Experience with Dr. Sherri Tenpenny on Facebook

Experience with Dr. Sherri Tenpenny on Facebook.


Injection vs Ingestion. Myths and Facts.

So you’re in a discussion about vaccines and their ingredients and somebody pulls out the conversation stopper. “The amount of xyz in a vaccine might be tiny, but you’re injecting it. And injection is different to ingestion.” You’re stumped. You really have to stop and think hard about it. You know they’re qualitatively different, but you don’t know how to explain exactly why it’s not particularly important.

Yes, they are different. However making a broad and sweeping claim like that without context; being exact about the substance, amount and how the body processes it, is vacuous. And the difference should not be overstated because vaccine ingredients are actually safe in these tiny amounts.

The ingredients considered by many to be the “toxic chemicals” in vaccines are really so tiny compared to other sources, that the route of entry difference does not negate the point that these amounts are not enough to do harm. And it’s not like an injected substance just sits there.  The body has processes through which it disposes of substances that penetrate the skin. For example, foreign particles can be eaten in a process called phagocytosis or they can attach to carrier molecules in the blood which are then excreted.

In order to be excreted, a substance must be absorbed into the blood first. Some substances aren’t absorbed very well, or at all. Once an injected substance reaches the bloodstream, it’s treated the same way by the body as an ingested substance that reaches the bloodstream. After all, where does our food go once it’s broken down and processed by our digestive system? You guessed it, into our bloodstream. But do any of the vaccine ingredients even reach the bloodstream? Are they modified before they reach the bloodstream? Yes and yes. But I need to be really specific about that.

The ingestion/injection trope usually comes up when you discuss formaldehyde, aluminium or MSG. How the ingredient gets into the bloodstream is different for each substance, and you have to understand the chemistry of the substance, how much actually ends up in the bloodstream, how much is retained in the body and how much is excreted.

Formaldehyde from an injected vaccine would immediately start to be taken up by surrounding cells. Some of it would reach the bloodstream, but it is quickly broken down. The amount in a vaccine would be metabolised in ~10 minutes.  Our bodies and cells are very familiar with formaldehyde. Every cell in the human body produces formaldehyde and the average adult produces between 50 and 55 g, or 50-55 000 000 micrograms every day.

Formaldehyde is already present in our blood and cells and the amount from a vaccine is so miniscule that the blood does not even register a difference. There is 120 times more formaldehyde in a pear than in a vaccine.   But small amounts of ingested formaldehyde are not harmful either because the gut breaks it down. The most harmful route for formaldehyde is inhalation, and it can be toxic where there is chronic, long term exposure eg. factory workers breathing in daily fumes.

The aluminium in vaccines is not a heavy metal. It is not even in metallic form as portrayed by vaccine fearmongerers. It is in the form of a salt, usually aluminium hydroxide. The aluminium in aluminium hydroxide is not readily bioavailable and retention is extremely low from both ingestion and injection.

Aluminium salts that you ingest (eg. antacids, buffered aspirin, some processed foods) are mostly excreted before they get to enter the bloodstream. In healthy subjects, less than 0.3% of aluminium that you eat is absorbed via the GI tract and the kidneys effectively eliminate aluminium from the body. Intravenous infusion of products containing aluminium (ie injection directly into the bloodstream via a drip connected to a vein, as with intravenous nutrition pouches for patients in a hospital) or renal dysfunction are the only real scenarios where aluminium has the potential to accumulate.

Once aluminium is in the bloodstream, it is processed similarly regardless of the source. It just depends on the amount received and if the kidneys can keep up. Continuous infusion, we are talking litres here, of a nutrition product delivered directly into the bloodstream, is much more of a deal than a miniscule amount of aluminium hydroxide in a 0.5 ml vaccine injected into muscle. Most of the injected aluminium from vaccines will eventually enter the bloodstream, but it’s not taken up readily by the cells, it is not bioavailable.

Only a very tiny percentage of it will be “dissolved” in the blood – it’s in the form of precipitate bound to carrier proteins. Approximately 89 percent of this aluminium is processed by binding to a protein called transferrin, and the rest is bound to citrate. The majority of the bound aluminium will be processed and eliminated through the kidneys, a small amount through bile and faeces, and a tiny amount is retained in tissues of the body.

