"A Signal" Where There Could Be "A Tornado Warning"...

The Incredible White Washing Of The CDC Thimerosal Study Population Sample...

Return To HOME Page

Return To Book 3 Table Of Contents

As I read the complete transcript of the Simpsonwood meeting, discussing the CDC thimerosal study done by Verstraeten, Davis and DeStefano that resulted in the document entitled: Thimerosal VSD Study - Phase I, and having taken at least the basics in statistics, there was something that very much stood out for me when it came to the CDC study looking at the possible link between vaccines and neurodegeneration.   That "something" was the fact that the population sample used clearly was not even close to being representative of children who would have been exposed to vaccines and in all likelihood have gone on to develop autism.    

Clearly, I was not the only person seeing major issues with this study... and the several "follow up studies" done on this issue. A letter written in Oct. 2003 to the CDC by US Congressman Dave Weldon - who was also a DOCTOR -   outlined the many, many "concerns" he had with what appeared to be nothing less than "data manipulation" that resulted in the "disappearance" of the earlier autism-vaccine link.

Let me explain the reasons for which, in my opinion, the Thimerosal study by Verstraeten, Davis and DeStefano that resulted in the document entitled:  Thimerosal VSD Study - Phase I, used a population that I could only describe as "white washed" and therefore, truly not a good sample to capture the true extent of the potential problem with vaccines. 

The database used consisted of a computerized database that looked at billing data by HMOs, etc.  I knew that in my personal case, this would never have captured my son in the population sample.   From what I could understand of this report, it very much looked like billing codes were the primary thing looked at, as were "diagnosis" for things such as ADHD, etc. 

In the case of my son, I had taken him to a pediatrician for an initial assessment - and only a hand written notation was made in his records that he showed signs of autism.   There was obviously nothing in the billing that would have indicated that his visit to the pediatrician in early April of 2000 was to discuss the possibility of autism with a pediatrician.   The reason I knew that for a fact was because Blue Cross Blue Shield of IL ended up calling my husband and I to find out what that visit was for.   We had just left corporate America and had also applied for our own insurance via Blue Cross Blue Shield of IL - apart from our employer - and therefore, BCBS-IL wanted to know "the specifics" about this visit for Zachary - as it could very much impact their willingness to insure us - and clearly it did.   We had applied for insurance almost 6 weeks earlier – while we were still working.   The normal process was supposed to take approximately 2 weeks.   It had taken close to 6 weeks due to backlogs.   When I honestly told BCBS that this was a visit because I suspected autism in my son, within 2 days, we received the final answer to our request for personal insurance – BCBS-IL could cover everyone - except Zachary!    

We replied "thanks, but no thanks" ...  

Although we had found this so unjust, this experience certainly demonstrated several things as they now related to the thimerosal study and as such, as with everything in life, perhaps there had been a very for this after all!   Had that experience with BCBS-IL not happened, I certainly would have had a more warped view of things as they related to this study and its population sample.

Given "billing data" was used, I very much suspected persons without medical insurance would not have even have shown up in their "data" or population sample as no data would have gone to an HMO, etc. for billing purposes.   It was estimated that 11 - 12% of children in the US did not have health insurance according to US Census data:  http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/2002/cb02-127.html.    

Also, unless the billing information provided "something" to indicate the problem was autism or an autism spectrum disorder, again, that information would have been missed.   In my case, that would definitely have been true since the doctor had simply put a "hand-written notation" in Zachary's records, and the insurer had to call to find out what the visit was for in the first place. 

But, there were other reasons for which this population sample, in my opinion, may very, very much underestimate the scope of the problem as it related to thimerosal injury. 

The data used looked at billing codes.   It looked at billing data.   Billing data was just that... billing data... and often, it was inaccurate.   Having worked with billing systems and databases in the past, I knew how often codes were simply wrong and/or inaccurate.   You simply could not, in my opinion, use a database intended for billing to determine the impact of vaccines on children.   These data were NOT INTENDED for such a study and as such, in my opinion, that in itself, provided for many, many issues in terms of the accuracy of the data!   

