Vaccines Can Cause Autism: Causation vs. Correlation

Many doctors refuse to point a finger at vaccines when a child is clearly harmed after being vaccinated.

Do vaccines cause autism? This question has been the source of a heated debate for a long time. While researching autism for the last six years, I’ve often seen articles about causation and correlation. Although I am a layperson who doesn’t completely grasp the scientific process, I have to say the topic intrigues me. I’m going to, if you will, think out loud in this article. Bear with me, and if you have ideas you’d like to share, please do.

First of all, what does causation mean? What is correlation? Merriam-Webster defines “causation” as:

a: the act or process of causing
b: the act or agency which produces an effect

I’ll come back to correlation in a moment. With this definition of causation in mind, there seem to be three possible answers to the question, do vaccines cause autism?

1. Yes. Always.
2. No. Never.
3. Maybe. Sometimes.

Let’s explore each one.

Yes. Always.

I don’t think anyone believes that vaccines always cause autism. That would mean that every child who gets a vaccine ends up with autism. It just goes against reason and logic—and it’s simply not true. There are a lot of children who have gotten a lot of vaccines, and they don’t have autism.

No. Never.

“Never” is a strong word. It would mean that no child has ever gotten autism because of a vaccine. Not one single child. This option is as unreasonable and illogical as the “Yes. Always” option.

Maybe. Sometimes.

I think any reasonable, logical person would find this option … well, reasonable and logical. Vaccines sometimes cause autism. Not always. Not never. Sometimes. Like cigarettes and cancer. It’s an accepted scientific fact that people who smoke have a higher risk of cancer. But there are people who smoke for a lifetime and don’t get cancer. Then, there are people who never smoke and end up with cancer. Sometimes.


Back to option #2, No. Never. This is where correlation comes in. If this option were true and vaccines never cause autism, for every child whose parent claims he or she developed autism after a vaccine, there is another explanation in the scientific world: correlation. According to M-W, “correlation” is:

the state or relation of being correlated; specifically : a relation existing between phenomena or things or between mathematical or statistical variables which tend to vary, be associated, or occur together in a way not expected on the basis of chance alone

Correlation doesn’t necessarily imply causation. But think about these examples:

1. A child runs out in the street, is hit by a car, and dies. Did the car correlate with his death, was it responsible for his death (causation), or both? Obviously, the car correlated with the child’s death because the two events occurred almost simultaneously. Most reasonable, logical people would say that being run over by the car caused the child’s death. So, there was correlation and causation. A skeptical person might say the child was on the verge of a heart attack (or some other fatal event) in the moments before he was hit by the car, so the car correlated with his death but didn’t cause it. Cause of death could have been the heart attack, and the car just happened to hit the child at almost the same time.

2. A child gets a vaccine and then develops a low-grade fever—a known, undebated side effect of the vaccine. Or redness at the injection site—another known, undebated side effect. Since the fever or redness occurred at about the same time the child got the vaccine, the vaccine also correlated with those side effects.

3. A child gets a vaccine and then gets a fever of 102 (not low-grade), has a seizure, gets sick, stays sick, and—you know the rest. Autism. According to diehard pro-vaxers, the vaccine could not be the cause of the autism. The vaccine simply correlated with the autism. Perhaps the more immediate the adverse event—say, the child dies within minutes or hours of receiving the vaccine—the more likely causation might be. Again, I’m thinking out loud here. Maybe the greater the time between the vaccine and the adverse event—say, the child regresses over a period of weeks or months—the greater the possibility that there could be other causes. Maybe, for instance, the child was on the verge of a seizure disorder and it was just a matter of time before he had the first one. Or he had “inherited” autism, and it was just a matter of time before the first symptoms appeared. Correlation but no causation. Personally, I don’t see how any reasonable, logical person could completely rule out the vaccine as at least a contributing cause—if not the only cause.