About 50% of the aluminium in the bloodstream is eliminated in less than 24 hours, more than 75% is eliminated within two weeks and even more over time. A diminishingly small amount may be retained. But we’re talking about a fraction of two hundredths of bugger all. The ability of the body to rapidly eliminate aluminium hydroxide accounts for its excellent record of safety as a vaccine adjuvant.

Monosodium glutamate (MSG) is also a salt – a salt of glutamic acid. MSG is found naturally in common fruits and vegetables like tomatoes, mushrooms, peas and broccoli. MSG found naturally in these foods is the same as the MSG salt added to foods as a flavour enhancer, is the same as the MSG found in vaccines.  Extremely tiny amounts of MSG are used in vaccines to preserve them against light, acidity and humidity.

The nasal flu vaccine contains 0.188 mg, chickenpox vaccine 0.5 mg and one MMR/chicken pox combo shot has 0.4 mg of MSG. Such tiny amounts are harmless. MSG is NOT a neurotoxin as claimed by vaccine fearmongerers. In food, it works as a flavour enhancer by stimulating the nerve endings on your taste receptors, reducing the need for added table salt. But it does not damage or destroy nerve endings in your brain. Injection does not change the fact that it harmlessly and readily dissolves in bodily fluids. It dissociates into sodium and glutamate whether ingested or injected.

Sodium and glutamate (an amino acid) are then readily used by the body. Some people report mild and transient symptoms after eating foods with added MSG, though human studies have failed to confirm the involvement of MSG in “Chinese Restaurant Syndrome”. However food regulatory authorities do not discount the possibility of a sensitivity in some people. In these people, 3000 mg has triggered it.  But it is not an allergy, it is not immune mediated, it is not toxin related. It appears to be a dose related sensitivity.

In any case, the MSG found naturally in foods or added to foods, is magnitudes higher than what is contained in vaccines. Half a cup of peas contains ~1490 times the amount and an average serving of Chinese food contains ~4000 times the amount of MSG in the chicken pox vaccine. Even in MSG sensitive people, the amount of MSG in the chicken pox vaccine is nearly 16 000 times less than the amount at which susceptible people have been found to be sensitive to.

So that’s the most controversial ingredients discussed. I will now talk about the antigens, the immune generating bits of the vaccine.  (Feel free to ask questions about any other vaccine ingredients in the comments section.)

Ultimately, the difference between ingestion and injection when we are talking about vaccine antigens, is an immune response that is required for immunisation to occur.   That is why they are injected.

Vaccine critics say that vaccination “bypasses” the immune system (it doesn’t). Vaccines bypass the first couple lines of defence, because they need to. We want them to pass the first lines of defence to produce the desired effect – an effective immune response.  (And in order to keep that response going to induce a memory response, aluminium adjuvants are used in the non-live vaccines).

The vaccine antigens – those dead or damaged bits of viruses and bacteria used to promote the immune response – are not left behind and do not reach the bloodstream in the same form. They are permanently altered by your immune cells, engulfed and rendered useless in the process of making antibodies.

The process by which dead pathogens are permanently altered/destroyed by immune cells is depicted well in this simple cartoon. Image credit: Maki Naro Maki Naro what happens to dead pathogens

I’ve heard vaccine critics compare vaccines to snake venom. This is a completely inaccurate comparison. Snake venom contains an active neurotoxin. Drinking snake venom is absolutely not the same as being injected with it. The gut will break down the venom in the same way it digests proteins in food, rendering it useless. If you consumed it, it would not hit the bloodstream in original active and potent form. If a snake bites you, there is nothing underneath your skin or in your muscle to neutralize the venom. It is not broken down so it is able to travel quickly to your lymph glands reach the blood stream and from there it can quickly get to your nervous system and heart.

Vaccine ingredients are not harmful just because they are injected. Vaccines are not even remotely like poisonous venom. Venom contains an active neurotoxin and vaccines do not. The antigens in a vaccine are only mildly active – they’re either dead or damaged. They are active enough to cause an immune response, but not potent enough to cause harm. And the ingredients are inactive. They are not neurotoxic either. The tiny amounts of the ingredients found in vaccines are not toxic whether ingested or injected.

They don’t need to pass through any magical natural wall of protection. The body can recognise them as foreign and phagocytose them. Or they end up in the bloodstream and are excreted. I will explain exactly what happens to a vaccine after it is injected later on in this piece.

