vaccination - eightfold autism risk
A re-run of the 2002 Danish MMR vaccination - autism study ,
but this time also including children aged five and over, rather
than cutting off at four years old, found that the Danish autism
rate had in fact risen eightfold over the period since
the introduction of the MMR vaccination. 
The children aged five and over were added in because, in Denmark,
a diagnosis of autism is never made until the age of five, so
you would not expect to find any diagnoses of autism in the four
and unders. Even were greater awareness and better diagnosis of
autism judged to account for half of these cases (a very generous
allowance), that would still leave an extremely significant fourfold
The researchers accepted that they have not proven a link between
MMR and autism, but claimed to have shown that the original study
was fundamentally flawed. (which found no evidence of a link between
the MMR vaccination and autism, and was widely publicised by the
UK Department of Health).
A re-analysis of just the data used by the original
2002 Danish study by Dr Samy Suissa of McGill University in Montreal
(Canada)  came up with an even
more astonishing result. Contrary to the original ‘no link’
finding, diagnoses of autism within two years of an MMR vaccination
increased to a high of 27.3 cases per 100,000 children compared
with just 1.45 cases per 100,000 in non-vaccinated children. The
children who had had the MMR vaccination were 45% more likely
to have developed autism than the children who had not had the
A recent study by Dr Andrew Wakefield (who first suggested (1998)
a possible link between the MMR vaccination and ‘regressive
autism', where a child developing normally suddenly begins to
regress) and Dr Carol Stott of Cambridge University showed that
autism cases in Denmark had increased by 14.8% each year since
MMR jabs were introduced. 
None of the above won any mainstream media
Research or propaganda?
A recent study  which found no
evidence of a link between MMR and autism was widely trumpeted
by the media. It compared 1,294 children diagnosed with autism
or other pervasive development disorders (PDDs) between 1987 and
2001 in England and Wales with 4,469 children of the same sex
and similar age who were registered with the same general practices
but did not have a recorded diagnosis of autism. Around 80% of
both the autism and non-autism groups had received an MMR jab.
The validity of this MMR vaccination study has been challenged.
It was based on the UK General Practitioner Research Database
(diagnostic reports from GPs), whose validity as a basis for epidemiological
research has been widely criticised. It stands accused in particular
of massively under-reporting diseases like autism. These are often
diagnosed by educational specialists rather than GPs so, inevitably,
are not included in the GP database.
None of these studies differentiated between autism in general
and the ‘regressive autism’ highlighted by Dr Wakefield
and others, where a child whose neurological development appears
to be normal starts to regress (about 10% of autism cases). Several
questions need to be answered:
- Why are researchers not differentiating between
autism in general autism and ‘regressive autism’?
- The 2002 Danish study researchers must have
known that the Danish Health Service only diagnosed autism at
five years old plus. Why did they limit their study to children
- Why has the UK and US media given the Danish
study re-run so little coverage?
and going back in MMR history ...
- Why was the 1992 mass MMR programme in the
UK followed a year later by a sudden rise in autism levels?
- Why were further mass MMR campaigns in late
1994 and in 1996 both followed by sudden and steep rises in
autism figures a year later?
Can there any longer be doubt that the medical establishment
wants to obscure any possible link between ‘regressive autism’
and the MMR jab?
Dr Dick van Steenis believes that ‘regressive autism’
is most likely when a Diphtheria-Pertussis-Tetanus (DPT) jab,
which until 2004 contained the mercury-based preservative thimerosal,
is followed closely by the MMR jab. He calls for a study based
on real children (rather than more or less accurately compiled
databases) which compares children with ‘regressive autism’*
to healthy children, dividing them into four groups: unvaccinated;
vaccinated with the Diphtheria-Pertussis-Tetanus (DPT) jab only;
vaccinated with MMR only; vaccinated with the Diphtheria-Pertussis-Tetanus
(DPT) jab then vaccinated with MMR.
* i.e. not general autism, which can be caused by many factors.
ANOTHER ARTICLE BELOW
 Madsen et al.
New England Journal of Medicine 2002;347(19):1477-82
 Goldman,GS and Yazbak,FE.
Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons 2004;9(3):70-75
 Stott,C et al.
Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons 2004;9(3):89-91
 Smeeth,L et al. Lancet 2004;364:963-9
(11131) Nick Anderson. GreenHealthWatch
The UK Government has been accused of “utterly inexplicable
complacency” regarding its consistent denial that all reputable
studies have shown that the triple MMR vaccination was safe. The
attack comes not from some virulent anti-vaccination group, but
from Dr Peter Fletcher, who was Chief Scientific Officer at the
UK Department of Health in the 1970s, and a former medical adviser
to the UK Committee on the Safety of Medicines. His main responsibility
at that time was to decide whether new vaccines were safe. Peter
- there was growing evidence worldwide that
the MMR vaccination was causing brain, gut and immune system
damage in certain children
- neither the tenfold leap in autism over the
last 15 years nor the huge rise in inflammatory bowel disease
or immune disorders in children could be explained away by better
statistics or diagnosis
- epidemiological studies, frequently heralded
by Governments as evidence of MMR safety, are blunt instruments
unable to pick up the small numbers of children adversely affected
- the MMR safety trials conducted before its
inclusion in the UK’s mass immunisation programme had
ANOTHER ARTICLE BELOW
MMR dangers - eight tests before having an
The UK Department of Health publication Immunisation against
Infectious Disease 1996 states that “children who are immuno-suppressed
either due to an underlying medical condition or (because they
are) receiving immuno-suppressant treatment should not receive
the MMR vaccination or other live vaccines until they have recovered
from their underlying condition or completed immuno-suppressant
treatment”. Immuno-suppression is determined by measuring
the level of CD4+ T-Lymphocytes in the blood and the proportion
they represent of all types of lymphocytes (the ‘soldiers’
which identify and neutralise invaders) present. 
The Drugs and Therapeutics Bulletin 
agrees. In the article MMR vaccine - how effective, how safe?
(April 2003 p25-30) it warns that the MMR vaccination should
not be given to children: with “untreated malignant disease
or altered immunity due to disease or treatment”.
 Examples given are:
- “a child (who) has an acute (feverish)
- “a child (who) has received another
live virus within three weeks or immunoglobulin within three
- “any child suspected of previously
having had a cardiorespiratory (allergic) reaction to egg, gelatine,
neomycin or other constituents of MMR vaccines” (ed.-
like sorbitol, human albumen, lactose, mannitol, various amino
acids). Mild egg allergy, however, is not considered to be a
- “If such a child is given MMR in error,
close supervision in hospital is advised”
Dr Dick van Steenis argues that children’s vitamin and
mineral status should also be checked prior to a vaccination:
- Inadequate levels of vitamins A and E can
drastically reduce a vaccine’s ability to provide protection.
This is of particular concern given that the MMR vaccine itself
depletes levels of vitamin A. Studies have consistently shown
that vitamin A or vitamin E supplementation prior to a jab usually
increases its effectiveness and durability 
- Low levels of zinc or selenium, or high levels
of mercury or cadmium, increase the probability of adverse reactions
The seven essential checks before giving an MMR vaccination are
1. Immune status - a child with compromised
immunity may appear completely healthy
2. Vaccination history - no live vaccines
or immunoglobulin within previous three months
3. Disease status - particularly feverish
illnesses and malignancies
4. Allergy status - particularly to the MMR
vaccine’s ingredients (egg, gelatine, neomycin, sorbitol,
human albumen, lactose, mannitol, various amino acids)
5. Toxicity status - particularly mercury
6. Vitamin status - particularly vitamins
A and E
7. Mineral status - particularly zinc and
An eighth test before giving an MMR vaccination?
Dr Andrew Wakefield points out that:
- research suggested that children who had
either natural measles or a single measles vaccination and natural
mumps within the same year were at significantly greater risk
of developing inflammatory bowel disease later
- both natural measles and a measles vaccination
can depress the human immune system for at least a year
The additional test would therefore be ‘Has my child had
either natural measles or mumps, or a measles or mumps jab in
the last twelve months?’ If the answer is ‘Yes’
your child should not be given an MMR vacination.
Parents will know that such tests almost never happen, making
a health lottery of every vaccination. Proper verification of
disease, allergy, vitamin, mineral, immunisation and immune status
is a long and expensive business, making safe mass immunisation
programmes both unfeasible and unaffordable.
Of particular interest is the warning that the MMR vaccination
(which contains three live viruses) should not be given to any
child who has been given another vaccine containing a live virus
during the previous three weeks. If this is an admission that
injecting more than one live virus during any three week period
may be dangerous, what does this say about the safety of injecting
a triple live jab?
Ed.- The UK Health Minister Melanie Johnson stands by her Department
of Health’s advice, but when asked whether babies should
have a T-lymphocyte count prior to being given an MMR vaccination,
rejected the idea: “Blood tests are unpleasant for babies
and young children, and they are not always 100% accurate”,
 Gross,PA et al.
Clinical Infectious Diseases 1995;21(supp 1):S126-27
 published by The Consumers Association for 40 years. Its aim
is to provide consultants, doctors, nurses, other medical officers
and medical students with impartial and balanced information and
advice on drugs and treatments.
 Immunisation against infectious disease. Department of Health
 Khakoo,JA et al.
British Medical Journal 2000;320:929-32
American Academy of Pediatrics Committees on Infectious Diseases
and on Pediatric AIDS. Pediatrics 1999;103:1057-60
 Immunisation of the immunocompromised child. Royal College
of Paediatrics and Child Health. February 2003
 e.g. Rahman,MM et al.
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 1997;65(1):144-48,
Meydani,SN et al.
Journal of the American Medical Association 1997;277(17):1380-86
 Montgomery,SM et al. Gastroenterology 1999;116:796-803
(11084/11692) Nick Anderson. Green Health Watch