SCHAFER AUTISM REPORT "Healing Autism:

No Finer a Cause on the Planet"

________________________________________________________________

Monday, November 25, 2002

MEDIA ALERT

Yazbak Gets to "The Point"

Noted autism researcher Dr. F.E. Yazbak has been invited to be a guest on "The Point", a show hosted by Mindy Todd, between 1 and 2 pm eastern, this coming Tuesday, November 26.

AWARENESS

* One In Four Americans Know Someone With Autism

ADVOCACY

* Support Dan Burton's Voice for A White House Autism Conference

PUBLIC HEALTH

* Whose Hands Are Dirty?: NY Times Columnist

* Madison Ave. Plays Growing Role in Drug Research

* Second Opinion Vaccine Madness: So-Called Cervical Cancer Breakthrough

* Drug Industry Is No Villain

RESEARCH

* Exposure To Thimerosal In Vaccines Used In Canadian Infant Immunization Programs

* The Danish MMR Study - a [Very] Critical Analysis

COMMENTARY & LETTERS

* Danish Study Appears to be "Deliverate Fraud"

* Congress Reinstitutes Draft; Not 18 Yr Olds Sacrificed, But 18 Month Olds

* Sen. Daschle, Rep. Pelosi Vow to Repeal Homeland Security Provision Shielding

* Vaccine Provisions in the Homeland Security Bill

AWARENESS

One In Four Americans Know Someone With Autism

[From an organization announcement. Zogby is a known, established pollster.]]

One out of every four Americans knows someone with autism, according to a poll released today by the Organization for Autism Research (OAR). The results show that autism, a neurobiological disorder that typically affects a person's ability to communicate, form relationships, and respond appropriately to the environment, may be far more widespread than commonly believed.

The poll of 1,401 adults, conducted by Zogby International showed that 26 percent of Americans “were personally familiar with someone who has autism.” In the majority of these cases (37%) it was a friend or neighbor, but 14% were immediate family members. In another 11% of cases the person with autism was a more distant relative, and the remainder represented various business, community or health care contacts.

The high incidence of autism also appeared to impose high social and financial costs according to the poll results. Nearly one quarter of those who knew someone with autism reported that it had increased “stress on social and family ties;” 21% had had to implement some form of daily care; and 11% were suffering financial hardship as a result of autism.

“This shows that autism is no longer a disorder that can be ignored,” said Michael Maloney, executive director of OAR. “Millions of Americans are being impacted. There is a tremendous burden on families, schools, treatment programs and social services. Now more than ever, we need research to determine the best methods of early intervention, education, vocational training and life care.”

For more information about the Zogby poll, contact Michael V. Maloney, Executive Director of OAR at mmaloney@autismorg.com or (703)351-5031.

* * *

ADVOCACY

Support Dan Burton's Voice for A White House Autism Conference

[Albert Enayati is an autism research advocate who has been active with New Jersey CAN and Safe Minds. However, his following letter is personal, from his family to president Bush. He urges readers to use this letter as a sample letter to draft your own letter.]

President George W. Bush

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20500

EMAIL: President George W. Bush: president@whitehouse.gov

CC: EMAIL: Vice President Richard Cheney: vice.president@whitehouse.gov

Dear Mr. President Bush:

Congressman Dan Burton (R-IN), Chairman of the Committee on Government Reform recently requested that you host a White House conference on autism and encouraged you to begin a national effort to determine why autism has reached epidemic proportions in the United States. As parents of a child with autism we support Congressman Dan Burton request.

According to a recent poll released by Organization for Autism Research (OAR), one out of every four Americans knows someone with autism. The results show that autism, a devastating neurobiological disorder may be far more widespread than commonly believed. A recent study by the State of California determined that the number of children with autism in California has tripled over the past 10 years, and that the increase could not be attributed to better diagnoses, a broadening of the definition of autism or more accurate testing. Fifteen years ago, one in every 10,000 children in America was diagnosed with autism. Today, one in every 250 children suffers from autism.

One possible factor in the recent surge in autism cases is the mercury preservative called thimerosal that was used for years in pediatric vaccines. Over the last ten years, additional vaccines were added to the routine vaccination schedule, increasing the cumulative amount of mercury to which young children were being exposed. Scientific evidence exists documenting that mercury is a toxin that damages brain cells and impairs brain function. The FDA has known since 1982 that thimerosal poses a serious health risk. Recent studies reported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Academy of Sciences, and the medical journals confirm an association between exposure to toxins, including mercury, and neurological deficits and neurodevelopmental disorders such as autism.