So why can’t we have ingestible vaccines?
Because most would have difficulty getting past the hostile environment that is our gastro-intestinal tract. The stomach acid, enzymes, gut bacteria and other potential antigen killers in our gut would render them useless. The exception here is the oral rotavirus vaccine, which happens to be a gut pathogen and so the vaccine works best delivered orally. The oral rotavirus vaccine is very effective in the prevention of wild rotavirus infection.

Polio is also a gut pathogen, and both oral and injected forms of polio work. (More on the difference between the vaccines and their immune responses later). Every disease that we vaccinate for has a preferred route of entry for how it infects the body. Some go through the oral/gut route (eg. polio and rotavirus) some through the oral/respiratory route (eg. diphtheria, whooping cough, influenza, measles, chicken pox) and some via the skin (eg. tetanus, rabies, chicken pox).

Pathogens that enter via the airways, like pertussis and influenza have injectable vaccines to combat them. Intranasal forms are also available. In the development of vaccines, the best route of delivery is studied and tested to achieve maximum benefit and highest level of safety.

Here is what happens to a vaccine once it’s injected: What happens to a vaccine after it's injectedImage source

  1. The vaccine penetrates through the skin barrier and the contents are released into muscle.
  2. Inside the muscle tissue, the vaccine antigens attract immune cells such as  dendritic cells, monocytes and neutrophils.
  3. The immune cells change their surface receptors and start to migrate towards the lymph vessels.
  4. These immune cells (which now have the “recipe” to make antibodies) arrive at the lymph nodes.
  5. Lymph nodes produce antibodies to combat the antigen from the vaccine.
  6. Antigen is phagocytosed (eaten) by a macrophage (an immune cell) as depicted above.

Common injection/ingestion myths:
Some of the common arguments that you will encounter with the ingestion/injection trope are:

Myth 1:  Vaccines aren’t ‘natural’ because they ‘bypass’ the immune system. The idea behind this is that vaccines bypass the skin barrier and this is not “natural”. But the skin is not the body’s only protective barrier. Or perhaps the thinking is that any immunity from vaccines is somehow inferior or ‘artificial’ because it is different to how it would happen naturally. This is not true.

(a) Vaccines don’t ‘bypass’ the immune system at all. Nor do they ‘trick’ or ‘cheat’ the immune system. Vaccines penetrate through the skin barrier, sneaking past the cells and chemicals that will engulf and destroy it.  But this is exactly what they are designed to do. The pathogens in the vaccine are so weak, if we didn’t assist them across this barrier they would quickly be rendered useless. By injecting weak or dead pathogens through the skin and into the muscle, the vaccine goes straight to the level where specific immune cells are made.  The nearest lymph cells immediately go to work on making antibodies to combat the germ. The memory B cells remember the antigen, and can store and retrieve this memory for a future invasion.

(b) Injections happen naturally. From mosquito bites and wasp stings to rose thorns and animal bites, there are plenty of injections in the natural world.   Foreign invaders can enter through the skin or they can enter via your airways and get into your lungs or gastro-intestinal tract. They can also get in via your urinary tract and infect your bladder and kidneys; or they can be sexually transmitted and infect the body’s reproductive organs. Whichever way germs enter, your immune system can mount an immune response.

Myth 2:  “70–80 % of the body’s immune system is situated in the gut, therefore nature intends for pathogens to enter only this way”.
There wouldn’t be so many immune cells there otherwise, right? They think immunity acquired through the gut must somehow be superior, because the germ or substance must evade a natural filter of sorts, the mucosal barrier, and that this was what the body was designed to do, and it protects the body from ALL harm. This is faulty thinking. Immunity acquired via the gut is not superior.

The immune system of the digestive tract (the gut-associated lymphoid tissue, or GALT) works to protect the body from invasion via the gut. The digestive tract is an important component of the body’s immune system. In fact, the intestine possesses the largest mass of lymphoid tissue in the human body at around 70 to 80%. But there are so many immune cells there because our gastro-intestinal system has an ENORMOUS surface area. The gastro-intestinal mucosa has the continuous task of making, breaking up and absorbing nutrients. We shovel foreign matter into our GI tract several times a day – so it is very active!

The lining of the GIT is the largest surface that faces our external environment, so it needs to have lots of immune cells. The human intestine is 10 times longer than the length of the body, at 17 to 35 feet long. Just like our skin is a barrier to things in the air or on surfaces getting inside us, the mucosal layer of our intestines prevent oral pathogens getting through our digestive tract, and the mucosal layer of our mouth, nose and lungs try to prevent respiratory pathogens getting into us.

But not every infectious agent comes in through our mouths and intestines and the suggestion that we’re only able to fight off infections that do is downright silly. You have immune system locations all over the body which are prepared to combat pathogens. Many of the diseases we vaccinate against enter via the mouth, nose and lungs and do not target the gut. eg. pertussis and measles. Other diseases can enter via the skin eg. chickenpox and tetanus. And the gut mucosa is not a perfect barrier – pathogens get past the gut mucosa all the time. Food poisoning anyone? Norovirus? Gastro? Polio and rotavirus?

Our MALT (mucosa-asociated lymphoid tissue) is the rest of the body’s lymphoid tissue outside of the gut.  And the immune cells that are present in the mucosal surfaces are also present in the skin and muscle. The immune cells of our gut reside in our digestive tract looking for invading germs are the same ones in our respiratory tract (mouth nose and lungs) are the same ones under the skin.  If immunity was only successful because it passed through the mucosal layer first we’d all be dropping like flies from cuts, scratches, rose thorn pricks and animal bites.

The diseases we vaccinate against all possess ‘secret weapons’ to get past our body’s defences. They have tools to deceive or disable our immune cells and make us very, very ill. There is a reason why we vaccinate against these diseases – they can cause us serious harm. Vaccination prepares us for combat.

Myth 3:  Vaccines overstimulate one part of the immune system (Type 2 responses –production of antibodies) and weaken another (Type 1 responses – cell mediated).
This is simply not true. The reality is, vaccines stimulate several different types of immune responses. (it depends on the vaccine). This myth stems from how the immune system was crudely understood well over a decade ago. The old model of the T1/T2 immune system went out the window with the discovery of the follicular helper T cell (Tfh) which is truly the type of T helper cell involved with antibody responses, not Th2 as the very-wrong-and-oh-so-outdated model described by vaccine critics.

It was once thought that Type 1 responses were only of the cell mediated kind [cell mediated responses release cells like phagocytes – the ‘pac man’ cells that eat and destroy foreign invaders, cytotoxic T-lymphocytes – a type of white blood cell that ‘poisons’ the foreign invader and cytokines – which regulate, modulate and act as mediators and promote or suppress inflammation] and Type 2 responses could only produce antibodies.

Vaccine critics therefore proposed that vaccines overstimulate Type 2 responses; therefore Type 1 responses become ‘lazy’. However Th1 and Th2 responses actually overlap and interact with each another. Scientific studies have established that Type 1 responses are not strictly cell mediated and Type 2 does not just stimulate antibodies. Type 1 cells can also stimulate antibodies and Type 2 responses can order other cells around. T1 and T2 actually work together in a dynamic relationship, giving and receiving feedback to one another. They regulate each other’s function and are capable of coordinating a variety of immune responses. Each can elicit both cell responses and antibody responses. It’s an extremely complex area of immunology.

Aside from that, it just doesn’t make sense that vaccinating for a mere fourteen diseases would significantly decrease the immune challenge a person is exposed to. There are literally thousands of infectious pathogens including rhinoviruses, adenoviruses, parainfluenza viruses and bacterial pathogens, many of which you are exposed to on a daily basis, through breathing, eating or cutting your skin, which can exercise your immune system away from any perceived bias.

Myth 4:  (ties in with Myth 3) Vaccines overstimulate one part of the immune system and weaken another, and this is why we are seeing an increase in allergies, asthma and autoimmune diseases.
This myth has no basis and studies actually show that vaccines do not increase the risk for allergic diseases. It is an established fact that children in developing countries are less likely to develop allergies such as eczema and asthma compared with children in developed countries.   And this is very likely because children in the developing world are more likely to be exposed to and challenged by worms and parasites as well as pathogen-producing bacteria and viruses early in life – the very part of our immune system that is not getting much exercise. This is known as the hygiene hypothesis.

The incidence of food allergies in developed countries has also increased. Early exposure to food antigens may be an additional important factor in the prevention of food-borne allergies. Early familiarisation may mean a tolerance and an affinity is developed. It is no longer advised that you delay feeding your baby solid food.   Recent research shows there is no benefit from delaying the introduction of solids longer than 4 months.

There are other reasons why an increase in allergic disease has more to do with the hygiene hypothesis and nothing to do with vaccination, the biggest being that vaccine preventable diseases occur independently of the level of hygiene in the home and sanitation level of the country. Measles, mumps rubella and chicken-pox occurred almost universally in every household, regardless of the country they lived in, before vaccination programmes began to eliminate these diseases.

And so there is the key. Our highly sanitized, first world lifestyles are preventing gut exposure to germs, worms and parasites which exercise our IgE antibody system and prevent allergic disease, and upregulate other parts of our immune system as well which play a role in prevention of auto-immune diseases. Our IgE antibody system is the part that overreacts when a generally harmless, common and non-infectious substance comes along, setting off an allergic reaction. Asthma and allergic reactions result from an overproduction of histamine sparked by an overreaction by the IgE antibody system. The body then produces inflammation, mucus, swelling and sometimes a rash.

So what kind of antibodies are produced with vaccination? And would these be the same type that are made if the exposure occurred naturally?
The immune system responds to an antigen whether exposed in the wild or through ‘artificial’ means – vaccination.  It’s just that different parts of the body specialize in making a particular antibody.  One memory B cell (the cells that remember the vaccine or the infection) can give rise to many antibody producing cells.  Each antibody producing cell will produce antibodies of a particular type  (A, G, E, M or D),  depending on the location in the body. For example most ‘IgM’ (immunoglobulin M) and ‘IgG’ type antibodies are found in the blood circulation.  ‘IgA’ type antibodies are found in mucosal surfaces eg the gut, the lungs, nose and mouth. Depending on the germ and site of the infection, the body will *prefer* to make one antibody type over another.

Vaccines taken orally (like the oral polio vaccine and rotavirus) will induce production of IgA antibodes.  Vaccines injected intramuscularly will induce IgG. Vaccines have been studied and tested to ensure the best route to provide the best immune response with the least side effects. The body is equipped for disease entry or antibody production from vaccines regardless of the route.

The antibodies produced through vaccination may be qualitatively different to those produced through natural exposure, but it doesn’t matter as they are cross protective. For example, if you are exposed to pertussis naturally the pertussis bacteria enters your nose stimulating an IgA antibody response in your mucosal linings and secretions. A pertussis vaccination will stimulate production of IgG antibodies near the surrounding muscle that will circulate in the bloodstream.

Even though the antibody types from natural infection differ to vaccination, it can be enough that there are pre-existing antibodies, even if they’re not of the same isotype that an initial infection would produce. When it comes down to it, vaccine-induced immunity is *always* qualitatively different to that induced by an infection. But that doesn’t change the fact that vaccines are effective. This is proven in the data we see in population level studies.

Another example of cross protection is when the switch was made from oral to injectable polio vaccination. The oral polio vaccine stimulates a good gut IgA response. However it’s live-attenuated and so comes with a very tiny risk of developing paralytic polio. The inactivated polio vaccine is injected and promotes a good circulating IgG response, without the same risk. This circulating IgG means that on exposure, a person will be protected from systemic polio infection, as pretty much the whole circulatory system has some anti-polio antibodies, but that person could still get a gut infection, and pass it on, before developing enough of a local response to clear it from their system, whereas the IgA response from the oral vaccine helps prevent that initial colonisation in the first place.

It should be no surprise that disease pathogens that enter via the skin (tetanus, rabies, chicken pox) can be defended against via vaccines injected into the skin.

As for the increase in autoimmune diseases being due to vaccines, this theory doesn’t make sense either. Indeed, the evidence has rejected the link between vaccines and most autoimmune diseases. Only in a few extremely rare cases has a particular vaccine been implicated in triggering an autoimmune disorder.

Guillain-Barre syndrome was associated with a small increase in risk with a particular 1976-1977 swine flu vaccine. Autoimmune thrombocytopenia has been reported after measles vaccination, but with a much lower frequency than that seen after wild measles virus infection (one in 30 000 vs one in 5000) and the MMR associated condition is self-limiting, recoverable and non-life threatening.
There is nothing to support the theory that vaccines are associated with an increased risk of multiple scelerosis or Type 1 diabetes.

The increase in autoimmune diseases is also highly likely to do with the hygiene hypothesis. The infections thought to play a role in the hygiene hypothesis have nothing to do with vaccination, and include several species of bacteria and a variety of parasitic worms, or helminths.

Vaccines are injected but this does not make them dangerous. They do not overstimulate the immune system, nor do they weaken the immune system. They exercise and prepare the immune system for a specific attack against a specific disease.

