A peer-reviewed scientific study that proved vaccinated children are three times more likely to be diagnosed with autism and other neurological disorders and health problems has been unpublished and pulled from the internet after receiving heavy criticism from the vaccine industry and mainstream media.
The results of the first ever study comparing the health of vaccinated versus unvaccinated children was published online in Frontiers in Public Health after being accepted November 2. The study compared children’s health via surveys of 412 mothers of children aged 6-12 years. Nearly 40 percent of the 666 children had never been vaccinated, so the control group was adequate to provide a comparison against children who had been vaccinated.
However the study was unpublished by the journal after coming under heavy, sustained criticism from vaccine lobbyists and mainstream media. Why? Could it be because the first scientific study into the health of vaccinated children found that they were a staggering three times more likelythan unvaccinated children to be diagnosed with neurodevelopmental disorders such as autism?
The abstract specifically stated:
“A total of 415 mothers provided data on 666 children, of which 261 (39%) were unvaccinated. Vaccinated children were significantly less likely than the unvaccinated to have been diagnosed with chickenpox and pertussis, but significantly more likely to have been diagnosed with pneumonia, otitis media, allergies and NDDs (defined as Autism Spectrum Disorder, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, and/or a learning disability).”
The study further concluded:
“In this study based on mothers’ reports, the vaccinated had a higher rate of allergies and NDD than the unvaccinated. Vaccination, but not preterm birth, remained significantly associated with NDD after controlling for other factors. However, preterm birth combined with vaccination was associated with an apparent synergistic increase in the odds of NDD. Further research involving larger, independent samples is needed to verify and understand these unexpected findings in order to optimize the impact of vaccines on children’s health.”
The paper was peer-reviewed by Linda Mullin Elkins, a chiropractor at Life University, and Kelly Hsieh from the University of Illinois at Chicago. It was edited by Amit Agrawal at Gandhi Medical College in India.
The initial backlash was significant. Public comments included, “this study is of poor design, though not impossible results. Study relies of self-report of moms, inducing bias,” and threats of commercial sabotage, “Another garbage vaccine study in Frontiers journal. Scientists, stop reviewing/publishing there.”
Science Blogs also weighed in to discredit the results of the study, quickly posted an article titled, “Antivaccinationists promote a bogus internet “survey.” Hilarity ensues as it’s retracted.”
Researchers like Catherine J. Frompovich likely wouldn’t think the study is so ‘hilarious’ as Science Blogs attests. She writes of a doctor in the UK who believes vaccines are indeed tied to autism. Dr. Graham Downing, who is a Neuro-musculoskeletal and Functional Medicine consultant in the UK has found that the vaccination of pregnant women increases inflammation in their bodies and also increases the risk of releasing inflammatory markers in their fetuses/infants. Such releases include phenotypes [the set of observable characteristics of an individual resulting from the interaction of its genotype with the environment.]
Downing also contends that the increased inflammation in cells caused by vaccines, also elevate in the fetal brain where cytokines release glutamates. The prefrontal lobes and the limbic system, which involves human emotions, are affected in fetuses from pregnancy vaccines administered to moms-to-be. So, not only are children outside the womb affected, but the neurological/immunological decline starts while they are still in the womb.
Not only has the first study into vaccinated versus unvaccinated children been unpublished by Frontiers In Public Health, but a cached version available on internet archives has also been removed, suggesting there is a serious campaign to stop members of the public from viewing the study. However a screenshot of the abstract was saved before it was scrubbed from the internet. You can view the first page of the abstract below: