In the largest study of its kind, researchers in Denmark compared a group of 625,842 vaccinated children with 31,619 unvaccinated children. The unvaccinated children were those that had not received the MMR vaccination. Whereas the vaccinated children had received the MMR vaccination. They concluded that the MMR vaccine did not cause any appreciable difference in the rate of autism between the groups. That is how it was portrayed to the public. But let us look at that study a little closer.
The problem is that the unvaccinated group was not truly unvaccinated. 26,890 of the 31,619 children in the “unvaccinated” group received other vaccinations. Thus, more than 85% of the children that were labeled as unvaccinated actually received vaccinations. They all received the diptheria, acellular pertussis, tetanus, inactivated poliovirus, and Haemophilus influenza type b vaccines. Any one of those vaccines could cause an increase in autism in the mislabelled “unvaccinated” group. And certainly, the cumulative effect of those seriatim vaccinations on a young child could be devastating to a young child’s undeveloped immune system. The only vaccine missed by the unvaccinated group was the MMR vaccine. That fact was not revealed to the general public in the press releases. One must read the study and uncover the obscure table buried in it that reveals the truth that the study was a sham.
The Denmark study authors concluded:
The study strongly supports that MMR vaccination does not increase the risk for autism, does not trigger autism in susceptible children, and is not associated with clustering of autism cases after vaccination.
That conclusion in the Denmark study can be likened to a study of the intoxicating properties of rum. In our hypothetical rum study, we will have 10 persons consume a shot of vodka, a shot of whiskey, a shot of gin, a shot of tequila, and a shot of rum, and another 10 persons will consume all of those shots of alcoholic beverages but not the shot of rum. Both groups of persons (all 20) end up drunk. Thus, just as do the vaccine researchers, we can conclude that rum could not have caused the drunkenness because both the 10 persons who drank rum and the 10 persons who did not drink rum got drunk. We can then make a public announcement that our study proves that rum is not an intoxicating liquor. Those are the kinds of shenanigans being pulled by “scientists” portraying dangerous vaccines as safe to the public.
And so the non-MMR group, being not truly an unvaccinated group, is presenting a higher autism number than would be the case for a truly unvaccinated group. When looking at a study that truly compares a vaccinated group vs. an unvaccinated group the results are significant. A recent study that compared truly unvaccinated children with vaccinated children revealed that vaccinated children had 4.7 times greater diagnoses of autism.
The Shocking Secret Data
The astounding thing about the Denmark study is that they had the data to compare a truly unvaccinated group of children against a group of children that only received the MMR vaccine. The study reveals that the researchers had identified 4,729 children who had received no vaccines at all. The researchers also identified a group of 11,571 children that had only received an MMR vaccine. If they truly wanted to determine if the MMR vaccine caused autism, they had the data to do that. But instead, they compared a group of MMR vaccinated children with a group that they identified as being “unvaccinated,” 85% of which actually received the diptheria, acellular pertussis, tetanus, inactivated poliovirus, and Haemophilus influenza type b vaccines.
Is it believable that they would not compare the 4,729 truly unvaccinated children against the 11,571 who only received the MMR vaccine? It is naive to think that comparison was not performed. Why didn’t they report it? Because it showed just what mothers all over the world already know, the MMR vaccine causes autism. Instead, they loaded up the non-MMR group with those who received five (5) other vaccines and labeled that vaccinated group “unvaccinated.” In fact, they were vaccinated, they just did not receive the MMR vaccine. The study was rigged.
It gets worse. The data sets with which the researchers were working included the children who received many childhood vaccines in addition to the MMR and a separate group that received none of their childhood vaccines. It would seem logical to compare those two groups. We are talking about researchers who are supposed to be researching whether vaccines cause autism. When they have presented before them two distinct groups, one vaccinated and the other unvaccinated they would certainly compare them. Without question, that was done. But that comparison was not reported. Why not? Obviously, the result of such a comparison would prove that the unvaccinated group had a much lower rate of autism. That information could not be made public, so it went unreported. It is a secret they will never reveal. We can always hope that someone will blow the whistle at some point.
Such a comparison was done in another study. That study involved 666 children that compared 405 vaccinated children with 261 unvaccinated children. The study revealed that vaccinated children had 4.7 times greater diagnoses of autism.
