone

      Such a badly written rant suggests your claim of being a professional is a lie, along with the other lies and distortions in your post.

    • lastresort09

      First of all, vaccines save tons of lives. Secondly, the increase in number of disorders detected could be because of many different variables. It could be because doctors are better at detecting it i.e. previously people used to think “they are just going through a phase and will grow out of it”. There are also other variables for these disorders like the increasing stress, other environmental factors. For example, there is a correlation between autism and developed industrialized nations. Something like a disorder is going to take a long time before we are able to ever say that such and such caused it.

      Perhaps your fear mongering and better off than others attitude of “wake up America!!!!!” shows that you don’t really know what you are talking about.

      • John Gary Whalen Jr

        What about the vaccines that have killed and injured thousands of lives?

        • lastresort09

          Statistics is what is important in science. What percent of people have been killed by vaccines? How many exactly were directly linked to vaccines and not other variables?

          Numbers don’t mean much. Percentage is what really matters.

          If it is seen to do more good than bad, then it is more likely to be kept i.e. how many it saves vs how many it hurts.

          • AmaraGrace

            Both acknowledging and reporting of vaccine injuries (& statistics) is done by vaccine profiteers…it’s not difficult to understand why less than 10% – perhaps only 1% or less – of vaccine injuries & deaths are reported by the profiteers of this method of damage to the people who pay their salaries. The best way not to see something is to not acknowledge it and not look for it…and to deny & cover it up if someone else does see it. One relevant detail Mr. Swan left out of his expose is that VICP proceedings do not adhere to the same rules of evidence as the judicial system requires litigants to comply with; eye-witness testimony is invalidated and there are no witnesses. Conveniently for the profiteers.

            “It is difficult to get a man to understand something if his salary depends on him not understanding it.”
            ~Upton Sinclair

            “Medical statistics are the reason for the success of vaccinations, antibiotics, and all other medicines. Whether these drugs work or not is determined by medical statistics. Where do these statistics come from? Entirely from thin air by those who are in the business of promoting these products; and because of the power of the medical lobby, medical statistics have become the law of the land. Because of the power of brainwashing by excessive advertising, the power of political contributions, and the power of the freedom to create self-serving statistics, Americans are led to believe, and sometimes even forced to believe, that the thousands of poisons, being promoted by the drug industry and soon to be forced on them by law, are beneficial to their health. If medical statistics were compiled by statisticians who had no interest in the outcome, the drug industry would topple into the dust.

            ~Robert Catalano, author, in “The Great White Hoax”

            “Let truth be your authority rather than authority being your truth.”
            ~Anon

            “All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them”
            ~Galileo Galilei(1564 – 1642)

            A truth’s initial commotion is directly proportionate to how deeply the lie was believed…When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic. ~Dresden James

            ~Tolstoy had it right… “Most men can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, have proudly taught to others, and have woven thread by thread into the fabric of their lives.”

            “Science is only a man made truth-seeking tool. It is fallible. It is a statistical, probabilistic mathematical model. It has limitations. Wielded for profit – truth can become lost. Scientific methods, design, and analyses can just as soon hide the truth as they can discover truth, or create ‘truth” de-novo. Science cannot replace the tools of common sense and observation we all have. You do not need statistical probabilistic mathematical models, wielded by experts, to deny what you can see with your very own eyes.”
            ~ Dick Fojut

            “That vaccination continues to this day is not because of its ‘assumed’ benefits, but (1) because it yields millions of dollars profit to the Drug Industry, (2) because it is one of the foundation stones of Medical Science upon which they have undeservedly built their power and prestige, and for that reason, must remain in place, and (3) because the majority of the public, brainwashed by medical propaganda, and unwilling to think for themselves, blindly accept it.
            (…)
            “Secondly, the medical profession, hell bent on preserving its power and prestige, cannot afford to have the public ever finding out the truth about vaccination. This is not to condemn all doctors, for many simply do not know the truth, whilst many others do not want to know. Yet medical hierarchy, intent on maintaining the ‘status-quo’, feeds the public a constant stream of propaganda promoting the case for vaccination. This propaganda, designed to convince people of the value and importance of vaccinations, takes the form of falsified statistics, misleading statements, public scare campaigns and in many cases, downright lies!”
            ~ Ian Sinclair

          • Bob Loblaw

            They recommended the pneumonia vaccine to my uncle. Two months after taking it he died of an acute pneumonia infection. Went to thhe doctor on Friday, who gave him some antibiotics and told him he’d be back at work on Monday. Monday morning he was dead. When they recommended it to my grandmother I got the insert.

            The insert says it has a 1% chance of side effects. The chances of gettting and dying of pneumonia however, are not listed in percentages. They are listed as 1 in tens of thousands. So doing the math you’ll find that even “high risk” patients have aa 0.0(3) percent chance of getting pneumonia.