You may remember the article I published last month, “1 in 88: What’s Causing the Increase in Autism?” I mentioned some of our government’s proposed causes of autism. Living within three miles of a freeway is one. I’m not saying that isn’t possible. Maybe it is one cause. One of numerous. But how could it be proven? How is it not just correlation? In addition to living close to a freeway—and I’m thinking like the CDC now—maybe these kids’ moms took certain medications when they were pregnant, maybe their moms and/or dads were too old, maybe the mom gained too much weight, maybe the child wore pajamas with flame retardant in them, maybe the baby was premature or inhaled household cleaners or too much dust in utero. Etc. Etc.

When I ponder causation and correlation, the Danish study that was published in 2003 comes to mind. The claim was that even when mercury was removed from most vaccines (which is, of course, not the case), the autism rate did not decline. In fact, it increased. The conclusion: Mercury doesn’t cause autism. How scientific is that? It doesn’t prove that vaccines don’t cause autism. Even if the findings were true as reported (which they weren’t) [1], at best the study could possibly suggest that mercury doesn’t cause autism. The problem with this is, there are so many ingredients in vaccines. Not just mercury. This is the epitome of junk science. It doesn’t prove that aluminum or aborted fetal cells or formaldehyde or ether or antibiotics or bacteria, to name a few, couldn’t cause autism. And it doesn’t prove that an interaction between the many ingredients in a vaccine or between different vaccines given at the same time couldn’t cause autism.

To me, this would be like taking one ingredient out of cigarettes, seeing no drop in the cancer rate, and saying that cigarettes don’t cause cancer. What is the difference? There is no reasonable, logical thinking here, let alone scientific proof.


So, just briefly, I’ll stop thinking out loud and mention some of the quotes I’ve found on causation and correlation. I chose these because I think they are—you got it—reasonable and logical.

“Obviously, it is much more difficult to prove causation than it is to prove an association. Should we just ignore associations? No! Not at all!!! Not even close!!! Correlations are crucial for research and still need to be looked at and studied …” [2]

“It’s hard to nail down causation conclusively, as evidenced by tobacco company lawyers who argued for forty years that smoking merely ‘correlated’ to lung cancer rather than actually caused it. However, the least you can do is pause and ask yourself what other possible causes exist … If they do exist, you need to think through the evidence and determine why these other causes are less likely than the one you propose.” [3]

I think this is especially relevant to my grandson’s story (Unlocking Jake: The Story of a Rabies Vaccine, Recovery & Autism). Jake was 3½ years old when he developed autism after a series of rabies vaccines. As I’ve explained before, he was not sick, he was not on any medication, he hadn’t been bitten or stung by anything, and he hadn’t ingested any type of poison. Nothing could explain what happened to him except for the rabies vaccines. In my AutismOne interview on Voice America this week, Teri Arranga asked me if I thought the rabies vaccine could have been Jake’s toxic tipping point. I have thought about this a lot, and I’ll probably never know for sure. It’s possible. Maybe if he hadn’t had 30 doses of vaccines between 1 day old and 15 months old, he wouldn’t have regressed into autism after the rabies vaccines. The one thing I do know is that the rabies vaccine caused autism in my grandson. There was no other possible cause. None.

“…correlation does not imply causation, even though in fact some of the most important scientific advances have come precisely because scientists did investigate that implication. … Correlation is not causation but it sure is a hint.” [4] These are the words of Edward Tufte, Professor Emeritus of political science, statistics, and computer science at Yale University. Tufte holds a Ph.D in political science from Yale and a B.S. and an M.S. in statistics from Stanford University. In early 2010, he was appointed by President Obama to serve on the independent panel that advises the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board. [5]

And, last but not least, from Austin Bradford Hill: “Finally, in passing from association to causation I believe in ‘real life’ we shall have to consider what flows from that decision. On scientific grounds we should do no such thing. The evidence is there to be judged on its merits and the judgment (in that sense) should be utterly independent of what hangs upon it—or who hangs because of it. But in another and more practical sense we may surely ask what is involved in our decision.” [6] It’s pretty obvious who stands to lose when the truth about vaccines and autism can no longer be denied.

