Official Analysis Shows
Vaccines Cause Harm


The analysis used an official database designed to investigate vaccine safety.

Hence its name, the ‘Vaccine Safety Database’, It used MD doctor diagnoses from the medical records of more than 400 thousand infants.

Officials at the Centres for Disease Control (CDC), a US national medical authority, used this database in linking vaccines to brain impairments.

400 000

The Results

Showed the following increases in risk of harm among the most vaccinated children when compared to the least.

  • UNCOORDINATION: 18 times more likely
  • ADHD: 8 times more
  • AUTISM: 8 times more
  • ADD: 6 times more
  • TICS: 6 times more
  • SLEEP DISORDERS: 5 times more
  • The study showed it often takes years for the medical conditions linked to infant vaccination to be diagnosed by doctors, so a proper analysis must allow plenty of time for this.
  • (Source: CDC, through by U.S. Freedom Of Information Act – FOIA. Click on the source links below for more information.)

It’s only by a Freedom Of Information Act intervention that we know about this analysis.

If such results were found for prescription drugs they would not be approved for medical use. Dr Thomas Verstraeten, the primary analyst wrote "it just won't go away", in reference to his two initial analyses showing infants receiving more vaccines have a higher risk of brain impairments.

In another communication he wrote that it wasn't proper to compromise sound methodology to avoid an unpleasant conclusion.

He was right, it just wouldn't go away while using valid scientific methods. But they did go away when invalid methods were used.

Making it go Away

Four more analyses were done by Dr Thomas and other doctors at the Centres for Disease Control (CDC)

  • Analysis 2: Modified the base data and methodology, and some of it “went away“.
  • Analysis 3: Further modified the base data and methods, and more “went away“.
  • Analysis 4 Further modified things and more “went away“.
  • Analysis 5 Further modified things and after 3 years of data and methodology modifications, the final analysis showed just 2 small increases in risk
  1. Nervous tics: 1.89 times increased risk and
  2. Language Delay 1.07 to 1.13 times increased risk
  • And they published: “In no analysis were significant increased risks found for autism or attention-deficit disorder.”* 
  • But, some analyses did, i.e. they published false information. 

*Source: Verstraeten, et al Pediatrics 2003


Turning Science into
Non-Science 1

They included data from outside the Vaccine Safety Database (VSD) from Massachusetts. There, the "computer records had been in shambles for years." and had "significant under reporting of autism."*

(*Source: Congressman David Weldon MD, letter to Julie Gerberding the CDC director)

David Weldon MD

CDC director
Julie Gerberding

Turning Science into
Non-Science 2

The first analysis compared the least vaccinated to the most. As you might expect, this showed the greatest risk of brain impairment from vaccination. When the second analysis watered down these extremes, the 7.62 times increased risk of autism, seemingly dropped to 1.58. That's a 86% decrease.

Turning Science into
Non-Science 3

They introduced "stop dates", potentially diverting diagnoses like attention deficit - hyperactivity disorders and autism to earlier, less severe, diagnoses such as speech and language delays.*

 * Source generation zero power point pdf. 

Click below for the source document.)

Turning Science into
Non-Science 4

For more details on how they changed the data and methods, has obtained some of this info by FOIA and the button links will take you there.

Turning Science into
Non-Science 5

People seeing problems in the methodology of supposedly scientific investigation into vaccine side effects have looked into it. Those who are professionally qualified have published in Journals. See source 1 below.

Others have read and investigated as non-professionals and published independently using their own web sites. See source 2 below.

Brian Hooker: Key writer of source 1

Medical Journal Editors say much published science has become dark and unbelievable.

This is a more serious problem than many people realise.

Instead of using science investigations to make things clear many obscure or leave out significant information.

It is not wise to uncritically trust the publishing system of 'approved' science! or professionals using it as an authoritative knowledge source.

Dr. Richard Horton the editor-in-chief of the Lancet medical journal, says:

"Much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has take a turn towards darkness."

And he's not alone

DR. Marcia Angell a physician who was a longtime Editor-in-Chief of the New England Medical Journal says:

"It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinicial research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New England Journal of Medicine."

Dr Marcia Angel

What's to be done?

When you find a person or organisation that is not trustworthy you can:

1) Do more thinking and deciding from your own observations.

2) Listen to and learn from the experiences of people you know.

3) Find sources that are more true to reality and use them.

4) Use one or some of the links below