            So when you say percentage is what matters I agree. 1% risk of side effects vs. practically 0% risk of infection.

            Now in regards to my uncle, nobody tested to see if it was vaccine strain pneumonia, or if perhaps the vaccine played some other role in his death. Whether it played one or not, such deaths would likely not be reported as being due to vaccines, and reporting is voluntary even then. So as long as people prop up the status quo, we cannnot know the number of deaths due to vaccines.

          • lastresort09

            I do completely agree with what you are saying here. I do believe that a lot of research about the negatives of vaccines is not being done because they don’t get paid for that… they get paid for research that promotes it as it is profitable. I think we should push for more research and state things based on what we know so far, rather than making general attacks against vaccines and claiming that they are all evil. Vaccines are useful but the negatives need to be studied more. I am sorry for your losses but I am glad you are focusing on the research part of vaccines. The only way to make people realize the harmfulness of vaccines is by telling them facts and focusing on the research, more so than making general unscientific claims about its harmfulness.

    • Keith Syvinski

      Poisoning the brain (tissue damage) versus Autism (hereditary spectrum disorder) are two different things, as different as rain and cheeseburgers. We should be concerned about both conditions, however.

      Let’s isolate one element of the above commentary.

      Formaldehyde.

      Because it is not sufficient to say “Who is their sound/sane mind would allow this to flow in their blood stream?” Formaldehyde is a naturally occurring substance, which is created by living things, It is found in the human body, as well as, the foods we eat, both meat and non-meat.

      So, to suggest that a sane person would not allow the presence of formaldehyde in their body would suggest a mode of prevention that would likely kill or incapacitate the human body. That position is neither scientific nor “sane”.

      Refs:

      Aspartame and formaldehyde
      http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/03/Jan03/012203/02P-0317_emc-000196.txt

      Vaccines and formaldehyde
      http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/SafetyAvailability/VaccineSafety/ucm187810.htm

      Naturally occurring formaldehyde (1 case)
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15764336

      Within the same time frame as the increase in autism cases, tattoos have become more popular. I’m not saying that tattoos cause autism (because they do not), but the toxins in a tattoo are much higher and more persistent than in a vaccine. Sane?

      https://www.healthtap.com/topics/symptoms-of-blood-poisoning-from-tattoo

      or

      http://www.fda.gov/forconsumers/consumerupdates/ucm048919.htm

      Though, I do have to admit that I am entertained by the claim by the FDA that vaccines are totally safe while tattoos are potentially dangerous. I do understand that “dilution is the solution”, and that tattoos contain hundreds of times the concentration of these toxins (while being persistent). Big difference, really.

      Also, we eat a lot more prepared foods.

      We also bathe in electrical impulses.

      We have a lot more chemicals in the air, ground, and water.

      A lot has happened in the last 100 years. But, vaccination is the real bad guy? Nope.

      • BlowingIntheWind

        You are completely incorrect. Autism is not a 100% hereditary disorder. From the latest research it is postulated that while there is a genetic component, that component works in conjunction with some unknown environmental factor. The genetic component makes an individual more susceptible to this unknown environmental factor and it’s ability to cause neurological damage. If autism is 100% genetic, how can you possibly explain the cases of identical twins where 1 twin has autism and the other is normal???

        While vaccines may not be the smoking gun, there is an environmental factor in there somewhere.

        • Keith Syvinski

          You asked:

          “If autism is 100% genetic, how can you possibly explain the cases of identical twins where 1 twin has autism and the other is normal???”

          Because the word “identical” in the term “identical twin” means the fetuses share the same placenta (monochorionic) as opposed to fraternal twins who develop in separate placentas (dichorionic). It doesn’t mean the fetuses are exactly the same. That is a very basic, yet important, detail.

          Identical twins differ quite a lot even if their appearances are indistinguishable. It is very common for identical twins to differ in many characteristics because the umbilical cords attach to different parts of the placenta, which causes dramatic differences in blood, oxygen, and nutrient supply. Autism, being hereditary, is as easily passed on to a single fetus in a twin amniotic sac as any other characteristic. Keep in mind that, while the DNA strand is identical, the genetic markers are not. Those markers determine differences. Consider the differences in your own body where your fingerprints are not all identical, though they were developed in the same fetus.

          http://pss.sagepub.com/content/24/4/562.full

          You state:

          “From the latest research it is postulated that while there is a genetic component, that component works in conjunction with some unknown environmental factor.”

          Yes.

          and

          “While vaccines may not be the smoking gun, there is an environmental factor in there somewhere.”

          Yes.

          So, you have two comments that agree with links to research documents I have supplied, regarding this topic. How am I completely incorrect? If so, why would you further reinforce my complete incorrectness?