The incidence of autism has dramatically increased since the late 1980s through to today in coincidence with the increasing number of vaccinations utilizing thimerosal as a preservative and the increased percentage of children receiving their vaccinations. Multiple vaccines are often injected during a single doctor's visit that can cause a huge spike in the mercury dose. Testimony given to the House Committee on Government Reform in its hearing entitled "Mercury in Medicine- Are We Taking Unnecessary Risks?" on July 18, 2000 documented the fact that a large number of American children have received over 125 times the daily maximum EPA toxic dose of mercury from routine vaccinations.

At a June 21, 2000 meeting of the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, which establishes US vaccine guidelines, preliminary data from a CDC-sponsored study was presented documenting a statistically significant association between neurodevelopmental delays and exposures to thimerosal-containing vaccines.

As parents of a child with autism, we believe we must try to determine what is causing this devastating disorder and how to stop the epidemic. Mr. President, you are in a unique position to provide the leadership that this issue needs.

-Albert and Sima Enayati Parents of Payam

P.S. For more information please visit the Safe Minds website at:

SPREAD THE WORD – SEND A LETTER TO PRESIDENT BUSH FOR AUTISM CONFERENCE (Make sure you send us a copy of your letter: edit@doitnow.com)

_______________________________________________________

>> DO SOMETHING ABOUT AUTISM NOW <<

Subscribe, Read, then Forward the Schafer Autism Report.

No Cost!

_______________________________________________________

* * *

PUBLIC HEALTH

Whose Hands Are Dirty?: NY Times Columnist

Thimerosal is a preservative that contains mercury and was used for many years as an additive in some routinely administered children's vaccines.

Fears developed a few years ago that the additive might have been causing dangerously elevated levels of mercury in infants, resulting in neurological impairment and, in some cases, autism.

Studies thus far have neither shown nor ruled out a link between the vaccines and neurological damage in children. But in the summer of 1999 the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Public Health Service urged vaccine manufacturers to stop using thimerosal as quickly as possible.

Thus, thimerosal, which was developed by Eli Lilly & Company in the 1920's and was in widespread use by the 1990's, is no longer added to vaccines commonly given to children. But a serious controversy continues. Lawsuits have been filed by parents across the country who are convinced that their children suffered severe neurological damage from the mercury in the vaccines. Talking to them can be heartbreaking.

Lyn Redwood, a nurse practitioner and the wife of a physician in suburban Atlanta, spoke to me last week about her 8-year-old son, Will. "I have a little boy who was completely normal at birth — walking, talking, smiling, meeting all of his developmental landmarks," she said. "Then, shortly after he turned 1 year old, he lost his ability to speak, to make eye contact. He started regressing and ultimately was diagnosed with pervasive developmental disorder, which falls into a spectrum of autism disorders."

+ Column continues at:

* * *

Madison Ave. Plays Growing Role in Drug Research

=5433f2669fb6f59c <- - address ends here.

Dentists leafing through The Journal of the American Dental Association last May found a study concluding that a new drug called Bextra offered relief from one of their patients' worst nightmares - the acute pain that follows dental surgery.

Federal regulators had rejected that conclusion only six months before, leaving Bextra's marketers, Pharmacia and Pfizer, hard pressed to sell it as an advance over Celebrex, their earlier entry in a crowded market for pain drugs.

The new study helped light a fire under Bextra. Its sales soared 60 percent over the three months that followed, according to industry data. But the research was not conducted by academics. Instead, the lead investigators were from Scirex, a little-known research firm owned partly by Omnicom, one of the world's biggest advertising companies.

Madison Avenue - whose television ads have helped turn prescription medicines like Viagra, Allegra and Vioxx into billion-dollar products - is expanding its role in the drug business, wading into the science of drug development.

The three largest advertising companies - Omnicom, Interpublic and WPP - have spent tens of millions of dollars to buy or invest in companies like Scirex that perform clinical trials of experimental drugs. One advertising executive calls it "getting closer to the test tube."

Ad agency executives say they do nothing to distort the research process. But critics worry that science is being sacrificed for the sake of promotion. "You cannot separate their advertising and marketing from the science anymore," said Dr. Arnold S. Relman, professor emeritus at Harvard Medical School and a former editor of The New England Journal of Medicine. "Ad agencies are not in the business of doing science."

In interviews, advertising executives say their intention is to work side by side with scientists, directing research toward drugs the marketers think could be big sellers. Their companies, they say, can help design - or as in Bextra's case even conduct - studies aimed at showing that the drugs have the qualities patients most desire.

Armed with the results, ad agencies try to sway doctors' prescribing habits. Some agencies own companies that ghostwrite articles for medical journals. They also create the continuing-education courses that doctors take to maintain their licenses. As new drugs are about to go on sale, these marketers recruit doctors to speak to peers about the drugs' benefits, often at expensive dinners the physicians are paid a fee to attend.

