The council said the study, “Increasing Exposure to Antibody-Stimulating Proteins and Polysaccharides in Vaccines Is Not Associated with Risk of Autism,” appeared in April’s Pediatrics journal and was repeated by journalists nationwide with little if any critical examination. The study, issued just before Autism Month, compared medical records of 1,008 children born 1994-1999.
The CDC-funded study examined only antigens – not whole vaccines, not adjuvants such as aluminum or squalene, not preservatives such as Thimerosal in flu shots, nor any other vaccine ingredients. The study also did not factor in the differences in antigens’ immune triggering areas, or individual intensity of immune response. The study used no non-vaccinated control group, and worse, up to 25 percent of the control group may have had symptoms of autism themselves.
For years, study co-author Dr. Frank DeStefano has helped create statistical studies for the CDC that appear to refute the vaccine-autism causal link, and are released with heavy PR fanfare, according to the Vaccine Safety Council of Minnesota.
In December 17, 1999 Dr. Thomas Verstraeten analyzed the CDC’s Vaccine Safety Datalink to determine if a relationship existed between the mercury-based preservative Thimerosal and autism. In an email to DeStefano and other CDC scientists, Verstraeten wrote that of the vaccine-autism statistical correlation, “It just won’t go away.”Â And he concluded that “all the harm [to infants] is done in the first month.” Later CDC revisions all but eliminated the link.
“The Pediatrics antigen study is just more made-to-order tobacco science,” said Nancy Hokkanen of the Vaccine Safety Council of Minnesota. “The U.S. would not have a 1-in-50 autism rate now if the CDC had listened in 2000 when their researcher Dr. Verstraten said, ‘[W]e should use sound scientific argumentation and not let our standards be dictated by our desire to disprove an unpleasant theory.'”
Mark Blaxill, chairman of the Canary Party – founded in 2011 to address the crisis in the health of children and other vulnerable groups and to stand up for the victims of medical injuries, especially from vaccines — recently said that “despite significant scientific evidence showing connections between vaccines and autism, and deep problems with CDC’s vaccine safety science, few reporters dug deeper into the quality of this new study.”
“How deeply flawed was DeStefano’s analysis?” Blaxill asked. “Simply put, the study design could not have been more biased. …There are additional valid concerns about the study design that have been raised by others and the press should be reporting them. The Canary Party maintains that the CDC, as a government entity, is obligated to promote the official vaccine schedule, and therefore the media should critically review any CDC statements regarding vaccine safety.”
The Canary Party provides a list of peer-reviewed research performed by independent scientists documenting neural risks associated with vaccination — and a list of people with documented cases of vaccine damage. “We encourage reporters to question statements they are given” said Blaxill, “and to contact the doctors and scientists who are doing unconflicted work on the issue.”