fourteen studies


Quick History

The Right Question

The "14" Studies

Studies Ranked

Our Studies

Good Guys, Bad Guys >>

Now What?


About Us

Good Guys, Bad Guys

There are thousands of parents, and hundreds of doctors and scientists who are trying to do the honest work to get to the bottom of the autism epidemic. To them, we offer our heartiest thanks and gratitude.

Unfortunately, the vaccine-autism debate is being corrupted by special interests, particularly through the influence of vaccine makers and their beneficiaries, which includes individuals, organizations, and government agencies. Three particularly worth highlighting:

The Bad Guys

  1. The American Academy of Pediatrics

    The American Academy of Pediatrics, a private, non-profit organization, is perhaps one of the few organizations powerful enough to put and end to the autism epidemic. Ostensibly, their focus should be the health of American children. Instead, the interests of the vaccine program and pharmaceutical companies always seems to come first. Hereís a great article from CBS Evening News: How Independent Are Vaccine Defenders?

    And, hereís a great article and quote from a recent Natural News article:

    "In my opinion, the AAP is nothing more than a Big Business front group that pushes junk infant formula products and dangerous medicines onto unsuspecting parents and children."

    Among the many sins the AAP has committed:

    • Of the 19 actual studies we critique on this website, 50% were published in Pediatrics, the trade journal of the AAP.
    • The AAP has actively lobbied in states to keep mercury in childrenís vaccines and against state bans
    • The AAP has yet to acknowledge there is an actual rise in the number of cases of children with autism and instead continues to imply that rising autism levels may solely be due to "better diagnosis"
    • The AAP does not acknowledge, nor have they been known to pursue, any of the hundreds of reported cases of recovery from autism through biomedical intervention
  2. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP)
    Centers for Disease Control

    According to the CDCís website, "the ACIP consists of 15 'experts' in fields associated with immunization who have been selected by the Secretary of the U. S. Department of Health and Human Services to provide advice and guidance to the Secretary, the Assistant Secretary for Health, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on the most effective means to prevent vaccine-preventable diseases."

    The ACIP is responsible for expanding the number of required vaccines for children from 10 in 1983 to 36 in 2007 (see a comparison here), without ever ensuring that the schedule was tested in combination or that appropriate monitoring took place for delayed onset conditions.

    The ACIP was the topic of a document titled Conflicts of Interest in Vaccine Policy Making written by the U.S. Congressional Subcommittee on Government Reform which highlighted the conflicts of interest present between ACIP members and pharmaceutical companies manufacturing vaccines.

  3. Paul Offit, M.D.
    Chief of the Division of Infectious Diseases, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia

    Mr. Offit appears to be the pharmaceutical industryís go to Doctor to speak to the press about the safety of the current vaccine program. He is also the patent holder for the new rotavirus vaccine, recently added to the Immunization Schedule, and a past member of the ACIP (See #1). Among his many outrageous statements, Mr. Offit wrote in the journal of Pediatrics that a childís immune system could handle 10,000 vaccines:

    "A more practical way to determine the diversity of the immune response would be to estimate the number of vaccines to which a child could respond at one time...then each infant would have the theoretical capacity to respond to about 10,000 vaccines at any one time."

    Regarding Thimerosal in vaccines:

    "In some instances I think full disclosure can be harmful. Is it safe to say there is zero risk with thimerosal, when it is remotely possible that one child would get sick? Well, since we say that mercury is a neurotoxin, we have to do everything we can to get rid of it. But I would argue that removing thimerosal didn't make vaccines safer -- it only made them perceptibly safer."

    On potential conflicts of interest as a vaccine patent-holder:

    "I am a co-holder of a patent for a (rotavirus) vaccine. If this vaccine were to become a routinely recommended vaccine, I would make money off of that. When I review safety data, am I biased? That answer is really easy: absolutely not."

    Speaking to a journalist:

    "You did more harm than good in sort of quote/unquote allowing the parent to be fully informed [regarding the presence of mercury in vaccines]. Thereís no politically correct way to say this, but being fully informed is not always the best thing. You can take that out of context and make me look like a jerk, but you know what Iím saying."

    Read about his erratic voting pattern on the rotavirus vaccine when he sat on the ACIP committee here. Also check out