There are diseases that infect via your airways (pertussis, diphtheria, measles, influenza, chicken pox) but giving a vaccine into muscle can provide blood antibodies to prevent infection from these respiratory illnesses. There are diseases that infect via the stomach and gut (polio, rotavirus etc) AND so giving a rotavirus vaccine orally makes sense in terms of building protection, but polio protection can be given either orally or injected. Rotavirus vaccination is only effective when given orally.

If you think obtaining ‘natural immunity’ is better,  you are assuming that your child’s immune system is strong enough to fight off the diseases naturally. If that is the case, then it’s strong enough to fight off the tiny amounts of dead or disabled pathogens present in vaccines.

Ingestion vs injection is irrelevant as an objection not to vaccinate. The risks from vaccines are outweighed a million fold by the risks from the diseases we vaccinate against.

Credit: This article was compiled and written by me after nearly two years worth of collaboration and consultation with medical doctors, epidemiologists, microbiologists, virologists, immunologists, biologists and other scientists.

Vaccine injury stories: the sacred cows of the internet?

When I first started looking into vaccines, I had no idea that an anti-vaccine movement even existed.  I came across claims that the vaccines were toxic and dangerous; the diseases were not. I have some background in science, so I was able to dismiss those claims as inaccurate, but I couldn’t help but be drawn in by tragic, angry and deeply personal stories from parents who claimed their children were harmed by vaccines.

We wouldn’t be human if we were not affected by others’ personal and emotional experiences.  And when these parents said that they saw their child deteriorate “with their own eyes” and other people were lapping up these stories, unopposed, I was quietly horrified.   I watched on as the stories were being shared and reshared amidst a sea of sympathy and a rage-against-the-authority kind of validation.  These people were telling me they had vaccinated their children in good faith, but had suffered for it.  This made me feel as if I owed them something akin to instant respect because they’d vaccinated their child “for the greater good” and had “taken one for the team.”

But according to everything I knew, vaccines were relatively safe and effective.  I dared not question these vaccine injury stories, but I still couldn’t understand…

If all of these vaccine injuries were occurring on a massive scale, why wasn’t anybody doing anything about it? And why wasn’t the media reporting on them?

Now I know what it feels like when your child is really sick, but I can only imagine how it feels to lose a child.  I am an empathetic person but I hope I never experience that. I wanted to know more about these vaccine injury stories but worried it would be insensitive to probe or question their accuracy. I could hurt their feelings or worse, insult their child’s memory.

But something wasn’t right, and I started to squirm with the conflicting information, the inaccuracies.

I thought about how grief and the depths of pain could drive you to the ends of the earth to search for answers or something to blame.  I thought about how, without some medical knowledge one could misunderstand how and why these events actually happened; or worse – they may never get a precise answer.  I also thought about how grief channelled in the wrong direction can be irrational and unhealthy.  Could some of these stories actually be a gigantic misunderstanding?

I used to think these vaccine injury stories were the sacred cows of the internet.  But false or misrepresented stories can do irreparable damage.  I am not saying there is a deliberate intent to mislead people – they simply don’t know what they don’t know.

But if we allow such stories to circulate without question, we could be empowering a faulty-thinking process and perpetuating a negative cycle of grief-and-misdirected-blame.  If we accept the story at face value we give credence to it.  Does that make us part of the spread of misinformation? 


Now I never want to tell a grieving parent how they should think, feel or behave and I never want to diminish their feelings or experiences.  Many of them were absolutely convinced that their child was injured by vaccines.  But a lot simply didn’t stack up.  There were misunderstandings about dosage and toxicity, medical misconceptions, huge leaps or gaps in logic and clumsy attempts to explain what happened in terms they didn’t seem to comprehend.  Many were simply implausible or impossible.

Without any of the medical information, it would be foolish of me to presume anything.  But I began to gently ask questions and with the information given, I set about trying to find real answers from doctors and scientists that I knew.  In my personal quest for the ‘truth” only a handful of stories were very highly likely to be real vaccine injuries of a serious nature.  The rest were utterly impossible or could be explained by something else, something far more likely.  Some were indeterminable.

I have never personally known anyone who was injured by vaccines.  So I got to thinking: how often do vaccine injuries actually occur, in real life?  There must be an official database of them somewhere?

If you ask the parents of alleged vaccine injured children they are in VAERS – America’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System. 

Other countries have their own reporting system – in Australia we have the TGA Database of Adverse Event Notifications.