The simple fact was that if I was a data entry clerk and did not remember the code for a certain thing, but I remembered that the billing for that was say $150.00, then using any code that billed "150.00 would have resolved the issue from a "billing perspective".   As such, the accuracy of "billing data" being used for a study to determine an autism-vaccine link, in my opinion, was highly questionable! 

There were also other issues with codes themselves.   For example, a child could be said to be diagnosed with ADHD and then, later "not confirmed".   Well, given that ADHD was usually confirmed around age 8 - 10, it would make sense that this "diagnosis" would not have been confirmed... perhaps the doctor was simply indicating that there was a problem.   The lack of a "confirmed ADHD diagnosis" did not mean that a problem did not exist anyway... and as such, in my opinion, "lack of confirmation" did not equal "lack of a problem or issue"... even though that appeared to be "how the data were interpreted" in this "study". 

Particularly troubling to me, however, was what I saw as "white washing of the population sample" via the automatic elimination from the study of specific children.    

Clearly, over 25% of the probable sample was ELIMINATED from the study – right from the start!   Page 34 of the Simpsonwood meeting transcripts states: 

"... there was quite a large group, about 25%, that we excluded because of congenital or perinatal disorders..." 

The fact that 25% of children appeared to experience and/or were born with "some kind of problem" in this nation

should be reason enough for concern, in my opinion.   Note that in his report on the dangers of mercury, Windham had referenced an article from the National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council, Committee on Developmental Toxicology, Scientific Frontiers in Developmental Toxicology and Risk Assessment, June 1, 2000, that stated clearly close to 50% of pregnancies today resulted in either the death of the child, developmental disabilities, birth defects, or chronically ill babies – 50% of pregnancies – if that was not a “significant alarm bell”, I did not know what was!

But, for purposes of the thimerosal study, even with using just a 25% figure, and adding that to the 12% believed to be uninsured meant that clearly – at least 37% of the “real life” population sample was missing from this study -  and those "left over" - could certainly be considered among the "healthiest" in terms of who was allowed to participate in the study - hardly representative of the US population given this study – itself - indicated that 25% of children had some type of problem very early on!  Yet, surely, many, many  of these children had most likely been vaccinated - so, why exclude them from the study given they were perhaps the "most susceptible" to vaccine injury!

"Congenital disorders" would have excluded children who had disorders such as Down Syndrome (the genetic but not hereditary condition) ... yet a dual diagnosis of DS and autism was "no longer rare" (refer to Cohen, Patterson).  In fact, according to some studies, if you have Down Syndrome you may be up to 10 times more likely than the "general population" to also have autism (refer to paper on Redefining The Role of Insulin posted in full on this website).  Thus, according to the "criteria" set in the Simpsonwood study, those who may be the most "at risk" for autism, were completely excluded from the study under the "perinatal clause"!

Excluded from this study were children who had not only "congenital" ("born with") problems but also children who had problems during the "perinatal period".   Well... what exactly was the "perinatal period"? "Perinatal medicine" as defined by an online dictionary was the period started from week 28 in gestation to day 28 after birth - I quote: 

"The branch of medicine dealing with the foetus and infant during the perinatal period.   The perinatal period begins with the twenty-eighth week of gestation and ends twenty-eight days after birth. " http://www.books.md/P/dic/perinatalmedicine.php. 

I could not help but ask:   Why go back to week 28 of gestation and exclude any child whose mother experienced a problem during pregnancy?   Could it be because these children were perhaps most "at risk" for autism and given we really did not want to see "a link" between autism and vaccines, we chose to exclude as many "risks" as possible that would show a link between autism and vaccines?   Why would a study looking at the effects of thimerosal go back to week 28 of gestation in determining who would or would not be included in the population sample? 