          What you should have stated was that I am “Completely, Super-Duper Ultra Batman Honeycomb Hideout incorrect” and backed it up by telling me that I smell bad and my mother dresses me funny. That would improve your credibility in addition to entertaining the people who have hated me for so long.

          Please contribute a reference to these latest research documents. I am a curious fellow.

        • Sullivan ThePoop

          You are right, in identical twin studies they found that autism is only about 96% hereditary. Although you have to understand the environmental factor is in utero, which means it couldn’t be vaccines.

      • Bob Loblaw

        Why don’t you inject some food, “both meat and non-meat” directly into your bloodstream?

  • Bill “Danger” Robinson

    There are risks in most medical procedures. Vaccines have saved millions of lives.

    • David Officer

      I agree. :)

      But please make those vaccines safer.

      “There are risks in eating can foods. Can foods have fed millions of lives.”

      I agree.

      But please make the canned food safer.

      • Bill “Danger” Robinson

        If someone is so stupid that they talk about “can foods” as opposed to (what I’m assuming is) “canned foods” I’m thinking they might have some problems with basic science.

        • http://www.redstateeclectic.typepad.com AngelaTC

          It’s almost like the public school systems suck, isn’t it?

    • AmaraGrace

      Hollow statement. Just show something – from any era – that makes that an indisuptably true fact. Because it isn’t a fact, it’s vaccine marketing propaganda.

      How To Predict Epidemics
      Andrew Maniotis, Ph.D.
      http://ynpxtpnb.apollohosting.com/ddponline.org/epidemics.pdf

      • Draken

        How many times are you going to post that link? What you are posting doesn’t support your argument. From pg 51:

        “We know so little about vaccines and their relationship to epidemics….The best conclusion from the historical data, is that to date, vaccines are the most reliable cause of epidemics.”

        Translation – we know nothing so we are going to blame the vaccines. How does this support your argument?

    • http://www.redstateeclectic.typepad.com AngelaTC

      Yeah, and there’s no end to the proof that not only do they do indeed work to stop the spread of disease but are some of the safest medicines out there.

      The anti-vaxxers are some of the stupidest people I’ve ever run across though. You can’t talk sense or science with them.

      • The Retro Housewife

        Stupid is to discount mounting evidence, court cases and forgotten facts and continue blindly crusading for something that may be hurting people. Who is paying you? Do you know the first known cause of Autism is the wild Rubella virus? Now go look up what MMR stands for. The CDC used to say this on their site, but decided to take it down. Then go look up the Merck case regarding their MMR vaccine. You are perhaps not the best judge of stupidity.

        • http://www.redstateeclectic.typepad.com AngelaTC

          Anti-vaxxers are the stupidest people on the planet, and your post just serves to reinforce that. I am perfectly fine with letting Darwin work his magic on you and yours.
          I am sure you know lots of things I don’t, but unfortunately most of the things you know are incredibly wrong.

          If you were really a retro housewife, you’d know kids who died from measles or were crippled by polio, and you’d be grateful for the means of stopping those diseases.

          Instead,…well – here you are.

          • The Retro Housewife

            Run along and take your vaccines – Ignore the Merck settlement with the US Government – via which it became apparent that their MMR vaccine does absolutely nothing – but put people at risk. Because if you call it a vaccine and stick it in your arm, you won’t get nasty illnesses. Magic. Since nobody went to jail, and the fine was about 10% of their profits from selling the vaccine, it is safe to assume they are still doing it. Oh – and they passed a law criminalizing whistle-blowing. But then you are a paid stooge of the big pharma… right? Don’t let the evidence stop your silly rant.

          • http://www.redstateeclectic.com AngelaTC

            You’re an idiot. That is all.

  • The-Return-of-Odyssey

    Here’s where we can all agree:
    Government needs to get out of the licensing business all together,
    since we never needed licenses.

    Licenses are proven now to be VOLUNTARY. Why not simply admit
    publicly that all licenses are voluntary, including taxes, marriage,
    drivers, PTA ID’s and everything else….That way people can do what
    they please without the use of FORCE being thrust upon others. You are
    then liable for all your choices, and government is out of your life. Anymore questions, this is what we always should have had.
    Any issues with this?

  • http://www.vitaminlawyer.com/ Ralph Fucetola JD

    Vaccines are an uninsurable risk and public companies cannot invest in uninsurable risks. Congress took away our right to court redress for vaccine injuries to protect the crony drug companies. Vaccine harm is real. The way to stop autism is to stop vaccinating! Become a Vaccine Refuser with us: http:tinyurl.com/VaccineRefuser

  • AmaraGrace

    +…23 vaccines contain viruses grown in Human diploid cell strains…the manufacturer’s package inserts confirm that some of the original cell strain remains in the vaccine products…just sayin’.

    If any devoted vaccinationists want to know which 23, they can consult the manufacturer’s package inserts on the FDA website themselves.