"We provide services that go from the beginning of drug development all the way to the launch of your products," said Joe Torre, chairman and chief executive of Torre Lazur-McCann Healthcare WorldWide, an Interpublic unit that is among the biggest health care marketing companies.

+ Article continues at:

=5433f2669fb6f59c <- - address ends here.

* * *

Second Opinion Vaccine Madness: So-Called Cervical Cancer Breakthrough

The "Breakthrough" Headlines Have Been Running All Week About A New Vaccine For Cervical Cancer - This Is Medical Science And Health Journalism At Its Worst And A Shameful Example Of How Medical Research Is Taking Dangerous Short-Cuts And Badly Misleading The Public By Nicholas Regush Whenever you see or hear the word "breakthrough" in a medical news report, duck for cover. Chances are someone’s imagination is hard at work.

The latest medical frenzy involved a vaccine aimed at cervical cancer. The study was published in the November 21 issue of The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM).

The Reuters New Agency provided this lead: "A vaccine against a cervical cancer-causing virus can protect young women from infection - a success researchers hope will eventually allow them to prevent many cases of cervical cancer."

The virus referred to is the human papillomavirus (HPV).

Reuters quoted Dr. Christopher P. Crum of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston as saying: "This is a great study."

Let’s move on.

CBSNews.com’s headline asked the question: "Major Cancer Breakthrough?" Then the report proceeded to quote researchers in this

manner: "It’s really the first time that a vaccine has been shown to prevent directly a pre-cancerous condition and indirectly a cancerous condition." That quote was attributed to Dr. Carol Brown, a gynacologic oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

Over at the New York Times, at least the headline was more

circumspect: "Experimental Vaccine Appears To Prevent Cervical Cancer." The "deck" or the line underneath the main headline might have read this way: "Appearances Can Be Deceiving." However, the Times chose to report: "The vaccine works by making people immune to a sexually transmitted virus [human papillomavirus] that causes many cases of the disease."

The Times quoted Dr. Laura A. Koutsky of the University of Washington in Seattle, the study’s director as saying: "These are tremendous results."

The Chicago Tribune bought the study too. Its lead paragraph referred to the fact that "after decades of failure," scientists showed early success in preventing human papilloma infection, "which is linked to cervical cancer."

Really?

FIRST, SOME BACKGROUND AND A QUESTION RAISED

Cervical cancer, arising in the lining of the cervix, affects about 13,000 women in the U.S. each year. About 4,000 die. Worldwide, a half million get the disease and 225,000 die.

Back in the 1970s, herpes simplex virus (HSV) was proposed as the sexually-transmitted cause of cervical cancer, based mostly on population st udies that showed a correlation of the disease with HSV DNA. That approach shifted to HPV in the 1980s, and over the years, population studies set the pace for the now well-accepted view that cervical cancer is strongly related to the transmission of HPV. This is a group of more than 100 viruses, about 30 of which are said to be linked to cervical cancer. Of these 30 or so, HPV-16 is said to be found in 50 per cent of cervical cancers. HPV-18 accounts for another 20 per cent.

In addition to the population studies which link HPV to cervical cancer, there is, for example, research showing that HPV viral DNA can be found integrated in the genetic structure of cervical cancers.

Back in 1992, however, a question was raised about the dominant and increasingly-entrenched theory that HPV causes cervical cancer. It came from Peter Duesberg and Jody Schwartz, molecular biologists at the University of California at Berkeley. Among the various issues they raised about the acceptance of HPV as the cause of cervical cancer was their fundamental concern that there was a lack of consistent HPV DNA sequences and consistent HPV gene expression in tumors that were HPV-positive. They instead suggested that "rare spontaneous or chemically induced chromosome abnormalities which are consistently observed in both HPV and HSV DNA-negative and positive cervical cancers induce cervical cancer."

In short, Duesberg and Schwartz were pointing to the possibility that "carcinogens may be primary inducers of abnormal cell proliferation rather than HPV or HSV." And here’s the key point: "Since proliferating cells [cancer cells dividing wildly] would be more susceptible to infection than resting cells, the viruses would just be indicators rather than causes of abnormal proliferation."

The concept they raised back in 1992 is still relevant today; only science has gone on to assume that causation of cervical cancer has been well-established. Even the National Cancer Institute( NCI) says that "direct" causation has not been demonstrated; however, the NCI and just about everyone else works with the principle that it has been established. Lip service is paid to other possible factors that may be involved in cervical cancer such as environmental conditions, including smoking. Even dietary factors - particularly low levels of Vitamin A and folate - have been suggested as associated with a risk for cervical cancer.