But these databases are essentially a collection of unverified reports.  That means these reports have not yet been medically assessed.  They are not determined as causal and are not proof of real injury numbers.

Both VAERS and The TGA Database carry warnings to this effect:  “In accessing the database we encourage consumers to understand that a report of an adverse event does not necessarily indicate there is a causal link between a medicine and an adverse outcome.”

That’s right.  They may not even be connected.  One of the more well-known examples of how any unrelated event can make it into VAERS was Dr. James Laidler’s report that the influenza vaccine turned him into the Incredible Hulk.


You Tube videos were also presented to me as “evidence” but they are not proof of anything either. Anecdotal reports – VAERS, YouTube, rumours, a friend’s cousin’s hairdresser’s aunt’s version of events – they’re all unreliable.  And so is an unqualified and inexperienced parent trying to do medical diagnosis without really understanding the process – no matter how earnest and well meaning they are.  

Real vaccine injuries are recorded.  You or your doctor can report the injury and if it’s serious, so begins a public health investigation.  They are not overlooked.  They are not covered up.  If anything, they are sought after.  Vaccine safety is taken extremely seriously by vaccine manufacturers and the medical establishment.  Even researchers go looking for vaccine injury reports: sometimes they are written up in the medical literature as a case study.

Only after reports have been medically analysed can they be confirmed as real vaccine injuries, and these cases contribute to offical vaccine statistics as legitimate risk of reactions.

This study of VAERS data showed that less than 3% of adverse reaction reports from vaccines are actually found to be related to the vaccine.  Further, when the data of the verified vaccine reactions were scrutinised, the majority of them were of a minor nature such as a low grade fever or soreness at the injection site.  When you do the real numbers, the risk of serious vaccine injury is magnitudes less than 1%.  

Some of the vaccine injury stories I encountered were downright impossible.  For example, SIDS and Shaken Baby Syndrome were being blamed on vaccines, when in fact a meta analysis of the medical literature shows that immunisations are associated with halving the risk of SIDS and Shaken Baby syndrome is an abusive head trauma, not a vaccine injury.

Actually, most of the vaccine injuries commonly discussed by vaccine critics had absolutely no connection other than co-incidental timing with the administration of the vaccine.

For example, I read about parents who believed that pneumonia, a middle ear infection, a cough or cold, eczema, asthma, autism, epilepsy and other unrelated conditions were “vaccine injuries” simply because their child had one of these things happen or diagnosed around the same time as their jabs.  One woman was convinced that a flu shot gave her endometriosis. Impossible.

Then there were some genetic conditions, such as epilepsy or autism, which tend to pop up early in a child’s development and may co-incide with vaccination.  But these things occur in children with or without vaccinations. 

Vaccine reactions are known and have been well established through years of documentation, research, reporting, monitoring and analysing.  A parent’s anecdote is meaningful in terms of gathering symptoms,  but thorough and objective medical and scientific assessment is needed to make the diagnosis.

True vaccine injuries of a serious nature are exceptionally rare.  We can tell they are real when they’ve been medically confirmed or published in peer-reviewed, credible medial journals.  They are so rare we usually hear about them in the media and remember them by name.  These kinds of cases should be swiftly and generously compensated.

For example, American David Salamone  and Jacob McCarthy from Australia both developed paralytic polio from the oral polio vaccine.

Saba Button from Australia developed brain damage after ongoing febrile seizures from CSL’s FluVax. (this vaccine has now been withheld from use in this age-group and has never been used outside of Australia).

Other cases are deemed “causation indeterminable” –  it *may* be possible the vaccine caused it, but we just don’t know.  For example:

Izzy Olesen suffered from Stevens-Johnson syndrome after the DTaP booster.  It was reported by medical staff as a possible vaccine reaction but causation cannot be proved.

Ashley Jade Eparara died within a day of receiving a flu shot, but the coroner could not ascertain the cause of death. (which meant that he could not find a way to positively connect the vaccine to the death, but he was unable to rule it out).

In cases where the death happened some weeks or months after the immunization determining a specific relationship with the vaccination is very difficult.

Some events are so rare, it is impossible to determine whether the vaccine caused it or not.  Other cases are rare, but given other information the possibility of a vaccine injury is not very likely:

For example:  the long-held myth of vaccine encephalopathy was debunked upon the discovery of Dravet’s syndrome.  But there was no trumpeting fanfare, no viral internet sharing when this news came out.