Week 28 was a critical point in pregnancy... that was when mothers showed signs of gestational diabetes, Rh factor incompatibility, etc.  As such, any child of a mother who would have experienced gestational diabetes, or Rh factor incompatibility - requiring a Rhogam shot at week 28 of gestation and again within 72 hours of delivery - 2 shots laced with mercury - for the mother (note:  mercury was known to pass from mother to unborn child via both the placenta and breastmilk!), any child born with a "problem" at birth (i.e., jaundice, etc.), any child experiencing breathing problems at birth, or early in life, any infant with cardiac, respiratory or CNS (i.e.,  mental retardation, etc.,) problems  would most likely have been excluded from this study.   Yet, these were often the very issues seen in children that went on to develop autism! 

That "little glucose bottle" Zachary had been given at birth because he was "low on glucose" had always bothered me since I had discovered he had autism.   Clearly, this was a sign of problems with insulin even though I was not “diagnosed” as having "gestational diabetes"... yet, clearly, there had been a problem with insulin in Zachary -  a sign from DAY 1.    

Were children of mothers with gestational diabetes  and Rh factor incompatibility excluded from this study under the “perinatal condition clause”?   Gestational diabetes was certainly considered a serious perinatal condition given it led to increases in birth defects and perinatal deaths and as such, these pregnancies, like Rh incompatibility pregnancies,  were considered "high-risk pregnancies"! 

Thus, as a parent of a child with autism who was born "low on glucose" - a clear sign of a problem with insulin, I would take issue with this study if it had excluded children of mothers with gestational diabetes and mothers who had Rh factor incompatibility given what I now understood b cells (tied to insulin production and immune system functions as they related to “the blood”) very much appeared to play into all this.   From conversations with other parents of children with autism, indeed, many a mother had indicated that either she had been diagnosed with gestational diabetes or that her child had also received that “special little glucose bottle at birth! 

Note also another interesting comment… I quote: 

“… the heavier babies in this cohort are more likely to have the outcome, and that is statistically significant…” (p. 46 of Simpsonwood transcripts). 

That was very interesting to me… heavier babies… hum… was an insulin problem at play here?   It was also a known fact that mothers who had heavier babies were more likely to develop diabetes later in life and that the reason most associated with the fact that children were “Large for Gestational Age or LGA” – per the Merck Manual, Section 19, Chapter 260 was – diabetes mellitus in the mother!   Zachary – at 9 pounds – had certainly been a big baby – and by 3 months – pictures I had taken of him next to another child – born only two days later, indicated he was almost twice the size of the other child!  This picture of Zachary and this other child only 2 days younger than Zachary – a child who had weighed 8 pounds 3 oz at birth – both children shown at 3 months – was reproduced below – was it any wonder his pediatrician used to call him – I quote – “the moose” – a term I came to despise as I came to realized that instead of making fun of this situation, the pediatrician should have seen it for what it was – a very serious problem!   Granted, he we did discuss “slowing feedings” as much as possible – and that had clearly been noted in Zachary’s charts – however, a discussion of “what to do” without knowing the source of the problem – was rather useless!   Instead, I was given comments such as “you don’t want to turn him into a milk baby”!   Just “what exactly was – a milk baby”?   Was that another way of saying “an autistic child” given these children could not digest casein – a milk protein!   I truly wondered! 

 Casein/milk proteins... were known to act as natural opiates in children with autism... certainly helping to explain why children like Zachary wanted to eat constantly... they were getting a "drug high" from their milk!  But, now, looking back at all this, it certainly appeared that insulin may have played a role here, too!  Note that casein kinase 1 is involved in dna repair and that the very things which contain gluten - grains - are sources of something else that is critical to these children - Vitamin B6.   Could this be part of the reason why these children were craving milk and gluten products... for the potential benefit they may derive from milk and vitamin B6 - in spite of the fact that they had issues digesting foods like milk and grains because of compromised immune systems.  Note that according to the transcript from the Puerto Rico meeting on aluminum in vaccines, it is well known that vaccine components can lead to allergic reactions later in life!   Note also that "vaccine components" include casein, and many grain oils as well as peanut oil... perhaps explaining why so many children are so deathly allergic to peanut butter today. 

