“The number of dose related relationships [between mercury and autism] are linear and statistically significant. You can play with this all you want. They are linear. They are statistically significant,” said the American Academy of Pediatrics’ Dr. William Weil at a meeting of health officials in Simpsonwood (June of 2000), according to transcripts.
I know we’ve all heard it a million times from our doctors and nurses: there is no scientific evidence that vaccines cause autism, none. Correlations are coincidence, nothing more.
That may be.
But at that same Simpsonwood meeting, University of Colorado Immunologist Dr. Robert Johnson said this: “Forgive this personal comment, but I got called out at eight o’clock for an emergency call and my daughter-in-law delivered a son by c-section. Our first male in the line of the next generation and I do not want that grandson to get a Thimerosal containing vaccine until we know better what is going on. It will probably take a long time. In the meantime, and I know there are probably implications for this internationally, but in the meanwhile I think I want that grandson to only be given Thimerosal-free vaccines.”
He seems to believe the correlation is something to take seriously.
I don’t want to be Debbie Downer, and I dislike arguing. I wish with all my heart that I could believe there is no reason to doubt official messages to the public. But I also don’t want to be guilty of cowardice, and it is entirely your choice whether or not to take their words seriously.
Thimerosal has been removed or reduced from most childhood vaccines, I know. But no vaccines are free of preservatives or adjuvants. Preservatives are necessary for commercial reasons, immune-stimulating (neurotoxic) adjuvants are necessary to make them reasonably effective.
Further, there was, despite what they knew even then, no recall of vaccines already containing thimerosal; existing vaccines remained in use. A massive recall would have destroyed public confidence utterly. And trace amounts remain even in newer supposedly thimerosal-free vaccines.
One more thing: Consider these words from the Tripedia vaccine product insert information then on the Johns Hopkins Institute for Vaccine Safety website, now removed: “Adverse events reported during post-approval use of Tripedia vaccine include idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura, SIDS [Sudden Infant Death Syndrome], anaphylactic reaction, cellulitis, autism, convulsion/grand mal convulsion, encephalopathy, hypotonia, neuropathy, somnolence and apnea.”
Was that information removed because the new vaccine no longer causes these things? Or because both the old and the new vaccines are strongly correlated with all these things, including SIDS and autism, and they don’t want to worry parents who may not have gone on to read the rest of the insert which goes on to say it isn’t possible to establish a causal relationship between the reactions and the components in the vaccine? Or was it because they know that even though causal relationships haven’t been proven, thinking parents will want to exercise caution? Because they know it’s immoral not to do the research that might conclusively prove or disprove the correlation?
Now, you may believe that the risks of vaccinating are insignificantly small, and that accepting the risks are in the interests of the greater good. You may believe the benefits outweigh the risks. You may believe cocooning is a realistic and effective approach. That’s fair, and that is your prerogative.
But if you’re one of those parents who has an intuition about your children being genetically predisposed to be at higher risk for reactions, for autoimmune disease and neurological damage, respect that. It is an intuition that should be honored, and a decision to opt out is one that can easily and reasonably be defended by the facts.
The thing is, thimerosal is, even in trace amounts, a neurotoxin. There is no disputing that. And when things are strongly correlated, the burden of proof should shift. Safety, not causation, ought to be proven. Just because the tobacco industry denied the correlation between smoking and cancer, and just because smoking doesn’t always result in cancer, it doesn’t mean that the correlation is insignificant.
Thanks to Jeffry John Aufderheide for all his research over the years.