Hill (1897–1991), by the way, was a British medical statistician who outlined criteria necessary to prove causation. “Hill’s Criteria” forms the basis of modern epidemiological research. You can read all nine of them, but one idea in particular stands out. Just because a perceived association (in this case, between vaccines and autism) doesn’t agree with established theory (that vaccines don’t cause autism), that doesn’t mean the association is false. “… It may, in fact, force a reconsideration of accepted beliefs and principles.” [7]




1. www.ageofautism.com/2012/04/revisiting-denmark-more-rotten-than-ever.html

2. www.psychologytoday.com/blog/all-about-addiction/201003/correlation-causation-and-association-what-does-it-all-mean.

3. http://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/logic_causation.html

4. www.psy.gla.ac.uk/~steve/best/correlation.html

5. www.businessweek.com/innovate/NussbaumOnDesign/archives/2010/03/president_obama_8.html

6. www.edwardtufte.com/tufte/hill

7. www.drabruzzi.com/hills_criteria_of_causation.htm


Photo Credit

Jennifer Hutchinson

Jennifer Hutchinson is a freelance editor and writer. She has devoted the last few years to helping Jake recover, researching autism and vaccines, and sharing what she knows with others. She lives in Winchester, Virginia, with Ann and Jake.

  • spearce

    This is another very good article, Jennifer. As I read it, I found myself remembering a recent conversation with one of my sons who was pointing out that I was believing something based upon anecdotal evidence rather than scientific studies. I feel that anecdotal evidence is very important and I don’t always trust scientific studies. Often it depends upon who is doing the studies, whether or not the study results are to be trusted. I know you weren’t talking about anecdotal evidence here, but your article got me to thinking about that conversation, anyway.

  • Janet


    Our local paper just published a pro-vaccine article this past Sunday. I would love for you to respond to it so that it might be published for the readers to see. If you feel led, you can email a reply to: [email protected] for publication. Unless you request to be a featured guest, your letter must be 250 words or less and you must include your full name, address and telephone number at the bottom of your letter. Thank you for all of your help and information. Warmly, Janet Gernand
    Here’s the link to the pro-vaccine article by Richard Feldman: http://www.thestarpress.com/article/20120520/OPINION/205200314/AUTISM-TIE-Despite-discredited-study-some-parents-still-link-vaccine-condition

  • Paul S

    Your response to the question ‘Do vaccines cause autism?
    Yes, always
    No, never
    Maybe, sometimes
    I don’t think anyone believes that vaccines always cause autism. That would mean that every child who gets a vaccine ends up with autism. It just goes against reason and logic—and it’s simply not true. There are a lot of children who have gotten a lot of vaccines, and they don’t have autism.

    This to me is a ridiculous response. If you ask the question ‘Do vaccines cause autism?’
    The appropriate answer could definitely be ‘Yes, always!’ That doesn’t necessarily mean that every time a child gets a vaccine they’re going to get autism, but it can mean that every time a child gets autism it’s caused by the vaccine!
    So from what I’ve read, Yes, absolutely, positively, without a doubt, every time a child gets autism, it’ the vaccine that caused it and the instances of children getting autism
    are at a pandemic level!

  • Paul S

    Your response to the question ‘Do vaccines cause autism?
    Yes, always
    No, never
    Maybe, sometimes
    I don’t think anyone believes that vaccines always cause autism. That would mean that every child who gets a vaccine ends up with autism. It just goes against reason and logic—and it’s simply not true. There are a lot of children who have gotten a lot of vaccines, and they don’t have autism.

    This to me is a ridiculous response. If you ask the question ‘Do vaccines cause autism?’
    The appropriate answer could definitely be ‘Yes, always!’ That doesn’t necessarily mean that every time a child gets a vaccine they’re going to get autism, but it can mean that every time a child gets autism it’s caused by the vaccine!
    So from what I’ve read, Yes, absolutely, positively, without a doubt, every time a child gets autism, it’ the vaccine that caused it and the instances of children getting autism
    are at a pandemic level!