For more on this and other key issues that play into this puzzle, refer to my paper on Redefining The Role of Insulin - posted in full on this website!   I consider a "MUST READ" for all parents of children on the autism spectrum!  That paper will help shed a great deal more light on these issues of the "White washing of the CDC Thimerosal study population sample"... and when you understand the issues that play into all this, in my opinion, there can be no denying that the CDC knew exactly what it was doing when it set its "exclusion criteria" for this study... and hence, why I believe that had the population sample been more representative of the actual vaccinated population, the CDC would have received not "a signal" of a problem... but perhaps, they would have had a signal in the order of a "TORNADO WARNING"!

According to the Simpsonwood meeting, it appeared that children who had "feeding problems" were excluded (see p. 98 of Simpsonwood transcripts).   Needless to say, there was very little doubt that children who develop autism had "feeding problems"... as clearly evidenced by overeating, vomiting, diarrhea, selective food choices, etc., in these children.   Yet, children with "feeding problems" appeared to again have been excluded from the study! 

In discussions with other parents of children with autism, I had also learned some children appeared to have low levels of iron at birth.   Given iron and insulin modulated one another... that was not surprising to me.  Unfortunately, children seen as "anemic" - and hence believed to be low on iron - could be given iron supplementation when in fact the problem was not one of "too little iron" but "too much", and given aluminum was known to bind to transferrin, again, in my opinion, those were factors that had to be looked at!    

Thus, "low blood iron" and/or “low glucose” at birth, in my opinion, could not be ignored and/or masked via “supplementation” such as “a little glucose bottle” or “an iron supplement” in the case of “apparent” – and that was the key word – “apparent” – anemia, as I now truly believed these were signs of serious problems and potential markers for children susceptible to autism later in life.   

Also excluded from this study were infants born prematurely because their systems would have been "more susceptible" to vaccines as again, clearly indicated in the Simpsonwood transcripts.    Children who were premature were often vaccinated on a different schedule.  Yet, as Dr. Verstraeten himself had stated in the Simpsonwood meeting – I quote: 

"I can see some very premature children also getting vaccinated"... (p. 153 of Simpsonwood transcripts)

Obviously, these children, “being more susceptible in the first place”, could very well have gone on to have "an event" that would have increased the statistical significance had they been included in this study!   Thus, children who would have been among the "most susceptible" to vaccine injury, were excluded from the study, even though, clearly, according to Dr. Verstraeten himself, many very premature children were also getting vaccinated...   

Also excluded were infants who had died... death and autopsy reports were excluded - even though, clearly, the VAERS database indicated vaccines often played a role in childhood deaths, SIDS, and/or abnormal breathing patterns (refer to information provided at: http://www.909shot.com/Articles/gnssids.htm  and also at http://thinktwice.com/sids.htm). 

Also excluded were children who had not received 2 polio shots. 

I truly did not understand this "condition/criteria"  - another “red flag” - given the polio vaccine did not contain mercury and as such, it should be a “non-issue” in a study that was supposed to be looking at THIMEROSAL... unless the scientists believed this could be a way of seeing if something else was the problem - like the polio shot... something that did not have mercury in it.  If a "non-thimerosal" containing shot was going to be included in this study, why was it not the MMR instead of the polio shot because, clearly, parents were associating the MMR with autism, too!  Thus, why take polio and not look at the MMR instead?    

The study stated that this "polio criteria" was to determine "dates for participation in the HMO program" because polio was considered the most widely accepted vaccine.   Well, clearly, there were "date data" available to determine HMO participation in databases... given billing information had to include "date of service" and as such, using the "polio criteria" in my opinion, was a totally bogus criteria... the study could have simply looked at "dates themselves", looking at “first and last date of service, etc.”    