But once a vaccine to prevent HPV infection is raised as a weapon to prevent cervical cancer, then it’s pretty clear that the medical Establishment has gone all the way in accepting a theory. And it’s also quite evident in some of the comments listed above that have been made to reporters.

The headline to the accompanying editorial to the study in the NEJM screams out: "The Beginning of the End for Cervical Cancer?"

This editorial is more or less an ode to the research published.

Not so fast. Why? Because the study is a disgrace.

+ Article continues:

* * *

Drug Industry Is No Villain

Two apparently unrelated news stories unfolded recently, but they have more in common than might be obvious.

The first story, printed in papers throughout the country, focused on the influence the pharmaceutical industry wielded in the recent elections.

Companies and their lobbyists donated $19 million to major parties and politicians leading up to the November elections, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks such things. Nearly $3 of every $4 went to Republicans.

The drug industry's foes argue that pharmaceutical companies use the contributions to buy access, and use the access to shape legislation that protects their rights to charge whatever they want for prescriptions. (And those costs, the thinking goes, are outrageously unfair.)

The solution offered by many activists is for the government to set prices for pharmaceuticals. The reason that won't happen, they say, is that the industry buys elections. (They usually don't mention the money labor unions and liberal interest groups spend.)

Story two appeared on the front pages of papers across the country Thursday. The gist: A new vaccine appears to block the virus that causes a significant percentage of cervical cancer cases.

Where did that drug come from?

Many stories noted it was produced at Merck Research Laboratories.

What the stories didn't state was that the lab is an arm of one of those big, bad drug companies that bought the election so it could thwart democracy and, gasp, make profits.

We're not aware of any interest group's issuing a press release Thursday condemning the drug industry for charging enough to spend billions on research each year.

No one, of course, likes high drug prices. Reasonable steps could make prescriptions more affordable, especially for people covered by the government's Medicaid and Medicare programs. And the influence of big money in politics is, indeed, worth being concerned about.

But if the drug companies that offer miracles such as what may soon be the first vaccine against cancer spend money to have their voices heard in Washington, that's fine with us.

* * *

RESEARCH

Exposure To Thimerosal In Vaccines Used In Canadian Infant Immunization Programs, With Respect To Risk Of Neurodevelopmental Disorders

Volume 28-09, 1 May 2002

Background

Thimerosal is a mercury-containing preservative that has been used as a vaccine additive for > 60 years. High-dose, acute or chronic mercury exposure of children and adults can cause neuro- and nephrotoxicity(1-4). However, there are limited data examining the effects of low-dose, intermittent mercury exposure, for example, when infants are immunized with thimerosal-containing vaccines. Currently, the only thimerosal-containing vaccine in routine use in the infant immunization schedules of some Canadian jurisdictions is hepatitis B vaccine.

In a statement released in December 1999(5), Canada's National Advisory Committee on Immunization recommended no change to existing infant immunization programs for three reasons: absence of exposure (in eight provinces), or very low cumulative exposure of Canadian infants to vaccine-derived thimerosal (in two provinces and both territories where thimerosal-containing hepatitis B vaccine was, at that time, used in routine infant immunization programs*); lack of evidence of harm from exposure to the dose of mercury in thimerosal-containing hepatitis B vaccine given to infants < 6 months age; and, no thimerosal-free hepatitis B vaccine was licensed for use in Canada at that time. Thimerosal-derived mercury in vaccines remains a vaccine safety issue, with public attention and scientific scrutiny focused on whether thimerosal exposure from immunization in the first 6 months of age causes neurodevelopmental disorders, such as autism, attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, or speech or language problems(6-8).

The purpose of this review is to examine the risk of neurodevelopmental disorders, including autism, in Canadian children as a result of mercury exposure from thimerosal-containing vaccines routinely used in some provincial/territorial universal infant and early childhood immunization programs.

+ Research continues at:

* * *

The Danish MMR Study - a [Very] Critical Analysis

In a commentary accompanying the 'Danish' MMR study, A Population-Based Study of Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccination and Autism," Kreesten Meldgaard Madsen, M.D., et al., which was published in the New England Journal of Medicine (2002;347:1477-82), Dr Edward Campion, senior deputy editor, wrote, "This careful and convincing study shows that there is no association between autism and MMR vaccination."

Lead author Dr Kreesten Meldgaard Madsen, an epidemiologist and expert on infectious diseases at the Danish Epidemiology Science Centre in Aarhus, told the BMJ that the study showed that the risk of autism was similar in children who were vaccinated and children who were not.

The study reviewed records of 537303 children born in Denmark between January 1991 and December 1998, representing almost 100% of children born in that period. Of these children 440,655 had been vaccinated. Records were retrieved from three sources: the unique identification number assigned to each child at birth; MMR vaccination data reported to the National Board of Health by general practitioners, who give all MMR vaccinations and are reimbursed for their reports; and diagnoses of autism recorded in the Danish Psychiatric Central Registry. Only specialists in child psychiatry diagnose autism and related conditions.