  • http://www.redstateeclectic.typepad.com AngelaTC

    Ben, this is lazy at best. I don’t have time to pick it apart but where are the documents that your source talked about?

    Additionally I’d dispute the claim that the number of vaccines has tripled since the 80′s.

    I’d point out that lawyers get paid for taking vaccine cases even if they do not prevail, givng them a huge incentive to submit claims.

    I’d mention that by far the most complaints come not from childhood vaccines, but from flu shots.

    And I’d end up by pointing out that the safety is indicated simply by the sheer number of people getting vaccines compared to the number of side effects. You’re more likely to win Powerball than you are to develop a side effect to a vaccine.

    • Bob Loblaw

      It has trippled, but often they are given in the same shot; the argument there being that this has a greater impact on nthe immune system.

      You say you’re more likely to win the lottery than get a bad side effect. Well, actually the DTP vaccine has a 1 in 1750 chance of giviing you a bad side effect according to the insert(it may be more if this data suffers from industry bias). Far higher than Powerball odds.

      So many people are fooled by doctored numbers as well. My uncle got the pneumonia vaccine and two months later he died of pneumonia. When they tried to give it to my grandmother, my father got the manufacturer’s insert instead. It says you have a 1% chance of side effects (1 in 100) but your chances of getting pneumonia aren’t expresed in percentages, but as 1 in 83,000 for example. So your chances of getting or dying from pneumonia, even when you’re “high risk” is actually 0.0% while you have a 1% risk of side effects. The odds of my uncle getting pneumonia AND dying from it, *after getting the pneumonia vaccine are much closer to powerball odds, and that’s even IF you believe the pharmaceutical company’s numbers. His death was not listed as being due to complications due to vaccination and maybe righfully so, but in cases where that is true, they would not be reported as such and thus the numbers are flawed and intentionally worded to be misleadingng to patients and doctors. The inserts also might better benefit the public by listing the average life expectancy of those vacinated as it’s a bit harder to doctor that data.

      I’d end up by pointing out that the number of side effects is likely grossly under reported. Vaccine injury reporting is voluntary for instance. Similarly, the criteria for reporting paralytic polio was changed after the vaccine was introduced so this sort of manipulation to doctor the numbers is not new or unheard of.

      • http://www.redstateeclectic.typepad.com AngelaTC

        There’s so much misinformation in your post that I won’t attempt to address it all, but we don’t use the DTP any more. The DTaP vaccine carries a 1 in 100,000 chance of experiencing a serious side effect. The odds of dying from pertussis alone are 5 out of 1,000.

        It’s ok, I’m perfectly fine with letting Darwin kill you guys off. I kind of look forward to it,actually.

        • Bob Loblaw

          I stated facts, not one bit of misinformation. The fact that DTP is no longer used, and DTaP has fewer risks doesn’t change the facts that I presented. DTP (and DTaP) have a higher risk of side effects than powerball odds.

          You also state there is a %0.5 risk of death due to pertussis, either ignoring or obtusely missing the fact that this discussion is about the risk of side effects from the vaccines, not the risk of death *after* one catches a virus.

          Now, if that’s what you’d like to discuss instead, let’s touch on that. I didn’t manage to find more current numbers, but the ones that I can find(1998) show that the overall incidence(risk) of catching pertussis in the first place is:
          “approx 1 in 36,731 or 0.00% or 7,405 people in USA”

          Notice, that you have a 1 in 36K chance of getting it, and then AFTER that, you have a half of a percent chance of death. The overall risk of catchinng *and* dying from these illnesses is overall very small.

          Cars, slippery bathtubs, etc. also kill thousands a year, while malpractice kills up to hundreds of thousands a year according to some numbers, and these are things that could be more effectively and cheaply dealt with to save lives. You wanna save a kid’s life, advocate that people use infant car seats properly or something that would actually make a cost-effective, positive difference in society.

          • http://www.redstateeclectic.typepad.com AngelaTC

            OMFG.

            The odds of catching pertussis in the US is so low because we vaccinate. Fewer vaccines, more disease.

            Anti-vaxxers really are the dumbest people on the planet.

          • Bob Loblaw

            Yes, and according to the CDC, a 1998 Lancet study stated that the incidence could go up, possibly as much as 100x without vaccination programs.

            So, given you believe that assertion and that the reported statistics are correct, this still means that without vaccination in the US, the overall risk of catching *and* dying from these illnesses is 0.0013 % rather than 0.000013% as it is today. To keep it in perspective, one statistic puts your risk of dying in a FALL at 1 in 20,066 or 0.005%, and that’s *per year*.

            But I guess being able to do basic math and NOT being afraid of a 0.0013% risk of death makes a person one of the “dumbest people on the planet”.