To state that the “polio criteria” was an indicator of “participation in the vaccine program – overall” was truly not a good assumption to make.   If indeed polio was “the most widely accepted vaccine”, surely, a family could choose to vaccinate for polio, a vaccine with no thimerosal in it… and then, choose to avoid those vaccines with thimerosal in them… and/or the MMR… vaccines that were so closely associated with autism.    I just did not “buy” the reason given for “the polio criteria” – especially knowing that Salk himself had issues with its safety and vaccine-induced polio as he attested to in 1976.    Recently, the polio vaccine (SV40) had also very much been associated with cancer.  To use “the polio criteria” as an indicator of participation in a vaccine program for thimerosal, was thus, again, in my opinion, totally invalid.   If these children had not had thimersosal-laced shots in the first place, they would not have been in the study to begin with.   Whether or not they had received polio vaccines was truly, completely irrelevant – from both a “data perspective” given “date data” could have been used instead… and given participation in the polio vaccine program was no indicator of whether or not someone chose to vaccinate their children with thimerosal-laced shots!  As such, had there maybe been another reason for “the polio criteria”… hum… given everything I had seen in terms of population sample manipulation in this study… I just had that “suspicious mind” when it came to this issue…  In view of the CDC immunization schedule, I could not help but wonder about something else.   This schedule was posted at: http://autismhelpforyou.com/ImmunizationSchedule.jpg

Given “catch-up” polio shots could be given anywhere from 6 months of age to 18 months of age to children who had for one reason or another missed an earlier polio shot, potentially, this “polio criteria” could also “knock out of the study” children who had received the MMR “earlier” or closer to 12 months of age AND who had been late on a polio immunization for some reason or other… and as such, that, potentially, could certainly also have influenced “results” in this study.  Granted, the MMR was not a thimerosal-laced shot… but, what about “other shots” that were laced with thimerosal… how did “the polio criteria” impact these… 

As I looked at the CDC immunization schedule, I could not help but come to the conclusion that “the polio criteria” could also have resulted in the exclusion of many children who would have had more in terms of mercury as a result of more Hep B, Hib and DTPshots!  Indeed, being late on just 1 polio shot had the potential to exclude from this study children who by 1 would have potentially received 3 Hep B shots, 3 Hib shots and 3 DTP shots – all of which could absolutely have been -  laced with mercury!   If a child missed say his second polio shot, at 4 months, the “catch-up” shot could be received anytime prior to 18 months of age.   As such, a child could easily miss “this criteria” since if the polio shot was not given at six months, the next “baby visit” was usually at one year of age… and thus, a child could easily be excluded from this study if the second polio vaccine was not given at the 6 month checkup!   

Given 38% of children in this study were known to have “chronic earaches”, certainly, falling “off schedule” would have been an easy thing to do since immunizations were not supposed to be given when a child was sick or on antibiotics.  Also, any child who had suffered a reaction to a vaccine early on and whose parents had chosen to no longer vaccinate would also have been excluded by the “polio criteria”.   As such, personally, I did not “buy” the “polio criteria” and/or the “reason given for it” as a valid criteria for this “population sample” and saw this more as another means of manipulating the population sample!     Any good statistician with a good stats software package could have divided the data into the appropriate “tranches” or “slices” to look at all these issues… and likewise, someone with a basic understanding of statistics could have easily manipulated the population sample to make “associations disappear”! I quote:

“the kids you choose to let into your analysis can have a great effect on what happens eventually..." (p. 96 of Simpsonwood transcripts, emphasis added)...   

Note that my own daughter had missed her first MMR at the age of 1 and the doctors did not notice this until she was due for her next shot – at age 5 or so.   If a child, like mine, happened to “miss a shot”, it could very well be that this would go unnoticed until the next polio shot would be due – around age 4 or 6 – and as such, inattention in terms of shots received by the physician could also very easily knock a child out of this study!

Also excluded were children who had received hepatitis B immunoglobulins.   Note the reason for excluding these children – I quote:

"Those would be vaccinated for hepatitis B and would have a higher likelihood of the outcomes"... (Simpsonwood transcript, p. 32).