The study considered the children's sex, weight and gestational age at birth, and age at diagnosis of autism or of a related disorder; the socioeconomic status of the parents; and the mother's education.

The authors found that "There was no increase in the risk of autistic disorder or other autistic-spectrum disorders among vaccinated children as compared with unvaccinated children (adjusted relative risk of autistic disorder, 0.92; 95% confidence interval, 0.68 to 1.24; adjusted relative risk of other autistic-spectrum disorders, 0.83; 95% confidence interval, 0.65 to 1.07)."

In addition, the authors found no association between the development of autistic disorder and the age at vaccination, the interval since vaccination, or the calendar period at the time of vaccination.

Children were vaccinated at 15 to 17 months, and catch up vaccination was given to older children when the vaccine was introduced in 1987. Almost all children were vaccinated before the age of 3 years. The mean age at diagnosis for autism was 4 years, 3 months, and for autistic spectrum disorders 5 years, 3 months.

Although MMR vaccination was introduced in Denmark in 1987, the rise in autism began only in the mid-1990s. "If it [MMR vaccination] caused autism, we would see a greater risk [soon] after its introduction," Dr Madsen said, but the study did not show that. Autism is increasing, perhaps because of better diagnosis, but there is no link to MMR vaccination, he said.

The retrospective nature of the study may be its strength, Dr Madsen told the BMJ. Recall bias, such as when parents whose children are given a diagnosis of autism recall events that occurred around the time of the diagnosis, was absent. In this study, data on vaccination were recorded separately from data on diagnosis.

MMR vaccination protects children against disease, Dr Madsen said. "Measles kills one in 3000 children, even in developed countries. It causes encephalitis in one in 2000 and pneumonia in one in 20. People tend to forget."

ENGLISH COMMENT BY SIEM Approximate reconstruction of the data for the study, assuming that all cohorts are the same size: 537,304 children divided into 8 cohorts stora, 537 304 barn i studien, 8 årskullar.

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

67163 *67163 67163 67163 6716 >67163 67163 67163

67163 *67163 67163 67163 67163 >67163 67163

67163 *67163 67163 67163 67163 >67163

67163 *67163 67163 67163 67163

67163 *67163 67163 67163

67163 *67163 67163 2.4 mil

67163 *67163 person yrs

67163 537304

children

This reconstruction illustrates how the oldest cohort born in 1991, contributes 67,163 person-years during each and every one of the 8 calendar years. The youngest cohort, born in 1998, only contributes 67,163 person-years during one single year, however. The reconstruction gives a total of 2.4 million person-years, compared with the 2.1 million person-years stated in the study. The difference can be explained by minor variations of little significance in the cohorts from year to year.

The (*)figures indicate when vaccination normally takes place as part of the vaccination programme. The figures with (>) indicate the point in time when autism is usually diagnosed in that age group: i.e. the fifth year of life - 1996 for children born in 1991 etc. This point is only reached by the three oldest cohorts. Children born in 1994 and later did not reach the age when autism is usually diagnosed before the study was concluded.

SOURCE OF ERROR # 1: Children did not have time to become autistic as a result of MMR vaccination before being excluded from the study 537,303 children multiplied by 12 years equals a total of 6.5 million person-years for children born between 1991 and 1998. Only 2.1 person-years have been taken into account, however. Younger children were only studied from the time of birth until the study was concluded. As a result, the oldest children contribute considerably more person-years to the study than the youngest children.

The average age for the entire population studied is 2.1/6.5 * 12 = approximately 4 person-years. As a result, observation of the subjects was discontinued long before the age when autism is normally diagnosed (4.25 - 5.25 years according to the study itself). Moreover, a second MMR vaccination is normally given during the fourth year of life.

The youngest cohorts have only just managed to get the MMR vaccine before they are discarded from the study. As a result, they contribute to the numbers of vaccinated children, but have little or no chance of being diagnosed with autism as a result of the vaccines they were given.

Children diagnosed with autism before they were old enough to be given the MMR vaccine may then have been included in the study as "unvaccinated autistic children".

This is a systematic and uncontrolled source of error. As a result, the possible role of the MMR vaccine as a cause of autism is consistently underestimated.

SOURCE OF ERROR #2: Cases of congenital autism and cases of autism as a result of previous vaccinations withother vaccines also obscure the issue and reduce the effect of those few cases of autism caused by the MMR vaccine that are nonetheless detected.