  • http://www.momentsofawareness.com/ Peace Jaway

    So… I’m not particularly concerned about the autism/vaccination connection: It seems like the argument pharmaceutical companies and government agencies like to focus on because it can’t really be proven or disproven, keeps people from considering the wider spectrum of autoimmune disorders that are arising in ever-greater numbers and stand a good chance of being linked to vaccines, as well as distracting from the more-pertinent fact that even if vaccines aren’t doing more harm than good, they’re also not doing a lot of good.

    The last doctor with whom I discussed vaccination for my son tried to be good-natured and charm me into agreeing with him. I said, “My understanding and experience is that most childhood diseases, and most diseases common to any age for which vaccinations are now standard, are, for most who contract them, especially when they’re contracted at ‘natural’ ages for those diseases, relatively benign. Some people, as with anything, are more susceptible to their effects, but for most, they run through and confer life-long immunity.” He insisted that my sources must be of the alternative sort, I said, no, I rely upon the CDC and similar sources for that sort of information. He ‘quoted’ (from memory) to me a statistic he said came from the CDC, that about 95% of people who contract polio would be crippled for life or die. I live in a place without cell service, so we’ve not bothered to invest in a smartphone or I’d’ve shown him then and there that in fact, according to the CDC, 95% of people who contract polio will *never know they’ve had it*, four to eight percent will develop ‘cold-like’ symptoms, and of that four to eight percent, one to four percent will develop some degree of life-long ill effect, in a few very extreme cases paralysis, or will die. The CDC says the same or very similar things about every childhood disease for which vaccinations are standard, except for HiB, immunity to which is conferred to the vast majority of breastfeeding infants and children up to four or five years, when their own immune system is strong enough to counteract it but not yet strong enough to kill them (also the reason behind four-ish to seven-ish being the best years for children to contract chickenpox. measles, mumps, rubella, and on down the rest of the ‘anti-childhood-disease’ immunizations list), so perhaps HiB is a reasonable vaccination to give kids who aren’t going to breastfeed until the natural cessation of that activity in early childhood as opposed to the one- or two-year acceptable limit in our culture if at all. In any case, this doctor was sure he was right, and I haven’t spoken with him since to find out if he took his own advice and looked up the CDC’s statistics on the matter.

    An aside, the next doctor I went to, Yale-educated no less, insisted that sunlight doesn’t provide adequate Vitamin D, which of course it doesn’t if one is always slathered in (carcinogenic) sunscreen and/or covered with clothing from head to toe (although just exposing the face and arms for a five to twenty minutes a day, depending upon latitude and skin coloration, is often enough to reverse deficiencies). He did say supplements would be much better, despite the fact that vitamin supplements are almost entirely unregulated and vary widely in terms of content and bioavailability, and, unlike sunlight, can cause toxic overdose if they actually do in fact contain enough to address a deficiency. But that’s another conversation altogether, only brought in here to underscore that as much as I’d like to be able to take doctors at their word and assume they always know everything about all things medical and their facts are always correct, it seems foolish to do so.

    Beyond any of this, the CDC also says in the case of all (maybe almost all, but I believe every single one; it’s very easy to look up for yourself by typing each of the diseases named in the childhood vaccination tables into the CDC’s site search engine) of these diseases, that they’re invariably harder on teens and adults than children, much more likely to lead to death after childhood, and that vaccine-conferred immunity wears off *in adulthood*. All of them require boosters, so either the medical community is choosing to knowingly put people at risk of disability and death by denying them the natural *life-long* immunity of contracting and recovering from the disease, or they’re peddling unnecessary medical procedures. Given the strong support they and their public perspectives garner among a majority of upstanding and reasonable American citizens, the medical industry must be acting in good faith, so I keep looking for and would very much appreciate an explanation of what makes either of those positions acceptable. Until I get one, *I* can’t in good conscience put my faith in their beliefs.

    • Sullivan ThePoop

      Allergies and autoimmune disorders correlate perfectly with good sanitation. So much so that the longer a region has had good sanitation the higher the risk of autoimmune disorders and allergies.

      • http://www.momentsofawareness.com/ Peace Jaway

        That’s a good point, as do declines in incidences of communicable disease. In fact, it stands to reason that a decline in communicable disease transmission could contribute to a rise in autoimmune and allergic reactions. But it would appear that vaccination would only factor into that in a negative way, making it even harder for disease to travel among people and allow us to inoculate our immediate populations against the pathogens we’re most likely to be exposed to. There will always be world travelers to bring completely foreign brands of things that have a potential to devastate a population, especially one with little tolerance to external and foreign influences. Currently we do our best to prevent that by vaccinating anyone who wishes to travel between populations, but maybe that in turn creates an inability, when something does manage to sneak across some border, for our body to know how to react properly to it, and in the meantime the body, in desperate need of something against which to exert itself in order to maintain any semblance of fitness, begins to turn on itself, yes, makes perfect sense. Goes hand-in-hand with the, ‘kids who grow up with animals/on farms/in environments with allergens tend to get sick less and have fewer allergies’, line of thinking, which also makes sense, although I’m not sure where I’ve seen that sort of thing said, seems like it was some reputable sources, but I’d have to look again to be sure. Anyway, thanks for that.

