• CDC Director Admits Bias and Withholding Data Linking Vaccine to Autism

    By

    Health Impact News Editor Comments

    Investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson has posted a recorded phone call she just had with Dr. Frank DeStefano, the CDC Director of Immunization Safety. Dr. DeStefano was a co-author with CDC whistleblower Dr. William Thompson on a 2004 study that originally was put forward as research showing there was no link between vaccines and autism. Dr. Thompson has come forward and revealed that data was withheld from the public that showed an increased risk of autism in certain populations, specifically African American boys. The CDC has already made a public announcement admitting that they did withhold some data.

    Dr. DeStefano has publicly stated that he will reveal the data again, but he is standing by the original study. A new audio recording of a conversation he just had with independent investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson can be heard here.

    In this interview, Dr. DeStefano admitted that the CDC omitted a large group of African American children based on the absence of birth certificates. When Sharyl asked him about Dr. Thompson’s concerns about the data showing a stronger link between vaccines and autism he replied:

    yeah, I mean at the time he did these analyses he did, you know, he did point out that in one group, you know in that larger group the the the measures of association [between MMR vaccine and autism] were higher than in the, uh, birth certificate group and, you know, we discussed that and for the reasons I mentioned, uh, we came to consensus that the, uh, birth certificate uh results were more valid.

    The CDC’s response, which Dr. DeStefano also repeated in this interview, is that the absence of birth certificates among some children meant that key data, such as race, birth weight, the mother’s age, and the mother’s education was missing, but present among those with birth certificates, and therefore they were not included in the study.

    Sharyl stated that she had a copy of a birth certificate with her as she was talking to him on the phone, and she asked:

    Um, I was looking at one of the birth certificates and it doesn’t have – maybe you could find one that has birth weight, mother’s education, the one I’m looking at doesn’t have any of that on there.

    Dr. DeStefano’s reply, or the lack of a reply from him and the CDC explaining exactly how they obtained this data, has opened up a lot of questions as to just how this data could have been available simply on the basis of a birth certificate.

    Ah, I mean I don’t know what, which one you’re looking at, I mean we get to these data were, uh, you know, right from the birth, birth, uh, the Georgia birth certificate files that contained those data.

    Sharyl then asked him why the excluded data would not be important enough to investigate further since it contained such a higher rate of autism. Dr. DeStefano’s reply was very typical of the bias that currently exists among CDC scientists when it comes to autism:

    you know, autism, as you probably are aware, is a condition that really probably has its start while the child is still in the womb. And, you now, it doesn’t, some of the behaviors and such don’t come apparent, become apparent until maybe the child is one, two, three years old.

    In other words, autism is completely due to genetic factors, and not environmental. Of course, this flies in the face of both scientific evidence, as well as the experience of many tens of thousands of parents who saw their completely normal child rapidly digress shortly after receiving vaccines. Even the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program has paid out damages to children with autism as a result of vaccines.

    So Sharyl asked if this bias towards their view of the causative factors regarding autism in general skewed their view of the data related to vaccines:

     Let me just, let me just interrupt what, before I lose that thought. So you already made up your mind regardless of what the stats show that if it, certain things show that it didn’t make sense, you wouldn’t, you would try to find out a way to…

    to which Dr. DeStefano replied:

     No, that’s not we said, I’m just saying, you know, you interpret, you interpret findings, also, you know, there’s the statistics, then you have to also interpret, bring in things like biological plausibility, how do you interpret these results?

    So it would seem that Dr. DeStefano, who is not a whistle-blower, has come out with his own confession of bias and way of interpreting data so that it does not have to be shared with the public if it is not favorable with what they want to communicate regarding vaccines and autism.

    Transcript:

    Dr. Frank DeStefano: I think what [Thompson’s] saying there was a larger, um, uh, odds ratio or association among the–the larger group and that there was not, uh, as strong an association among the birth certificate sample. And I mean, what I say to that, I think we discussed that, uh, as I recall, this was like, you know, over ten years ago, and, uh, I think at the time we had consensus among all co-authors that the birth certificate sample provided the more valid results because it could uh, it had more complete information on, uh, on race for one, and secondly, more importantly, it had information on important factors that, uh, had to be you know controlled for particularly in studies of autism, in particular, it would be things like birth weight, the mother’s age, the mother’s education. So I think for those reasons we were able to adjust for these factors and we thought, you know, we uh, our opinion was that that the results of the birth certificate sample provided the more reliable results. And I think, you know, as I recall, we all came to consensus and, uh, signed off on that, uh, in the paper.