Many experts on autism believe that some cases of autism are not caused by vaccination, but are congenital. These cases are usually diagnosed in the first year of life and often before the first MMR vaccine is administered. Moreover, the Danish study also seems to presume that only the MMR vaccine may cause autism, whereas numerous studies have shown that any vaccine is in fact capable of doing so. Books such as Dr Viera Scheibner's "Behavioural Problems in Childhood - The Link to Vaccination", Greg Wilson's "Vaccination and Behavioural Disorders - A Review of the Controversy", Harris Coulter's "Vaccination: Social Violence and Criminality, The Assault on the American Brain" and Karen Seroussi's "Unravelling the Mystery of Autism" examine the subject in great detail. The first two of these books alone cite over 500 relevant medical papers between them. However, it does not seem to have occurred to the authors of the Danish study that cases of autism caused by the MMR vaccine can hardly be diagnosed before the vaccine has been administered. Not only that: any cases of autism caused by the second MMR vaccine, which is normally administered in the fourth year of life, are unlikely to be detected by this study, since most of the older children are no longer included in the study by this time. Indeed, children in the later age cohorts no longer form part of the study before the effects of even the first MMR vaccine can be detected.

Most cases of congenital autism and many cases of autism caused by other vaccines will be detected by this study, but very few cases of autism caused by the MMR vaccine will show up. As a result, the significance of any such cases that are in fact found will be obscured by the cases of congenital autism and autism caused by other vaccines. The statistical effect of this is that groups that have received the MMR vaccine and those that have not will tend to exhibit a similar incidence of autism This is a systematic source of error that makes it practically impossible to detect any cases of autism caused by the MMR vaccine

SOURCE. OF ERROR #3: Autistic children may have systematically been classified as unvaccinated.

According to the study, 18% of the children were unvaccinated, while 82% were vaccinated. Only by the age of three were children deemed, with certainty, to have been vaccinated. The average age when the MMR vaccine was given can be estimated as 1.5 years.

It is not clear how the study categorised children who were diagnosed with autism before the age of three, but who were given the MMR vaccine after they were diagnosed. Similarly, it is unclear how children who were given the MMR vaccine for the first time after the age of three were classified.

As for the reason why 18% of the children did not receive the MMR vaccine, this is neither studied nor commented upon. Contraindications to vaccination include poor health, lowered immunity, immunological processes, neurological diseases and neurological disturbances: in other words the very conditions indicative of the gastro-intestinal autism syndrome.

It is obvious that such cases must have existed. The fact that they are not commented upon can only indicate that the authors of the report have either not realised what the statistical effect would be or are deliberately seeking to conceal the effects of the MMR vaccine.

If doctors or parents have refrained from vaccinating for health reasons, whether real or suspected, these children will have been classified as "unvaccinated" and the conclusions of the report will be completely misleading.

SOURCE OF ERROR #4: The effect of relevant data has been diluted by irrelevant data.

If the intention is to compare the effects of vaccines on children, it is appropriate to compare vaccinated with unvaccinated children only AFTER vaccination. Mixing such data with data concerning children prior to vaccination only serves to obscure the issue and make any effects much harder to detect. At the same time the impression is given that the study is based on far more observations than is in fact the case.

Of the 2.1 million person-years studied, 537,303 * 1.5 = 0.8 million years represent unvaccinated children below 1.5 years of age (whether or not they were subsequently vaccinated). Of the remaining years (2.1 - 0.8 = 1.3 million person-years), 82%, or approximately 1.1 million person-years represent children older than 1.5 years who received the MMR vaccine. Only approximately 0.2 million person-years represent children over the age of 1.5 years who did not receive the MMR vaccine. Only in this group would it be possible to find a relevant control group to compare with those who did receive the MMR vaccine. It is this limited group that must form the basis for statistical evaluations of safety and level of incidence.

According to the study, 738 cases of autism were found that could be assigned to the population studied. All cases of autism diagnosed before the age at which the MMR vaccine was administered must naturally be discarded in order for any comparison to be meaningful. Generally speaking this would be 0.8/2.1 = 38% of the 738 cases reported (i.e. 280 cases). Of the remaining 458 cases, assuming the risk is the same for both vaccinated and unvaccinated children, 18% (82 cases) will be unvaccinated children older than 1.5 years. This represents 10 cases per year for the whole of Denmark.

SOURCE OF ERROR #5: The design of the study makes it extremely sensitive to any changes that take place over time.

It is well known that vaccines are not stable: both their quality and their contents are continually changing. An analysis of the studies conducted by Kayes and Taylor in England, for example, show that the introduction of the Urabe vaccine in 1992 was followed by a sudden and rapid increase in the incidence of autism. It is reasonable to assume that in Denmark as well there were changes in the characteristics of the vaccines used. Such changes are neither mentioned nor accounted for.