  • Catherine J Frompovich

    I find it rather interesting that in law and court cases most of the information presented usually is anecdotal, i.e., by cross examination and opening remarks. How come anecdotal evidence is accepted at law but not when it comes to one’s health? Good question?

  • Michael

    This is a good article. There is a lot of confusion between causation and correlation. I would disagree with the comment by Paul S that the answer has to be ‘Yes. Always’ because that is not the case. I don’t believe that every case of autism is caused by a vaccine. There are other mechanisms for getting autism. I do agree that vaccines can and often do cause autism as you point out in your article.

    Part of the problem with the scientific/medical community is vested interests. If you want funding or want to be published then you better not rock the boat. Consequently few are prepared to go against the conventional view regarding vaccines.

    Another part of the problem is that professionals don’t like to admit when they have made a mistake. This may be because they are worried about being sued or it could simply be because of pride.

    The third part of the problem is that in cases where the reaction is not immediate and severe it becomes easy for the vested interests to sheet the blame to something else. We saw this with cigarette companies and lung cancer and it took more than 40 years for the link between smoking and lung cancer to eventually be recognised officially. Sadly, I suspect it may be another 20 years before vaccines are finally acknowledged as the cause of many modern medical conditions, diseases, and allergies.

  • Cherry Misra

    In stating that autism is “increasing”, one may be the victim of the machinations of the CDC. Now how can that be? Some important points:
    1. The last declaration by the CDC regarding rates, incidence of autism are from children born in about 2000 (as I recall)
    2. At that times there was still plenty of mercury in the vaccines.
    3. No one really knows when the mercury was out of the vaccines, because of a variety of reasons, one being that vaccines with mercury were not recalled. The last vaccines with mercury expired only in 2008, though it is probably fair to say that there was less mercury in vaccines, on the whole after about 2002 (Notice how unscientific this is)
    4. By the time the mercury in the routine vaccines was decreased, the doctors began pressing pregnant women to take flu shots and they press two flu shots on babies of 6 months of age. I think there is little doubt that two flu shots containing the higher level of mercury could cause autism in any susceptible child, particularly those who are already high in their level of mercury due to mercury transferred from a mother who ate fish frequently, or who had other sources of mercury in her life.
    5 Remember that in the year of the swine flu, babies could be given 4 flu shots and the swine flu shots did contain high mercury level in most cases. If we ever get correct data, we are sure to see a spike of autism in babies who were 6 months old at that time.
    6. Now we shall wait until the CDC gives us data for children born after about 2002 and by the time that comes, the new definitions of autism may make comparisons difficult.
    . In my humble opinion, I suggest that people spend time in public places in states such as California, which ban mrcury in childrens vaccines and notice how neurologically marvellous the toddlers are now- speaking, gesticulating, walking about rather than sitting passively, facial expressions changing. How about asking the men at the hardware stores if they still have all the little boys rushing to look at the aisle that has the fans? Ask the people who work in nursery schools, how many autistic kids they see now, among kids born and vaccinated in California . Do we need the CDC or do we need common sense?

  • Jennifer Hutchinson

    Thanks, Janet. I’ll check it out. Between working and getting ready for AutismOne, it may not be till next week. :)

  • Luciana

    Yes oh Yes! Catherine…..it makes good sense! Society needs to “culture” more children/people, if not all, to reason in such a way! Common sense is non commonly practiced … the consequences are tragic. The people who have “power” over others in the community when they are vulnerable as the clients of med. doctors, nurses, teachers, lawyers, police and the Banks! Plus the mighty WHO & WMA & United Nations………..and Parents………..there needs to be comprehensive training before men & women embark on becoming Parents! Loving Blessings! Luciana.

  • Interesting distinction. So what are the other mechanisms, and what is their rate of correlation as compared to that of autism::vaccines? How many cases of autism occur in children who have received NO vaccines?

  • One other mechanism is that if the mother gets a vaccine or vaccines the child can be harmed through breast feeding; thus we hear the child showed problems from the start. Or if the mother gets a flu shot while pregnant, containing 25 mcg. of thimerosal, it can harm the child in utero.