        • http://www.momentsofawareness.com/ Peace Jaway

          Some of the studies or a study citing that kids are healthier when exposed to allergens are on ‘Healthline.com’ and a CNN page that quotes a ‘Health.com’ article, both of which seem to be thoroughly vetted and all that, but more interesting, on WebMD, Dr. Kimball Johnson says, “It begins with exposure. Even if you’ve inhaled an allergen many times before with no trouble, at some point, for some reason, the body flags it as an invader. During this particular exposure, the immune system studies the allergen. It readies itself for the next exposure by developing antibodies, special cells designed to detect it. You are now ‘sensitized’ to the allergen.” If the body’s busy fighting pathogens from outside it’s usual sphere, it lives in peace with itself in the times between, but when it’s not challenged often or sufficiently enough from outside it gets… for lack of a better term, bored, and finds something within itself upon which to vent. In some people. Other bodies would react differently, not everyone would be sensitive to this or that or the other thing, so there’d be no singular reaction to this lack of outside stimulation that could be applied to all bodies, but for some it would be devastating to remain unchallenged. It makes complete sense that sanitation would play a huge role in, yes, a rise in health in an immediate way, but a decline in stimulation of a system that we know needs to be exercised in order to maintain fitness, but shouldn’t really be on ‘roids.

          It’s that, ‘Every action has an equal and opposite reaction’, thing. There’s a balance to be found, between enough challenge and too much, but we’re still working our way toward it, and once we find that point it will shift anyway.

          I find the whole debate fascinating, and happen to fall on the less popular side at the moment on a personal level, as it makes more sense to me, but as an exercise in social manipulation? Brilliant. It’s a choice that people need to make autonomously for themselves and those for whom we are responsible (personally, not socially), based upon our knowledge and understanding of what we consider to be the pertinent issues, which for some may be, “My doctor said so, I’m goin’ with that,” and for some may be nothing, it’s neither my business nor certainly the government’s to tell people how to feel or what to think on any medical decision, and for others is going to come down to what and who they believe. The beauty of the argument is, the government and medical community slowly shunts one faction to the fringe, and then feeds the fire of debate so we never realize that what we’re actually fighting about is who gets to tell whom what to do, and who gets to feel superior about it. When enough studies have come out confirming that vaccines are ‘bad’, the pro-vaccine community will be the ‘nutjobs’, and then just when it starts to swing around again the whole argument will shift and we’ll be on to the next most divisive thing, like fluoride or mercury or some new thing we haven’t even yet imagined is going to be a problem. No better way to divert attention than to convince people that a subject matters and then keep flip-floppin’ ’til we don’t really even know what we’re arguing about, just that it’s really important. The kids are important, autistic, not-autistic, otherwise ‘different’ or ‘perfectly normal’, whatever that means, and figuring out how to address them so they understand they have as much potential as the next guy or gal and give them the tools they need, as individuals, to get to where they want to go. The point of the Eternal Debate is to make people forget that it’s pointless to fight an unwinnable (that is, ‘moral’ argument, which is what the vaccine debate comes down to, “Should we or shouldn’t we, and does whomever wins get to force the others to comply?”) battle when we could be putting our efforts into doing what’s right, according to the standards we set for ourselves, meaning we’ll have to decide to set some standards (or not, I don’t care), which usually (hopefully) requires understanding why we’re choosing one standard over another, which means learning in order to gain that understanding, which is always good. That’s what it comes down to for me, is that while it’s a thing that deserves study, nothing yet convinces me that mass vaccination and immunization are appropriate in terms of the long-term health of ourselves or our society, but I have no problem with those who choose to do so offering themselves as willing participants in the continued study of their safety and efficacy. I just think it’s right that I have an equal choice not to participate, and if that means one day I’m refused the benefit of something that does prove it’s worth, well, I’ll have to live with that. If I’m alive, right? Might be the stupidest decision I ever make, I might really wish one day I’d chosen a different route, but I’m not prone to regrets so I doubt it, even if it does mean that I get chicken pox (oh wait, already had ‘em, can’t get ‘em again) or measles (haven’t had them, got vaccinated, don’t get boosters, could happen) and die. :)

        • Sullivan ThePoop

          Well, since the problem seems to be mostly parasitic infections and a lack of antigens for the immune system to sample then vaccines would have nothing to do with it. Vaccines provide antigens for your immune system to act on and there are so far no vaccines for parasitic infections.