The design of the study means that the older cohorts (1992-1995) contribute far more person-years to the study. This means that just as in the English studies, any increase in the risk of autism over time is practically impossible to detect.

In addition, no information is given about how the unvaccinated group is distributed over the years 1991-1998. This in itself can seriously affect or distort the study.

IN SUMMARY: The data presented in the study provides no basis whatsoever for the conclusions drawn by the authors.

The study tries to give the appearance of an exhaustive investigation of all children born in Denmark from 1991 to 1998. In reality only one third of the person-years attributable to these groups of children have been studied. Many of the person-years that have been studied are of no relevance whatsoever. Most of the person-years that would have provided the most valuable information have been excluded from the study, perhaps due to lack of time or other reasons. However, a more detailed examination of the oldest cohorts, which might have compensated for this shortcoming, has not been provided.

Important questions remain unanswered, such as whether children diagnosed with autism at an early age were classified as vaccinated or not, and whether or not the original decision to vaccinate or not vaccinate children is in itself a source of systematic error.

In the final analysis, the conclusions drawn by the authors of the study are based on a mere 10 cases per year. Given the numerous sources of error and the unclear definitions of the concepts used, this is totally inadequate.

* * *

COMMENTARIES AND LETTERS

Danish Study Appears to be "Deliverate Fraud"

By Ulf Brånell

Alan Rees +46 40 163930 rees rees@pp.sbbs.se

All the sources of error identified in the Danish study distort it in the same direction: obscuring the role of the MMR vaccine and exonerating it from any suspicion that it may cause autism. This strongly indicates deliberate fraud.

The reason is not hard to guess. Most of the authors of the report are medical doctors and it is safe to assume that they are - or have been - ardent pro-vaccinators. By now they should be well aware of the many scientific studies of the injuries caused by vaccines. They will know that there is now an autism epidemic, that only the vaccinated are affected and that autism always occurs after vaccination and not before.

In other words the authors of this report are people with blood on their hands, who fear the retribution of parents, whose children they have killed, mutilated and rendered autistic. People who are prepared to kill and injure helpless children for money will hardly hesitate to lie and cheat if it will keep them out of jail and enable them to avoid paying compensation to their victims. This report is a desperate and despicable attempt by child abusers to remove the noose that is tightening around their necks. Their report (and ours) belongs in the hands of the prosecutor.

Ulf Brånell, Alan Rees +46 40 163930 rees <rees@pp.sbbs.se>

* *

Congress Reinstitutes Draft; Not 18 Yr Olds Sacrificed, But 18 Month Olds. By Hamilton Dexter

The US Congress' indemnification of the vaccine manufacturers from any civil or criminal exposure due to poorly made, toxic vaccines in the name of wartime security is a two-edge sword. The civil and criminal negligence doesn't just disappear; it is transferred by the US Government onto itself. In other words, the government becomes the perpetrator of crimes against your children, instead of the drug company. If government public health officials conspired with vaccine manufacturers, for example, to suppress the truth about potentially dangerous mandated vaccinations, resulting in untold harm to untold thousands of toddler-aged children, all in the name of prosecuting war, then these crimes by the US Government against its most vulnerable and innocent citizens are war crimes against humanity.

The government's vaccine compensation package alternative is a pathetic joke. The two hundred and fifty thousand cap, payable after an average of ten years in litigation, doesn't nearly begin to cover the costs of sustaining a person with autism over his lifetime. That the government has confiscated the reimbursement of their expenses without adequate compensation is a violation of the US Constitution. The indemnification also violates the US Constitution by denying to the afflicted child equal protection under the law. Civil litigation is a means for citizens to hold companies accountable for their actions as a means of protection from faulty products or services. This protection has been striped away from children with autism. If the Gerber Company puts rat poison in their strained applesauce for babies, parents could sue for damages. But if Eli Lilly puts mercury poison in the same child's vaccines, they can't.

Using political slight-of-hand, the government blackmails itself into committing these heinous acts in the name of war, by slipping in language granting such crimes legal status at the last minute in the Homeland Security Bill.

The United States is a signatory to the Geneva Accords, which prohibits governments from so exploiting their own citizens, even if they pass laws letting themselves off the hook.

To those parents who have contracted legal representation to sue the respective drug companies for vaccine related damage to their children, and we finally get to the truth behind the criminal behavior we suspect, there is something their now-idle lawyers can be doing until the next ambulance rolls around. Have them draft a petition to the UN seeking a medical war crimes tribunal for the harm the Government has done to your child in the name of war. Maybe some of these government officials might then finally development some empathy for our children; facing some life inprisonment of their own.

* *

Sen. Daschle, Rep. Pelosi Vow to Repeal Homeland Security Provision Shielding Drug Makers from Liability Claims that Congress Can 'Fix' the Problem Are Misleading

PRNewswire -- Safe Minds and the Mercury Policy Project are hailing a statement by the US House and Senate leadership that they will work to repeal a corporate special-interest provision in the Homeland Security Bill. The provision wipes out all legal remedies for thousands of autistic children harmed by mercury in infant vaccines and must be eliminated, the two groups working to prevent mercury-related injuries said today.

"We strongly support Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle and House Democratic Leader-Elect Nancy Pelosi's vow to remove egregious special interest provisions, including the thimerosal liability shield for Eli Lilly," said Michael Bender, Director of the Mercury Policy Project.

As passed, the Homeland bill allows the families to re-file their claims in a special administrative court for vaccine-related injury cases where it takes years for cases to be heard and 87% of the claims filed are denied. And claims can only be made by parents if their child's first symptom of neurological damage occurred within the last three years, which effectively bars many families from going to court to hold Lilly accountable for their children's injuries, the groups said.

"It is a sad state of affairs when the Congress and the White House conspire to benefit a pharmaceutical giant at the expense of injured children and families whose lives have been shattered by corporate wrongdoing," said Lyn Redwood, RN, president of Safe Minds and the parent of a child who developed multiple disabilities after receiving 125 times the government-recommended exposure to mercury. "Eli Lilly has been allowed to exploit a national threat to America to further their own agenda."

The provision to benefit Lilly -- which was added to the unrelated Homeland Security Bill at the last minute -- affects lawsuits against the drug maker for injuries caused by its product thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative that was used in infant vaccines until a few years ago.

"Claims by Republican congressional leaders that they will "fix" the provision next year are empty promises because it will be too late," said Michael Bender, Director of the Mercury Policy Project. "Once President Bush signs the bill -- which will happen any day -- Eli Lilly can go to court and have all the mercury vaccine-related lawsuits against it dismissed immediately."

According to Redwood, after conversations with senate staff, the "fix" will do little if anything to right this wrong. "Our children have been silenced once by autism and now the votes of Congress have silenced them again," said Redwood. "The right thing to do would be to pass legislation as soon as possible to strike the thimerosal provisions."

The lawsuits were filed by the families of children who developed autism, learning disabilities and other neurological problems after multiple mercury exposures. It takes hundreds of thousands of dollars each year to care for a severely autistic child and millions over the victim's lifetime.

_______________________________________________________

>> DO SOMETHING ABOUT AUTISM NOW <<

Subscribe, Read, then Forward the Schafer Autism Report.

No Cost!

_______________________________________________________

* *

Vaccine Provisions in the Homeland Security Bill

Can you please let me know of anyone who might be organizing the bispartisan effort to repeal this provision, as you recommended. I would like to support this. I am the president of the Memphis Chapter of the Autism Society. If the chapter will support it in a resolution, I will write to the congressional representatives as chapter president.

- Tom Nunnikhoven

My husband and I ask your opinion on why the Autism Politicos are not suggesting a strong campaign to ask Bush to use his line item veto power to remove the offending passages.

Is anyone suggesting an email, fax, phone blitz of the White House?

- Cherri Cary

Editor: There are no 'Autism Politicos' actively and publicly looking out for the interest of our children on these issues nationally. This is remarkable despite the fact that autism has been all over the US Congress and the Media for almost two weeks straight, starting with the promotion of the controversial Danish study.

To my knowledge, no one is trying to forge a bipartisan alternative to the current legislation. Last week no major autism organizations urged their members to write letters to their Senators to stop or modify it, and none are urging members to write President Bush, now. (Three months ago one organization claimed to be quietly working on the inside on this matter to effect change. Apparently, so quiet, they were ignored.).

The only voice out there for the autism community on this issue has been Congressman Dan Burton, bless him. In addition to myself, there are a handful of people from smaller organizations doing what we can to try to provide some political cover and action to defend the interests of our children. I would suggest you write a letter to President Bush in support of Dan Burton's call for a White House conference on autism. That could be the basis for exploring bipartisan solutions. See Albert Enayati letter to the President earlier in this post. Spread the word and be sure to send us a copy of your letter: edit@doitnow.com

---------------------------------------------------

SAR Autism Resources

* The Autism Calendar: Subscribe (without daily reports)

To List an event in Calendar:

* The Schafer Autism Report: Subscribe (includes calendar)

Subscription type: Schafer Autism Report

* Free Readers' Posts

* News Archive – Autism Database

_________________________________________________________________

Lenny Schafer, schafer@sprynet.com Kay Stammers Edward Decelie

CALENDAR EVENTS@doitnow.com Michelle Guppy Ron Sleith

++ To Unsubscribe, Send an email to unsubscribe@doitnow.com ++