Vaccine Safety and Autism Risk Analysis

Now, most people have no idea that there's aluminum

in the vaccine. Many investigators, particularly Dr.

Boyd Haley, have shown that aluminum and

mercury

are synergistic in their action, and extremely toxic,

much more than one plus one,

which is something that many people have never, never

considered.

We did the, the study with neurons in culture,

added aluminum,

and found aluminum was only slightly neurotoxic by itself,

and

that thimerosal was significantly toxic by itself.

But when you put the two together, at one point in the dying of the

neurons, when you had 10% death with, uh, the

thimerosal alone, you had over 60% death with the

thimerosal plus aluminum.

So the aluminum definitely en- enhances the toxicity of thimerosal.

The material and safety data sheet for thimerosal clearly states that thimerosal

should never be combined with aluminum.

It reads, "Violent reactions possible with

aluminum." So when the FDA

finally did the math that alarmed so many,

they neglected to include three major variables into their equation:

ethyl mercury injected

with aluminum.

Imagine what the math would have shown then.

I would insist, we would insist, that mercury

be removed and replaced. If in doubt, take the mercury

out.

After the AAP's joint statement in 1999, the CDC decided to

study the Vaccine Safety Datalink, known as the VSD, which is a large

database of medical records used to monitor vaccine side effects.

Robert Chen, who is the guru of the Vaccine Safety

Datalink, he was the one who set it up, volunteered the Vaccine

Safety Datalink as a way to basically affirm the

fact that thimerosal was safe in the vaccines,

and they would do studies

in the VSD to prove it.

Uh, around November, October, November of 1999,

there was a young researcher who was visiting for a while to work,

for about a year

or so, at the CDC,

named Thomas Verstraeten. He was an epidemiologist from Belgium.

They said,

"Run the numbers, Tom. See what you can find."

We saw five different permutations of this study

appear over a period of four years.

So the very first generation was when Thomas Verstraeten

took all the kids, and he took kids who received 25

micrograms

or more by one month of age, and kids who received

25 microgram, or under 25 micrograms, uh, in many cases,

no mercury at all, by one month of age, and then he just compared their outcomes,

and that's when he found these extremely elevated risks.

A relative risk is the risk of developing a disease relative to an exposure.

For example, relative risk of two would mean

that a child has two times the chance

of developing autism when exposed to thimerosal,

compared to a child who was not

exposed to thimerosal.

Verstraeten's first generation of findings consisted of two different analyses, one

in November, and another in December of 1999.

In his November analysis, he found a relative risk of 7.62 for

autism.

Dr. Sander Greenland is a world-renowned epidemiologist at UCLA

in Los Angeles,

California. So from a relative risk standpoint,

7.62 would be

considered

a little bit elevated? High? Extremely high?

Fairly elevated.

Very elevated.

Yes. If that was real, that would be getting up towards the range

where it's smoking and lung cancer.

Smoking and lung cancer, smoking a pack a day for 20 years

is about 10.

The December analysis found a relative risk of 11.35 for autism.

Our own Centers for Disease Control had just figured out the cause.

So Verstraeten took this information to his colleagues, rather

concerned, and said, "Look what I found,"

and they worked with him to re-run the numbers, and

basically what they started to do was stratify the data.

So they started breaking the kids down into, say, birth cohorts.

The more you

stratify data and break it down into subgroups, the smaller the subgroups

become, and you start to lose statistical power.

They also started eliminating...

They, they basically eliminated about half the

children from the study, using

exclusion criteria. There are emails from Verstraeten to his

colleagues saying,

"It just won't go away."

As you'll see, some of the relative risks increase over

the categories, and I

haven't yet found an alternative explanation.

Please let me know if you can think of one.

So they reran the numbers using all these new criteria, and they ended up

in the second generation with a relative risk of

2.48. They ran the numbers a third time.

It just kept going down, and down, and down, and the signal kept going

away, but it would not disappear.

We're protesting the amount of mercury that remains in vaccines to the

denial of the CDC.

If you were to speak directly to the CDC, what would you say?

Take the mercury out.

Stop vaccing.

Uh, you have blood on your hands.

CDC is concerned about autism, and they're, we are working

hard to find the causes of autism and other developmental disabilities.

Tried that, reran, rethought. Still, the effect is there.

And then another one will say, "It all came back,

the effects of thimerosal."

So by the third generation, when, when we had this, I think it was

1.69 relative risk for autism,

that was the data that was presented at

Simpsonwood.

The CDC invited other federal agencies and pharmaceutical companies to a private

two-day meeting at the Simpsonwood Conference Center about 45 minutes outside

of

Atlanta.

They wanted to convene

an outside panel of experts in this area to

try and review the, the, uh, the findings so far that had been gleaned,

to review the discussions that had taken place within CDC at

that point.

By this time, the autism risk had been watered down to

1.69.

But Verstraeten had been finding a link between thimerosal and a whole array of

developmental disorders.

I'm not even sure if they knew it was being, uh, recorded, but it was, and a

transcript was, was, was made.

They took the extraordinary step of convening this external panel,

which doesn't

happen.

The transcript were quite adamant that, that this was a linear

relationship, that they had a problem here.

There were neurodevelopmental specialists, there were pediatricians, there were

biostatisticians, there was an epidemiologist, me.

Thomas Verstraeten is quoted as saying,

"Personally, I have three hypotheses.

My first hypothesis is that it's parental bias.

The children that are more likely to be vaccinated

are more likely to be picked up

and diagnosed. Second hypothesis, I don't

know. There is a bi-