          • http://www.momentsofawareness.com/ Peace Jaway

            That last point won’t be true for long [http://www.malariavaccine.org/latest-news.php; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23598487; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23415733, although as I’m sure you know there’s strong support for the theory that parasites when in balance support the immune system and relieve autoimmune disorders (trials on adults with autism and a number of other disorders were underway as of April of this year), but of course the medical industry is working to figure out which molecules are responsible for their effects and create pharmaceutical versions rather than suggesting, or even simply allowing, the use of the real thing. (Currently in the US the FDA considers intestinal worms used to regulate the immune system an illegal drug. [http:// http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cms_ia/importalert_159.html). So perhaps the prevalence of parasitic *infections* (as opposed to appropriate parasitic populations), wherein the parasites are not held in check by the body’s immune system as they are in healthy bodies, is also tied to the same factors affecting other aspects of immune disorder (hypo-, hyper-, and autoimmunity), whatever those factors may be.

            Yes, vaccines provide antigens for the immune system to work against – ones that, like smallpox from across the ocean, are completely foreign to the system to which they’re being introduced rather than having evolved in the environment in which the body is living – introduced not through a series of natural defenses like those that are acquired from the environment, but directly into the blood stream, bypassing the respiratory and digestive systems. Your point is taken, but doesn’t detract from the CDC’s own assertion that naturally-acquired immunity is more complete, overarching, and long-lasting than that which is artificially-induced.

          • Sullivan ThePoop

            Just by the sheer difference in mortality and morbidity between people routinely exposed to parasites compared to those with good sanitation I do not believe there is a safe level of parasite population in our drinking water. Hooks worms are not benign and are the leading cause of maternal and perinatal mortality, not to mention developmental disorders in countries where infections are endemic. I do believe that eventually we will find a safe way to use parasites/killed parasites to alleviate allergies.

          • http://www.momentsofawareness.com/ Peace Jaway

            Hookworms in communal drinking water is a very specific scenario, and one that I don’t see where I advanced as being appropriate.

            If I understand where you’re coming from, you believe that refined and purified versions of nature’s tools are inherently better than their messier, less predictable predecessors with which we as humans have evolved in concert until recently, in the case of vaccinations/immunizations referring to wild pathogens of any kind, and the end goal is to eradicate all disease, is that accurate? Do you believe that’s possible, and if it is what do you see as being the end result of achieving it?

    • John Gary Whalen Jr

      Very well said. You are truly well informed. Thanks for sharing.

  • Sullivan ThePoop

    The 1986 Law also permits the vaccine makers the right to not disclose known risks

    to parents or guardians of those being vaccinated. Based on something
    called the “learned intermediary” doctrine, manufacturers bear no
    liability for giving, or failing to give, accurate or complete
    information to those vaccinated.

    Read more: http://benswann.com/truth-in-media-vaccine-court-and-autism/#ixzz2n4okfOJ3

    Follow us: @BenSwann_ on Twitter

    This is completely untrue. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the 1986 law and is not just for vaccines. It was first used as a defense in a Canadian tort suit against a pharmaceutical company. It basically says that if you give all the information to a qualified aministrator of your drug than you are not liable if they use it incorrectly.

    • Dorit Reiss

      And in fact, in U.S. law, there’s an exception in several jurisdictions for vaccines administered in clinical setting, not by a doctor: in some places, for example, the court did not apply it to some settings of vaccines administered in clinical setting:
      Plummer v. Lederle Laboratories, Div. of American Cyanamid Co.
      819 F.2d 349 (warning, however, adequate).
      Reyes v. Wyeth Laboratories.

      I examined the act. It says nothing about this doctrine, as far as I’ve seen. I’d like to know where this claim came from.

  • http://winterpatriot.com NJT

    Attention all: On Nov 27, 2013 the FDA said ChrisKid is http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm376937.htm Just think how much more we’ll learn in another 20 years!

  • Tim

    Okay, okay,,

    Let’s review the FACTS about the Vaccine industry:
    1. They are not required to reveal the origin (country) they come from.
    2. They are not required to provide an ingredients list of what’s in the vaccines.
    3. They are not required to perform batch safety testing for foreign elements, live viruses, other contaminants.
    4. They cannot be sued in court.
    5. These products are delivered directly into my body to ‘mess’ with my delicate immune system which any contaminant/disease could directly affect me with any number of unknown side effects.
    6. And I’m called a “kook”/”crazy” for not wanting this to be put in my body.

    Let’s contrast the Food Industry:
    1. They are required to reveal the origin (country).
    2. They are required to provide an ingredients list, including allergens.
    3. They are required to perform batch safety testing for foreign elements, viruses, bacteria, other contaminents.
    4. They CAN be sued in court if their products cause you harm.
    5. These products pass through your digestive system which has defenses, such as stomach acids/enzymes which can render allergens/virus/bacteria harmless and you aren’t guaranteed to get sick even if the product is contaminated.
    6. And NO ONE IN THEIR RIGHT MIND would eat food that didn’t pass through these safety protocols before putting them into your body.