This exclusion was very troubling to me... because… of all the exclusions… it certainly pointed out the fact that kids who were most likely to have an advserse effect were purposely excluded from the study… and if this was done for “one of the criteria”, I had no doubt this had been a motivating factor in setting all the criteria.   Indeed, it very much appeared to be saying that we specifically excluded these kids because if they had this shot, they would have been more likely to have neurodegeneration... so, let's not include them in the study!  Note also that the study underrepresented the effects of Hepatitis B in children because that data was generally not available and as such, the data was very much incomplete in this respect.   Note that Hepatitis B was the first shot usually given to infants... often before they left the hospital... and it certainly did contain mercury and it certainly did appear to cause death in infants according to information in the VAERS database!   Often the information from the hospital records appeared to not make it to the pediatrician's office and hence, the issue with the accuracy of the Hepatitis B data in this study (refer to:  http://www.vaccinationnews.com/DailyNews/2003/July/09/HepatitisBVaccine9.htm)

Also excluded were children participating in vaccine studies - for new vaccines - as indicated by Dr. Gerber's comments at the Simpsonwood meeting - again, I quote: 

"...it seems to me that during the time that this study was done, 1992 - 1997, at least at Northern California Kaiser, there was a substantial number of children involved in vaccine trials.   The vaccines that those children would have received would not have shown up in the CPT coding" (Dr. Gerber, Simpsonwood transcript, p. 232). 

Note also, that as clearly indicated in the Simpsonwood meeting, many children were simply not old enough yet to be diagnosed! (p. 38 of Simpsonwood transcripts).   Also, unless a mother "raised a concern", children would not have been included in the population... it was often up to the mother to "see the problems" and have the child looked at... and unfortunately, many, many children went quite a while before they were "diagnosed" - as clearly indicated in the Simpsonwood meeting.   Again, I quote:

"There is no routine screening of children, so it is only if the mothers bring their children for a problem that we will be able to pick it up."( p. 49 of Simpsonwood transcript). 

"I work in the Early Intervention Program and I wish you were right, but in a study that we have done in Michigan, we think that there is less than 40%, probably less than 30%, of the kids who are eligible in terms of delay that are in fact referred for evaluation.   Even then, we don't know how many of those are getting treated..." (Dr. Weil, Simpsonwood meeting transcripts, p. 137).  Also, children who "dropped out of the HMO for some reason" were not included in the study.   Could these be children whose parents saw a problem and went to a DAN! (Defeat Autism Now!) doctor, etc. instead?   Again, I saw a huge issue with not including these children in the population sample. 

As I looked at this "population sample", clearly, in my opinion, there was much too much "white washing" of the initial population.   It clearly was not even close to representative of the "population" in general.   Note that 51 people attended this meeting on thimerosal in June of 2000 – and all had agreed – unanimously – that more studies were needed…  

"As a whole, the group was pretty unanimous, in fact we were unanimous, in saying that additional research is needed." (Dr. Stehr-Green, Simpsonwood transcripts, p. 252, emphasis added) 

but…  

On November 15 of that same year - 2000 – Walt Orenstein, Director of the National Immunization Program at the CDC, attended a meeting again, on the safety of vaccines and when the FDA's  Dr. Susan S. Ellenberg proposed conducting larger trials, Walt Orenstein clearly indicated he was "not in favor of expanded studies"... not surprising given the concerns raised in Simpsonwood about "the study that should never have been done in the first place"  ... and the "white-washing" of the original population sample!   Refer to Reuters article, Thursday, Nov 16th, entitled:  FDA, NIH, CDC reconsider system for ensuring vaccine safety, http://archive.mail-list.com/hbv_research/msg01771.html.

Note that "additional studies" were already supposed to be underway according to the Simpsonwood transcripts in order to better look at or  confirm "the signal" received in the thimerosal study.  Had these studies been completed and confirmed the problem - perhaps to a greater extent than originally thought?   I could not help but wonder.   How could 51 people state that "more studies were needed" and yet, Walt Orenstein, at a meeting 5 months later, stated that he was "not in favor of expanded studies"?   