    Attkisson: Were you aware of any of his concerns of, you know, have you been aware before today of any of his concerns about this?

    DeStefano: Uh, uh, yeah, I mean I’ve continued to see, uh, uh, see him for over the past ten years and we’ve interacted fairly frequently, and, uh, uh, no I wasn’t aware of this.

    Attkisson: So whoever he raised his concerns to, he didn’t, he didn’t raise it to you or anybody you knew of?

    DeStefano: No, I mean the last time I saw him was probably about two months ago, and he didn’t mention anything about this.

    Attkisson: And at the time he didn’t seem concerned when you said there was a consensus?

    DeStefano: No, yeah, I mean at the time he did these analyses he did, you know, he did point out that in one group, you know in that larger group the the the measures of association [between MMR vaccine and autism] were higher than in the, uh, birth certificate group and, you know, we discussed that and for the reasons I mentioned, uh, we came to consensus that the, uh, birth certificate uh results were more valid.

    Attkisson: Um, I was looking at one of the birth certificates and it doesn’t have – maybe you could find one that has birth weight, mother’s education, the one I’m looking at doesn’t have any of that on there.

    DeStefano: Ah, I mean I don’t know what, which one you’re looking at, I mean we get to these data were, uh, you know, right from the birth, birth, uh, the Georgia birth certificate files that contained those data.

    Attkisson: Ok. Does is it a valid way of you know, you guys, scientists decide things before papers are published, of course, you use your own judgment on things, but isn’t there a way, is there a valid way to look at it the way Thompson is, where he thinks, apparently, that the larger group without the birth certificates was reason for concern and something that should have been reported? To me, as just as a layperson, I would like to know that– even if, even if it culled out when you, when you got the group down through the birth certificates, I would, I still think it would be pretty important to know…

    DeStefano: No, I mean, I think, you know, the other, the other important consideration here is looking at what, what time period we’re talking about. We’re, you know, autism, as you probably are aware, is a condition that really probably has its start while the child is still in the womb. And, you now, it doesn’t, some of the behaviors and such don’t come apparent, become apparent until maybe the child is one, two, three years old. But, uh, uh what we know about autism that, uh, the, uh, characteristics or behavioral signs do become ava–, you know, apparent by 24 months of age, so. So we had different cut-offs, before 18 months of age, there was no difference in, in any group in terms of, uh, vaccination levels, between the cases and controls. At 24 months of age, when, uh, au—you know—behaviors of autism or some features of autism become apparent, there was no difference between the, uh, cases and controls in any group, it was at 36 months where there was a slight differen—and the difference was we’re talking about a difference between 93% versus 91%, not a, a big difference. But, so that’s at 36 months. And at 36 months, an exposure around that time period is just not biologically plausible to have a uh, uh, a causal association with autism. I mean autism would’ve already started by then.  [I me?] I reiterate it probably starts in the womb, but even if you’re saying, you wanna call it starting by the time some behavioral features become apparent, it had started before 36 months. And then, you know, we, from, so I think from a biological argument, it’s implausible this was a causal association. And then I think we have, uh–pretty convince–

    Attkisson: Let me just, let me just interrupt what, before I lose that thought. So you already made up your mind regardless of what the stats show that if it, certain things show that it didn’t make sense, you wouldn’t, you would try to find out a way to…

    DeStefano: No, that’s not we said, I’m just saying, you know, you interpret, you interpret findings, also, you know, there’s the statistics, then you have to also interpret, bring in things like biological plausibility, how do you interpret these results? So I think we had pretty strong evidence that these results at 36 months were primarily a reflection of requirements to attend early intervention special education programs for the for the children with autism. And why do we say that? We say that because the effect was almost all seen in children 3-5 years of age and those were the ones that early education programs and 98%, you know, 98% of that of that age group was in special education programs for which vaccination was of a requirement.