    Generally overall, there are very few cases of real and full blown autism in the unvaccinated. It is quite rare, regardless of if the CDC will admit that or not. But then how would you know that, you probably don’t treat unvaccinated children.

    Generally the overall health of unvaccinated children is quite obviously superior to that of children vaccinated on the endless CDC schedule. But then how would you know, as the families of unvaccinated children rarely need you; and if you to parents of unvaccinated children most will tell you exactly that. Look at the comparison.

    Well quite honestly, how can those vaccinated children be healthy when they get the toxic load that they do in all those vaccines combined that have never been tested for safety regarding their combined synergistic effect. To give you an idea of how much that load is, not even counting the biological contaminants, there is some information on this page that should give you the idea.

    5,700 mcg of aluminum adjuvant (neurotoxin) injected within the first six years of life, has that been proven safe; of course not. And yes I can prove it has not, right from the CDC’s documents.

    Take a look at the rest of it?

    Vaccine Aluminum Adjuvant – Toxic Chemical Totals

    On this page there is a good video where a chiropractor explains the health differences between the vaxed and unvaxed, a good video for anyone that doesn’t realize. Also there is some information on the large groups of Amish in out country, and a bit of an expose on that. Should be interesting to anyone that actually cares about the issue. And guess what else, there is allot of science on that site, showing the harm of vaccines, and even the connections to autism, imagine that; the CDC said that didn’t exist. They told us as well that no studies had ever replicated Wakefield’s; sure looks to me like we were fed a line of misinformation, there too! They do know, but there would be far to much for them to lose to of course ever admit it and actually deal in some real and unbiased science.


  • Lou

    ” I was believing something based upon anecdotal evidence rather than scientific studies”

    In a world where upper level “science” has sold out to the political forces seeking to install a “one world tyranny” we had better trust ourselves and our good judgement rather than “sold out science”. All science is based on observation. All science is based on the observations of one being able to be observed by each and every other observer.

    Please google “the Simpson-Wood transcripts” to see just how far the CDC political hierarchy et al have gone to the dark side. Any good competent mercury researcher at CDC will tell you injecting the second most toxic substance on this earth into a new born CANNOT be good and yet the CDC sold out one worlders at the top think it just fine. Of course it is fine if your objective is to kill and weaken America.

    “Political Science” has been bought and paid for by those imposing the tyranny on America. “Vaccination” is just another tool being used to destroy America and any other nation foolish enough not to reject it TOTALLY.

  • Kiwismommy

    The entire causation argument revolves
    also around the debate about whether autism has and is increasing or
    rather is there an epidemic. This is why it somehow seems as
    important to our alphabet agencies, medical associations,
    pediatricians, etc. to deny the epidemic as strongly as they deny the
    correlation between vaccines and autism. It is really a ridiculous
    proposition that only fools the few that don’t know or understand
    autism that we somehow missed these kids in the past and they went
    through life wholly unnoticed. When you look at the possibility of
    increased awareness or diagnostic substitution then one must say,
    what could you reasonably assume would be the increase if those are
    the reasons for an increase. I have always said that in my state
    where 20 years ago there were only 3 children in the entire state
    known to have autism and were receiving services that with a change
    in diagnostics, diagnostic substitution, or even increased awareness
    that we would be talking about those 3 children turning into 50 to
    100 at the highest end of the possible scale. Even this amount would
    have been or should have been alarming to anyone paying attention.
    But what actually happened in Oregon is we went from 3 children to
    now over 8,000. There are pockets in Oregon where the rate is as
    high as 1 in 25. The argument then for increased awareness AND
    diagnostic substitution AND a change in diagnostic criteria in the
    early 90s rings hollow as we look at the hundreds of little towns
    around Oregon that would have known if these children existed.
    Teachers would tell us, oh yes, we have always had kids like this,
    they just didn’t call it autism. But that is not what we hear and
    schools that 25 years ago didn’t even have a special ed department
    are now overflowing with severely impacted children. And the problem
    isn’t even Autism alone, it is the general mental and physical health
    of all of our children as a whole, and it is not good.