 "... so what I will present to you is the study that nobody thought we should do".... (Dr. Verstraeten, Simpsonwood transcripts, p. 31, emphasis added)

Note that at the time this study was originally done, Verstraeten worked for – the CDC!   He later went on to work for GlaxoSmithKline.   Note that the CEO of GlaxoSmithKline, Sir Christopher Hogg was also “non-executive Chairman” at Reuters – perhaps the world’s largest “news feed” organization providing “news feeds” to other news agencies/services.   As such, one could certainly not be surprised by the lack of support for parents in the media when it came to this issue of the autism-vaccine link and the fact that so much of this was not “in the public eye” in “news reports” on this issue.

If "nobody thought we should do this study", obviously, that meant we - at the CDC - did not want to find a link between autism and vaccines.   As such, again, I can only conclude that the above "exclusions" had been done in order not to find a link between autism and vaccines.    As clearly indicated by Dr. Clement representing the World Health Organization, it very much appeared the "outcome" of this study" could have been "predicted"... and so, perhaps we should never have done this study in the first place!   Again, if you don't want to see "a link", in

my opinion, you will do what you can in order "not to see a link"!  

"I am really concerned that we have taken off like a boat going down one arm of the mangrove swamp at high speed, when in fact there was not enough discussion really early on about which way the boat should go at all.   And I really want to risk offending everyone in the room by saying that perhaps this study should not have been done at all, because the outcome of it could have, to some extent, been predicted and we have all reached this point now where we are left hanging, even though I hear the majority of consultants say to the Board that they are not convinced there is a causality direct link between Thimerosal and various neurological outcomes... I wonder how on earth you are going to handle it from here."   (Dr. Clements, representing Expanded Program on Immunizations, WHO (World Health Organization), Geneva, Simpsonwood transcripts, p. 247)  

Clearly, I was not the only one to see problems with the data, the population sample and what appeared to be very obvious attempts at manipulating the findings of this study – a study that would later be “redone” several times in order to conceal what absolutely appeared to confirm a link between vaccines and autism. 

On October 31, 2003, Congressman Dave Weldon of Florida – who also happened to be a doctor - sent a letter (click here to view) expressing his concerns to the CDC.  In that 3-page letter – posted in full along with other  “Reports”, Dr. Weldon stated his concerns over what he saw as apparent attempts by the CDC to manipulate the data and do away with the results of the original study – a study that had clearly shown an autism-vaccine link.   Dr. Weldon also very much expressed his view that independent studies were needed in order to get to the bottom of this issue.     

In conclusion, in my opinion, there could be no doubt that the CDC Thimerosal study used a very "white washed population"...  and still... they had received what they had termed "a signal" of a problem in terms of the correlation between vaccines and neurodegneration... I now suspected had the CDC used a more representative population sample... perhaps that "signal" would have been something more in the order of a - "tornado warning"!

How could things have gone “so wrong"?  Perhaps the answer to that question could be found by taking a closer look at expertise at the FDA - the Failing In Duties Administration - and the CDC – and organization where Common Disorders Confused, and an organization that  Customarily Disregarded Critics as it chose to Conceal Data Controversies and Casually Discard the Critical - something that became again, so clearly evident in another meeting - this one on aluminum in vaccines!   For more revealing insights as to the expertise of these organizations in matters of metal toxicology and in matters of "vaccine safety", see - a must read -  The Aluminum Connection!

There were many who felt that science should be left “to science” and that laypersons that had no training in science should “stay out of it”.  Like so many “laypersons”, it was true, I, too, had no scientific, no research and/or medical training.   I was “simply a mother” with a story – and research - to share… a mother... like so many other determined mothers – looking for answers!  But, in looking at so many of these issues and the many parallels among so many disorders, although I had no significant background in science, neither did I need to be a chemical engineer or a fireman to know:

"Where there's smoke... There's fire! "

Like fire – the truth - could be very painful!  But fire also provided the opportunity for regeneration… and the opportunity to rebuild after the charring - the disaster!

Return To Book 3 Table Of Contents

Return To HOME Page