No doubt, the Denmark data revealed similar results. But we will never know because those results will never be reported.
Notably, the researchers tried to address the elephant in the room, but they engaged in obfuscation in order to sweep under the rug their refusal to compare truly unvaccinated children with vaccinated children. The researchers acknowledged that “[a] general criticism of observational vaccine effect studies is that they do not include a completely unvaccinated group of children.” Okay, you may think, so now we get to the point where the researchers are going to compare vaccinated children with unvaccinated children. But, no, we do not get that. Instead, the researchers suggest a reason not to compare a purely unvaccinated group against a vaccinated group. The researchers explained that “[t]he number of children completely unvaccinated throughout childhood will be low in a country such as Denmark.” Yes, it is low, but that is not the point. The point is whether the numbers are sufficient to study against a vaccinated group of children. Their own study numbers showed that they identified 4,729 unvaccinated children in Denmark. That is a statistically significant number from which to base a comparison.
What did the researchers do with that? They ignored it. Instead, they compared a 41% larger group of children (6,842) who received the MMR vaccination but had not received any other vaccinations in their first year of life with children who received both the MMR and other childhood vaccinations. The researchers explained:
We evaluated the association between MMR and autism in children with no DTaP-IPV/Hib vaccinations in the first year of life; we found no support for an association in this vaccine-naive subpopulation.
That purposely obfuscatory language is intended to give the false impression that they compared a purely unvaccinated group with an MMR vaccinated group. But the context and language used indicate that is not their meaning at all. Indeed, their purpose was to explain why they did not use “a completely unvaccinated group of children” in their study. They explained that, instead, they used a group that received the MMR but with no DTaP-IPV/Hib vaccines to compare to a group that received MMR in addition to those other childhood vaccines.
The tip-off that they were comparing two study groups that both received the MMR vaccine is that they used the term “vaccine-naive subpopulation” to describe the study group. When using the term “vaccine-naive” in the context of a study of vaccines implies that the “vaccine-naive” subject is receiving their first vaccine (in this case the MMR). Thus, a vaccine-naive person is a person who previously had never received a vaccine but is now receiving one (the MMR). That is what makes the persons in that group “vaccine-naive.” In this case, the researchers described the persons in the group has having “no DTaP-IPV/Hib vaccinations in the first year of life.”
A person who is unvaccinated and remains unvaccinated would be described as unvaccinated. Furthermore, you would not describe a person who was previously unvaccinated and received an MMR vaccine as unvaccinated, but you could describe the person who receives that MMR as his first shot as a vaccine-naive recipient of the MMR vaccine. Vaccine-naive is a statement looking back to their status prior to their first vaccine. In the case where the MMR was their only vaccine, they were designated as vaccine-naive at the time they received the MMR.
Predictably, they found no support for an association that the MMR caused an increase in autism when comparing the group that only received the MMR vaccine (and no other vaccines) against the group that received both the MMR and the other childhood vaccines. Once again, the researchers were comparing two vaccinated groups against one another to determine if there is a difference in the rate of autism.
They should have compared the purely unvaccinated group against a vaccinated group. But they did not do that; although they were in a position to do so. They bent over backward at every turn in the study to ensure that they were always comparing two groups of vaccinated children. Although the researchers called study groups “unvaccinated,” those groups were always made up of vaccinated children. Indeed, their major outcome involved a comparison between a group 85% of which received five vaccines to a group receiving six vaccines. The only difference in the groups was that the sixth vaccine was the MMR. But the group receiving the five vaccines was labeled as being “unvaccinated.” The study was rigged.
The fact that they had the necessary data of a purely unvaccinated group at their fingertips but studiously ignored it suggests that the researchers had an agenda. And they were going to manipulate the study, by hook or by crook, to come up with their pre-ordained conclusion that the MMR vaccine does not cause autism. The news media that announced the study results as proof that the MMR vaccine does not cause autism did not also inform the public about the behind-the-scenes shenanigans of the researchers.
Instead, the mainstream media misinforms the public that “[t]here’s strong new evidence that a common childhood vaccine is safe.” They trumpet statements of the co-author of the Denmark study, Anders Hviid, who stated that he “hopes the findings will reassure parents. Parents should not avoid vaccinating their children for fear of autism.” That was the objective of the study at its outset. Mission accomplished.