    So, if the epidemic is real and there
    are similar increases in just about every state in the U.S., which we
    know there is, then we indeed have an epidemic on our hands and it is
    a scientific impossibility to have a genetic epidemic. And the time
    period we are looking at here is literally the blink of an eye in
    evolutionary terms. So, that means environmental; that something in
    our environment, well really the environment of the entire United
    States, no matter where you live, no matter the air you breathe, no
    matter the water you drink, no matter the food you consume, no matter
    the chemicals you are exposed to, makes little difference nationwide,
    the epidemic is all inclusive throughout the U.S. in every single
    group, no matter income, social status, religion, ethinic background,
    color, origin, city, or rural and so-on. Something, is universally
    poisoning all of our children. I hear so much about multiple causes
    and multiple “autisms” yet again, just like there cannot be a
    genetic epidemic, science tells us that an epidemic of this
    proportion that has happened in such a short period of time is
    probably one culprit. If not, we would have to believe that multiple
    causes all developed in a matter of years to toxic levels, all
    affecting children across the nation and in different environments
    but all within a similar diagnostic framework that while there are
    differing levels of affect and outcomes, are still all similar enough
    to get a shared diagnosis of Autism. What would be the odds of
    multiple things all doing this at exactly the same time, with no
    signs leading up to it and all having such a similar effect. I’m no
    statistician but I would think it would be 1 in several trillion, to
    even be possible. It seems beyond preposterous and yet they continue
    to get traction convincing the American public that it is genetic and
    that they have no clue about what might be causing it, despite around
    55% of parents beliefs that their child’s autism was brought about by
    vaccines. And yet they try to convince the public that we are the
    crazy ones. I once ran these ideas past Mark Blaxill and asked his
    opinion. He told me that is exactly his thoughts and that if you do
    some research on the different rates in different locations,
    especially country to country, it is further proof that there is
    probably one primary culprit. Another reason why the CDC likes to
    put out there the idea that there is probably one rate but just is
    under or over diagnosed in each area. What is happening in this
    nation surrounding Autism is Orwellian. They are trying to re-write
    history, and turning logic totally on its head, yet by repeating
    their message often enough they are actually getting people to
    believe it. Not just believe it, but worship it, to the point of
    actually turning public opinion against these families. Presenting
    them as tin-foil hat whackos who are actually threatening the very
    health of their children instead of trying to protect it as most of
    us truly feel. It’s insanity, beyond belief, and I believe finally
    starting to crumble. It cannot happen fast enough for me though.

    Every time you see an article quoting
    the propaganda of the CDC and others it is amazing how different the
    explanations are. They really cannot even get their message
    straight. In one they will say it just happens coincidentally when
    they are getting lots of vaccines, around one year of
    age. The next article will state it just happens between
    the ages of 1 and 2, coincidentally when they get the MMR
    vaccine. And yet another expert will state it “just happens”
    after the age of 2. Others will tell us it has
    always been there, it was just missed by “uneducated
    parents” unable to detect the subtle signs at such a young age.
    And depending on who reads what expert opinion those same ideas or
    repeated over and over again, but they never get-together to “set
    the story straight” and few outside of our community read them all
    and catch the inconsistencies. Now with more and more of these rarer
    stories occurring, like Jake, passed the age of 3 and regressing into
    autism, they will have to come up with ever more spins to explain it
    all away. The 6 year old that got a flu vaccine and suddenly
    regressed into autism. I recently commented on an online news story
    and heard what one of those tactics may be. Another commenter said
    that the fact that it happened after three, then it cannot even be
    diagnosed as autism which by clinical criteria occurs before the age
    of 3. So, they will declare, no matter the symptoms, it simply
    cannot be autism after the age of 3, so cannot be counted, and hence
    no matter how obvious cause and effect, or symptoms, vaccines do not
    cause autism. This is what we are dealing with, this is the
    Orwellian thought control process that is leading to the
    outright persecution including jail, removal of the children, public
    humiliation, destruction of careers, denial of services and worse of
    all such “misguided parents” or anyone daring to question the
    vaccines or who use the alternative therapies that are helping kids
    get better while proving causation at the same time. It is time to
    lift the veil, expose the true liars and charlatans, as more and more
    people are witnesses and willing to say the emperor is naked. They
    have all proven over and over again that we are all expendable,
    acceptable collateral damage to protect their “programs”. The
    tainted polio vaccine, with a potentially cancer causing SV40 virus
    was never announced to the public though the information now is
    easily accessible but the program continued unabated despite not
    really understanding the risk, potentially to the entire population. They again were perfectly willing to
    sacrifice thousands of hemophiliacs in the U.S. after they realized
    the blood supply was tainted with the AIDS virus but to avoid panic
    from the public or any threat to their blood program they told the
    public and doctors it was safe and to continue treatment for
    hemophilia as usual. If they are willing to sacrifice human lives
    without a second thought, do you really believe they care
    if they gave a million plus kids autism, or question whether they
    would go to any lengths to deny and cover it up. Many of us suspect
    that someday it will simply be looked back upon as another atrocity
    heaped on the citizens of our nation by our own corporations with the
    explicit consent and assistance of our own government.

    I say you simply look at their own
    actions of cover-up, obfiscation, midnight ryders, re-writing the
    science, changing the criteria, inability to count, secret meetings,
    denial of peer review, selling of databases to make them inacessible,
    putting up barriers to free access of information. Why act guilty if
    you are not, or if you have nothing to hide. Their own actions speak
    louder than their words.

  • Argus

    No, Catherine, delivering or discussing evidence orally (as in on the witness stand) does not make the evidence itself anectdotal. Ever heard of perjury laws? Why do you think Andrew Wakefield so assiduosly avoids giving testimony on the witness stand?

    He knows that if he tells the same kind of self-serving lies while under oath that are in his book, that the court could easily garner some jail time. Yet if he takes the stand and tells the truth, he will have to repudiate everything his “fans” believe in.

    So what do you think will happen in his current court case, Catherine? The anti-SLAPP proceeding is Andy’s chance to present all his evidence tha Brian Deer and the BMJ are wrong. Of course, if he doesn’t have any such evidence, he will want to find some other way to end this, like he has done before. Which will it be?

  • Argus

    You forgot to talk about the correlation between getting a vaccine and NOT suffering injury or death from the disease it prevents.

    It’s exceedingly high.

  • Lou

    Excellent article!

    I have recently become convinced that although “vaccination” is an evil that should not be forced on our kids OFTEN a lack of vitamin D also plays an important role in autism and other neurodegenerative problems.

    Vitamin D and Autism

    “The scientific data stress the importance of the mother having enough vitamin D while she is pregnant and the child having enough vitamin D after birth for normal brain functioning.” Doctor Kalueff NIMH

    “For reasons I do not yet understand, many autistic children first start responding to vitamin D only when their blood level reaches 90–100 ng/ml. In fact, I know of a case where the mother made a mistake and gave ten times the suggested dose and the autistic child had a miraculous and rapid response. How could that be? I do not know.?  Doctor John Cannell MD, Note we know vitamin D affects over 3000 genes obviously this matters a great deal with autism. If you have an autistic child You MUST extensively educate yourself on vitamin D

    “Unlike other steroids, the body cannot create the activated vitamin D it needs directly from cholesterol; all of the body’s activated vitamin D must come from simple vitamin D—either made in the skin or taken orally. Levels of activated vitamin D during brain development directly depend on the mother’s vitamin D levels, which in turn, directly depend on the amount of vitamin D the mother makes in her skin or ingests orally.”  Doctor John Cannell of the Vitamin D Council commenting on the work of fellow vitamin D expert Reinhold Vieth

