READ: Scientific Review of Vaccine Safety Datalink Information

Scientific Review of Vaccine Safety Datalink Information June 7-8, 2000 Si
mpsonwood Retreat Center Norcross, Georgia. http://www.putchildrenfirst.org/media/2.9.pdf

Dr. Verstraeten, pg. 40-41: “…we have found statistically significant relationships between the exposure and outcomes for these different exposures and outcomes. First, for two months of age, an unspecified developmental delay, which has its own specific ICD9 code. Exposure at three months of age, Tics. Exposure at six months of age, an attention deficit disorder. Exposure at one, three and six months of age, language and speech delays which are two separate ICD9 codes. Exposures at one, three and six months of age, the entire category of neurodevelopmental delays, which includes all of these plus a number of other disorders." [I for one would certainly be interested in knowing what all those "other disorders" were... although I have a very good idea!!! Note that, at least in my opinion, although those attending the meeting varied greatly in their "concern", the population sample used in this study, in my opinion, could only be described as very "white washed". When you don't want to see "a link", as clearly stated in the Simpsonwood transcripts, the children you allow in your study will certainly impact the results!]

Dr. Bernier, pg. 113: "We have asked you to keep this information confidential. We do have a plan for discussing these data at the upcoming meeting of the Advisory Committee of Immunization Practices on June 21 and June 22. At that time CDC plans to make a public release of this information [THIS WAS SEVERAL YEARS AGO FOLKS!!!], so I think it would serve all of our interests best if we could continue to consider these data. The ACIP work group will be considering also. If we could consider these data in a certain protected environment. So we are asking people who have a great job protecting this information up until now, to continue to do that until the time of the ACIP meeting. So to basically consider this embargoed information.

Dr. Keller, pgs. 116 & 118: "…we know the developing neurologic system is more sensitive than one that is fully developed…"

Dr. Verstraeten, pg. 165: "Personally, I have three hypotheses. My first hypothesis is it is parental bias. The children that are more likely to be vaccinated are more likely to be picked and diagnosed. Second hypothesis, I don't know. There is a bias that I have not recognized, and nobody has yet told me about it. Third hypothesis. It's true, it's Thimerosal. Those are my hypotheses." [In other words, either the parents made it up and we really don't have an issue - it is just a matter of "skewed data", or, we made it up or it really IS thimerosal!!! Good luck proving the first two hypotheses... looks like that leaves only one!!!]

Dr. Verstraeten, pg. 166: "When I saw this, and I went back through the literature, I was actually stunned by what I saw because I thought it is plausible. First of all there is the Faeroe study, which I think people have dismissed too easily, and there is a new article in the same Journal that was presented here, the Journal of Pediatrics, where they have looked at PCB. They have looked at other contaminants in seafood and they have adjusted for that, and still mercury comes out. That is one point. Another point is that in many of the studies with animals, it turned out that there is quite a different result depending on the dose of mercury. Depending on the route of exposure and depending on the age at which the animals, it turned out that there is quite a different result depending on the dose of mercury. Depending on the route of exposure and depending on the age at which the animals were exposed. Now, I don't know how much you can extrapolate that from animals to humans, but that tells me mercury at one month of age is not the same as mercury at three months, at 12 months, prenatal mercury, later mercury. There is a whole range of plausible outcomes from mercury. On top of that, I think that we cannot so easily compare the U.S. population to Faeroe or Seychelles populations. We have different mean levels of exposure. We are comparing high to high I the Seychelles, high to high in the Faeroe and low to low in the U.S., so I am not sure how easily you can transpose one finding to another one. So basically to me that leaves all the options open, and that means I can not exclude such a possible effect."

Dr. Weil, pg. 207 - the man representing the American Academy of Pediatrics [the very organization that helped to set guidelines for vaccine policy - the organization said to be "dedicated to the health of all children"]: "The number of dose related relationships are linear and statistically significant. You can play with this all you want. They are linear. They are statistically significant. The positive relationships are those that one might expect from the Faroe Islands studies. They are also related to those data we do have on experimental animal data and similar to the neurodevelopmental tox data on other substances, so that I think you can't accept that this is out of the ordinary. It isn't out of the ordinary." [It certainly appeared to me that Dr. Weil - like me - also was seeing a group of people trying to play with the data to manipulate or change the outcome of the data.]

Dr. Weil, pg. 208: "The rise in the frequency of neurobehavioral disorders whether it is ascertainment or real, is not too bad. It is much too graphic. We don't see that kind of genetic change in 30 years." [More than any, this was the statement that told me that "genetics" were fairly stable over time - a very critical point as explained in "book 3"]. Tweet