    Attkisson: Is there any possibility that it is biologically plausible and you just haven’t, you know, that that’s, the consensus is that it’s not, among you guys, but that it is and you’re overlooking that?

    DeStefano: I’m, I’m not aware of any data would, that would s–, you know, that would say that, uh, you would have, um, onset of autism after 36 months.

    CDC Director of Immunization Safety Admits Bias and Withholding Data Linking Vaccines to Autism – Vaccine Impact

    https://vaccineimpact.com/2014/cdc-director-of-immunization-safety-admits-bias-and-withholding-data-linking-vaccines-to-austim/

  • CDC SPIDER Letter

    By

    When a group of scientists known as the SPIDER (Scientists Preserving Integrity, Diligence and Ethics in Research), wrote a letter to the very organization that they work for, the CDC, asking the organization to do the right thing and be the agent of change, it makes you realize that we are not safe in the hands of the CDC. As the agency that is tasked with the responsibility of protecting the nation’s health, the CDC is doing anything but that. 

    This letter further confirms what we have come to know that exists in the world of vaccines – data manipulation, intimidation of people, conflicts of interest, questionable and unethical practices. 

    It is very clear that the CDC does not have our best interests at heart!

  • What is Really in Vaccines – According to the CDC

    By

    Despite vax manufacturers’ claims to the contrary, mercury is still used in vaccines, and the CDC openly admits it

    What’s really in vaccines? Proof of MSG, formaldehyde, aluminum and mercury

    This article was printed from: https://www.naturalnews.com/037653_vaccine_additives_thimerosal_formaldehyde.html

    • (NaturalNews) Have you ever wondered what’s really in vaccines? According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control’s vaccine additives page, all the following ingredients are routinely used as vaccine additives:

      • Aluminum – A light metal that causes dementia and Alzheimer’s disease. You should never inject yourself with aluminum.

      • Antibiotics – Chemicals that promote superbugs, which are deadly antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria that are killing tens of thousands of Americans every year.

    • Formaldehyde – A “pickling” chemical used to preserve cadavers. It’s highly toxic to the nervous system, causing blindness, brain damage and seizures. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services openly admits that formaldehyde causes cancer. You can see this yourself on the National Toxicology Program website, featuring its

    There, the formaldehyde Fact Sheet completely neglects to mention formaldehyde in vaccines. This is the “dirty little secret” of government and the vaccine industry. It does state, however, that “…formaldehyde causes myeloid leukemia, and rare cancers including sinonasal and nasopharyngeal cancer.”

    • Monosodium Glutamate (MSG) – A neurotoxic chemical called an “excitotoxin.” It causes brain neurons to be overexcited to the point of death. MSG is toxic even when consumed in foods, where it causes migraine headaches and endocrine system damage. You should NEVER inject MSG into your body. But that’s what health workers do when they inject you with vaccines.

    • Thimerosal – A methyl mercury compound that causes severe, permanent nervous system damage. Mercury is highly toxic to the brain. You should never touch, swallow or inject mercury at any dose. There is no safe dose of mercury! Doctors and vaccine pushers LIE to you and say there is no mercury in vaccines. Even the CDC readily admits vaccine still contain mercury (thimerosal).

    Vaccinations “…may produce small but measurable increases in blood levels of mercury.”

    • “Thimerosal was found to cross the blood-brain and placenta barriers.”

    • “…similar toxicological profiles between ethylmercury and methylmercury raise the possibility that neurotoxicity may also occur at low doses of thimerosal.”

    • “… there are no existing guidelines for safe exposure to ethylmercury, the metabolite of thimerosal.”

    • “…the assessment determined that the use of thimerosal as a preservative in vaccines might result in the intake of mercury during the first six months of life that exceeded recommended guidelines from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)…”

    • …”In the U.S., thimerosal is still present as preservative in some vaccines given to young children, as well as certain biological products recommended during pregnancy. Thimerosal remains a preservative in some vaccines administered to adolescents and adults. In addition, thimerosal continues to be used internationally as a vaccine preservative.”

    The report then goes on to say that the FDA studies thimerosal and somehow found it to be perfectly safe. It also states that vaccine manufactures are “working” to remove thimerosal from vaccines, but in reality it’s still being manufactured right into the vaccines.

    By the way, this report also reveals that the FDA requires preservatives like thimerosal only in so-called “multi-dose” vaccines — vials that contain more than one dose of the vaccine. Drug companies could, if they wanted to, produce “clean” single-dose vaccines without any mercury / thimerosal. But they choose not to because it’s more profitable to product mercury-containing multi-dose vaccines. As the report admits, “Preservatives are not required for products formulated in single-dose vials. Multi-dose vials are preferred by some physicians and health clinics because they are often less expensive per vaccine dose and require less storage space.”

    So the reason why your child is being injected with vaccine boils down to healthcare offices making more money and saving shelf space!

    “Mercury in vaccines is a conspiracy theory!“

    • I’ve been told by numerous “skeptics” and doctors that there’s no such thing as mercury in vaccines, and that any such suggestion is nothing more than a “wild conspiracy theory.” That just goes to show you how ignorant all the skeptics, doctors and health professionals really are: They have NO CLUE what’s in the vaccines they’re dishing out to people!

      All they have to do is visit this CDC vaccine additives web page, which openly admits to these chemicals being used in vaccines right now. It’s not a conspiracy theory, it turns out. It’s the status quo of modern-day vaccine manufacturing!

      And just in case the CDC removes that page, here’s a screen shot, taken October 22, 2012, showing exactly what was on the CDC vaccine additives page: See PDF above
    • Feel that headache after a vaccine? That’s the feeling of chemicals eating your brain

    Now, consider this: The most common side effect of a vaccine injection is a headache. The CDC admits that over 30 percent of those receiving vaccines experience headaches or migraines. Gee, think about it: What could possibly be in vaccines that would cause headaches, migraines and brain damage?

    Ummm, how about the mercury, the formaldehyde, the aluminum and the MSG!

    Even if you believe in the theory of vaccines as a helpful way to train the immune system to recognize pathogens, why would anyone — especially a doctor — think it’s okay to inject human beings with mercury, MSG, formaldehyde and aluminum?

    The argument of the vaccine pushers is that each vaccine only contains a tiny dose of these highly toxic substances, and therefore it’s okay to be injected with them. But this argument makes a fatal error: U.S. children are now receiving

    plus the mercury from dental fillings and dietary sources? What’s the effect of injected mercury on an immune-suppressed child living in a state of chronic nutritional deficiency?

    Scientists don’t know that answer because such studies have never been conducted. So they pretend that nothing bad will happen and keep pushing more and more vaccines on infants, children and even expectant mothers. They’re playing Russian roulette with our children, in other words, where every injection could cause a seizure, coma, autism or death.

    • Why doesn’t the vaccine industry offer “clean” vaccines free from all toxic additives?

    If vaccines are supposed to be good for you, why do they contain so many additives that are BAD for you? You wouldn’t want to eat mercury in your tuna fish. You wouldn’t want MSG in your sandwich, and you certainly wouldn’t want formaldehyde in your soda. So why would you allow yourself to be injected with these deadly substances?

    And just as importantly, why wouldn’t the vaccine industry offer CLEAN vaccines? Without any brain-damaging additives?

    Think about it: When you buy health food, you want that health food to have NO mercury, NO MSG, NO aluminum and certainly no formaldehyde. No sane person would knowingly eat those neurotoxic poisons. And yet, astonishingly, those same people literally line up to be INJECTED with those exact same brain-damaging poisons, with the justification that, somehow, “This injection is good for me!”

    Absurdly, the vaccine industry says these toxic ingredients are intentionally added to vaccines to make them work better! Yes, that’s the reason: Mercury makes vaccines work better, they insist

    granting children “improved behavior and mental performance.”

    No, I’m not making this up. The mainstream media literally claims that mercury is GOOD for babies. Vitamins might kill you, they say, but mercury is good for you!

    Vaccines are designed with chemical additives to poison the population, not to protect the population

    #WakeUpAmerica