    “4,000 IU/day during pregnancy was safe (not a single adverse event) but only resulted in a mean Vitamin D blood level of 27 ng/ml in the newborn infants, indicating to me that 4,000 IU per day during pregnancy is not enough. During pregnancy, 25(OH)D (Vitamin D) levels had a direct influence on activated Vitamin D levels in the mother’s blood, with a minimum Vitamin D level of 40 ng/ml needed for mothers to obtain maximum activated vitamin D
    levels. As most pregnant women have Vitamin D levels less than 40 ng/ml, this implies most pregnant women suffer from chronic substrate starvation and cannot make as much activated Vitamin D as their placenta wants to make.”      Doctor John Cannell MD, Note we know about 6600 IU is required for good vitamin D in your milk. IMO not a bad idea for pre-pregnant women also

    “In the last 3 years, an increasing amount of research suggests that some of the damage done by Vitamin D deficiency is done in-utero, while the fetus is developing. Much of that damage may be permanent, that is, it can not be fully reversed by taking Vitamin D after birth.  This research indicates Vitamin D deficiency during pregnancy endangers the mother’s life and health, and is the origin for a host of future perils for the child, especially for the child’s brain and immune system. Some of the damage done by maternal Vitamin D deficiency may not show up for 30 years.” Pregnancy and Vitamin D Deficiency

    “During pregnancy and lactation, women should be taking about 6000 IU/day. The current US
    “Adequate Intake” recommendation is a mere 200 IU/day. Bruce W.Hollis and Carol L. Wagner, Medical University of South Carolina, recently completed a randomized controlled trial vitamin D supplementation for pregnant and nursing women and found that even 2000 IU/day was inadequate, and that there were no adverse effects with 6000 IU/day.  William B. Grant, PhD, Note it takes 6,600 IU/day to have good levels of vitamin D in a mother’s milk

    “Only 1% to 13% of infants under 1 year now get a vitamin D supplement, available in inexpensive drops, according to a study published online today in Pediatrics. Those drops
    are needed, the study says, because only 5% to 37% of American infants met the standard for vitamin D set by the American Academy of Pediatrics in 2008: 400 international units a day.”   Life Extension, Note 400 IU MAY be enough for a 5 pound infant. I would definitely take my baby in the sun for HOURS when he developed a tan.   

    “A Scientific American article asks, “What if Vitamin D Deficiency is a Cause of Autism?” (1) How could vitamin D deficiency during pregnancy cause autism,a genetic disease? Indeed, five researchers at Harvard, led by Dr. Dennis Kinney, recently endorsed and then modified the vitamin D theory of autism.(2) Very recently, Dr. Darryl Eyles, of the University of Queensland, added his name to growing list of scientists who agree that vitamin D deficiency plays an important role in autism. (3) Writing in Acta Paediatrica, arguably the most
    read pediatric journal in the world, Dr. Eyles praised the vitamin D theory of autism as being “parsimonious,” with the animal studies he has conducted over the last decade.”  SAN
    LUIS OBISPO, Calif., 2010 June 23 /PRNewswire-USNewswire

    Vitamin D is a broad and deep subject. One thing is clear most mothers, fetuses, infants and
    children are not getting enough of this KEY nutrient to support neurodevelopmental fetal, infant and child health. IMO you MUST take the time to completely understand vitamin D and your and your children’s vitamin D requirements.  



  • linda turner

    Autism was unknown until 1943, when it was identified and diagnosed among 11 children born in the months after thimerosal…. (Mercury) was first added to baby vaccines in 1931. http://www.robertfkennedyjr.com/articles

    Linda Turner
    [email protected]

  • Argus

    Linda, are you trying to use an article that was so full of factual errors that it had to be retracted after it was published as a reference for your statement?

    Do you really believe that the condition now classified as autism didn’ t exist before that term came into widespread use?

  •  For some reason, I can’t open Linda’s link, but if she’s talking about RFK Jr.’s article in Rolling Stone (“Deadly Immunity”), here’s what the magazine editor has to say:


  • Argus

    Aren’t you leaving out part of the story about this article, Jennifer?  Is there something you don’t want readers to know?
    Omitting key pieces of information . . . that’s usually Jeffry’s modus operandi.