    Do I have this summed up? So, can someone point to any other example where an industry can literally do ANYTHING THEY WANT to a product that does into your body and have total legal protection and plausible deniability as to how any bad ingredients got into their product?

    Folks, the Vaccine industry could LEGALLY POISON YOU and there’s not a damn thing you can do about it. If you got injected with SV40 Simian Cancer Virus and got sick, the Vaccine Industry can say “ooops”, sorry, I don’t know how THAT got in there. Sterilants got in there too and you can’t have children? Wow, sorry. We ‘promise’ never to let THAT happen again, pinky swear! And there is NOTHING you can do about it folks.

  • Tim

    Here is one reason WHY you should have labeling and quality assurance measures for vaccines, and a repeal of the law protecting the vaccine manufacturers:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBarLJEkLu8

    Sergei Popov, a Russian Biologist DECADES AGO was able to create a vaccine for rabbits that gave it a virus which cause it’s own immune system to destroy it’s nerve pathways, killing it and giving NO TRACE as to what killed it other than what seems like a case of Multiple Sclerosis. FACT.

    When you don’t have any labeling or legal protection, the vaccine manufacturers can literally get away with giving you diseases or sterilants.

    http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/08/24/herpes-virus-used-to-create-stress-vaccine.aspx

    What’s to stop vaccine manufacturers from ‘accidentally’ putting a brain-altering vaccine in a polio vaccine or flu-shot? We have no quality testing. We have no label requirements. We are completely vulnerable to ‘mistakes’ by the vaccine manufacturers. They could put anything they wanted in our vaccines and they aren’t legally accountable for it.

  • Tim

    Watch this highly researched, well done documentary called The Greater Good. It gives both sides, pro and con.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtejYbV20-A

    • Bill “Danger” Robinson

      Highly researched means citations and references that back up the claims.

      • Tim

        http://www.greatergoodmovie.org/

        The video interviews experts/doctors and yes, the maker of the film has done exhaustive research. If you’re going to ‘trash’ years worth of work on the part of that filmmaker, then at least do a little looking into it before starting in on the negativity. That movie actually gives both sides. Obviously you didn’t watch the movie.

        • Bill “Danger” Robinson

          Vaccines don’t cause autism.

          • Bill “Danger” Robinson

            …and I did watch the “movie.”

          • Tim

            You didn’t do any research at all about the movie and you clearly see in the movie people who were injured by vaccines. Nor did you hear out the doctor who said that prior to the late 90′s, he had ONE, JUST ONE Autistic child in his office (in 20 years) but since the first load of cases in the late 90′s, he’s seen a complete ‘outbreak’ of Autism in his clinic. That doctor believes Vaccines has something to do with it. But, let’s not take his word for it. My eyes are rolling at you “Danger” Robinson. Why don’t you just stay out of forums when you cannot bring evidence or anything meaningful to the discussion?

          • Bill “Danger” Robinson

            Not one credible source is ever cited in the film. It’s easy to make a video and cherry-pick amongst various straw dogs to win over your audience. The hard thing is to read credible, peer-reviewed papers and absorb actual science. The various logical fallacies in your arguments and the video speak for themselves.

          • Bill “Danger” Robinson

            And — for the record — the idiot that runs this website paid to advertise and spread the word about the various topics herein. So, I’ve been invited and I’m going to enjoy myself.

          • Tim

            Jesus man, the website I linked you to has TONS of links to the science used in the movie. YOU DIDN’T EVEN TRY TO LOOK! You only want to confirm your own bias without even giving these filmmakers a chance. It’s sad.

            http://www.greatergoodmovie.org/learn-more/science/

          • Bill “Danger” Robinson

            Vaccines don’t cause autism.

          • Tim

            Go home Bill, you’re drunk.

          • Bill “Danger” Robinson

            Have you seen “Gypsy” with Rosalind Russell? Fabulous work!

          • joe smith

            Barbara loe fisher is a nut with no medical training. speaking of bias, read this, written by an actual doctor…http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-greater-good-pure-unadulterated-anti-vaccine-propagand/

  • chris katko

    Don’t worry, Swine Flu Man will save the day…

    http://newworldordercartoons.wordpress.com/earth/

  • Becky

    Found a very interesting study recently done at The Department
    of Paediatric Rehabilitation from the Medical School at the University
    of Bialystok in Poland

    Neurologic adverse events following vaccination;
    Progress in Health Sciences; Sienkiewicz D., Kulak W., Okurowska-Zawada B., Paszko-Patej G.

    Here is the link to the actual study:
    http://progress.umb.edu.pl/sites/progress.umb.edu.pl/files/129-141.pdf