Vaccine Studies Debunked
This week, ANH-USA is releasing a white paper in conjunction with Dr. Brian Hooker, scientific advisor for Focus for Health. The paper critically examines twelve studies that are commonly cited by the media and government agencies as irrefutable proof that vaccines are safe and do not cause autism. As you will see below, many of these studies prove nothing of the sort, and are riddled with conflicts of interest.
In addition to conflicts of interest, each study is critiqued for methodological weaknesses, such as poor sample choice, data inconsistencies, and faulty comparisons. We argue that, given their flaws, these studies cannot be taken as proof that vaccines are universally safe for children or that they do not cause autism—as vaccine zealots and their captive government agencies claim. We do not conclude that vaccines are the primary cause of autism—but each child is biologically different, and some may be much more vulnerable than others, which can be missed in mass studies, and these particular studies do not allay legitimate concerns. This is especially true given the most up-to-date science, especially on aluminum adjuvants, which we covered recently in the Pulse.
There is indeed a disconnect when it comes to issues of vaccine safety. Take, for instance, the recent news that Wal-Mart is planning to ban a number of toxic chemicals from thousands of its products. One of those chemicals is formaldehyde, which is also a common vaccine adjuvant. Most people would applaud Wal-Mart for responding to consumers’ desire for safer products, yet when advocates call for the removal of dangerous adjuvants from vaccines to make them safer, we’re condescendingly told that the “science is settled” and vaccines are as safe as can be, even though this point has not even been studied.
We hope that this information will convince lawmakers in states across the country that removing all non-medical exemptions to vaccination, as California has already done and other states are considering, is unwise and unethical given the surprisingly little safety testing that has been done to prove the safety of vaccines.
Below is a brief sample of what can be found in our new white paper.
No evidence for measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine-associated inflammatory bowel disease or autism in a 14-year prospective study (1998)
Authors: Peltola H, Patja A, Leinikki P, Valle M, Davidkin I, Paunio M.
Conflicts of interest: This study was based on inherently unreliable data and funded by Merck, which makes the current formulation (MMR-II) of the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine, and stands to profit from results that disprove any dangers.
A population-based study of measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination and autism (2002)
Authors: Madsen KM, Hviid A., Vestergaard M., Schendel D, Wohlfahrt J, Thorsen, P.
Conflicts of interest: This study presented very inconsistent data and was funded by the National Immunization Program at the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which had a vested financial interest in increased use of the MMR vaccine, as it bought the vaccine directly from Merck and distributed it for reimbursement to the states’ public health departments. Also, one of the coauthors of the study, Dr. Diana Schendel, was a CDC employee at the time of publication. In addition, three of the coauthors (Dr. Mads Melbye, Mr. Jan Wohlfahrt, and Mr. Anders Hviid) were employees of Staten Serum Institut, a for-profit company that manufactures and distributes vaccines in Denmark.
To read the details on each study and the rest of the white paper, click here.
Action Alert! Write to your state legislators, your governor, and your senators and congressional representatives, and tell them to oppose any legislation that removes exemptions to vaccination, given the recent scientific evidence and the shaky ground on which pro-vaccine studies lie. Please send your message immediately.
The Alliance for Natural Health USA (ANH-USA) is committed to sustainable health, the recognition that true health requires a proactive and preventive approach that focuses on a nutrient-rich diet, proper supplementation, and limiting our exposure to toxic substances. A system that is single-mindedly focused on “treating” sick people with expensive drugs, rather than maintaining healthy people, is neither practical nor economically sustainable.