There is a very sad case of baby Ian Gromowski who allegedly died because of the Hepatitis B shot.  However Ian’s mother was induced due to toxemia and pre-eclampsia which indicate a high-risk and complicated pregnancy.   Moreover,  Ian had aspirated meconium prior to birth and was born with a fever indicative of infection.  He was also allergic to an antibiotic he was given.  A complex constellation of potentially fatal factors surrounded his case, all of which cannot be adequately explained by a reaction to the Hepatitis B shot.  In fact, the vaccine most likely had nothing to do with his death whatsoever.

Oscar Duffy’s  mother had the flu shot and DtaP during pregnancy, and tragically Oscar was born still several days later.  His mother thinks the vaccine caused his death,  but Oscar had Down’s Syndrome – which has a high association with spontaneous fetal loss regardless of vaccination status.

Kaylynne Matten died of viral myocarditis in the same week she received a flu shot.  Myocarditis can be caused by many different viruses and it can happen out of the blue in healthy people.  But it would not occur as a result of vaccination with a flu shot which does not contain live influenza virus (the flu jab she had consisted of a killed virus).  The vaccine unfairly cops the blame here just because it happened to occur in close proximity to the myocarditis.

Then there are a collection of reports known as the “Gardasil Girls” which have been given false balance in the media.   Their alleged injuries range from ovarian failure, neurological conditions, meningitis, chronic fatigue, pulmonary embolism, influenza, chronic lyme disease morphing into a vaccine injury and death.  But there is no evidence that these are caused by the vaccine and going on a TV show doesn’t make it true either.  However, there is a mountain of scientific evidence demonstrating the safety of the HPV vaccine.  With more than 50 million doses having been given worldwide with very close safety monitoring, we know that this vaccine is safe.

In fact, when you review the evidence, the rates of major events of concern, namely Guillain-Barré syndrome, autoimmune disorders, transverse myelitis and death, were all exceedingly rare, and not above what one would expect to occur in the normal unvaccinated population. 

Gardasil does not cause premature ovarian failure:

And deaths from Gardasil are a complete lie.

You might have heard that Japan has withdrawn it’s recommendation of the HPV vaccine until it thoroughly investigates reports in its own database of adverse events.  This does not mean that the vaccine is bad and Japan are somehow the only country to have cottoned on to this.  It just says that Japan apply the precautionary principle with regards to all vaccines.  This says more about the Japanese culture than the HPV vaccine itself.  It’s important to note that the vaccine hasn’t been pulled from the market, you can still get the vaccine there.  The recommendation is simply on hold.

Sometimes vaccine critics will use US Vaccine Court injury claims as evidence of harm.  But law courts do not determine causation – medical science does.   In Australia, all claims would need to go through a lengthy civil process.  I think that the VICP in the US makes it very attractive to some people who misunderstand the process and may think they can take advantage of a system designed to ensure an adequate supply of vaccines and efficiently compensate people found to have real vaccine injuries.

If you take a look at the numbers of vaccine reactions, the rate of compensation of vaccine injuries in the American vaccine court means that 99.9999999999999999% of Americans are vaccinated without issue.

And there are many instances where an awarded vaccine court injury doesn’t mean what they think it means:

For example, in the Hannah Poling and Ryan Majobi cases – neither were compensated for autism. 

VICP series Hannah Poling

VICP Ryan Mojabi

Actually vaccines have never caused autism. 

So that leaves us with the downright ridiculous.  There are YouTube videos so fanciful I don’t know whether to cry until I laugh or laugh until I cry.

There is the strange case of Desiree Jennings who began to speak in an Australian accent and developed a very bizarre form of dystonia after the swine flu jab.  As if by magic, her dystonia symptoms would disappear when she walked backwards or ran (or didn’t have a camera around).

A medical analysis by the admitting neurologist concluded “a strong psychogenic component to her symptoms” and “not a reaction to the vaccine”.  Other experts described it as “an elaborate hoax” “this is not dystonia” and “there is no way a vaccine can cause someone’s accent to change”.

Other claims might fool you because upon first reading them, you might believe them to be true.  An example of this was a spate of paralysis in Chad which was not caused by the meningitis vaccine.  Alarming when you read the headline, not so much when you examine the details.

So this is what I think now.  We should politely ask questions whenever we hear or read about a vaccine injury story.  We need have evidence that the harm came from the vaccine, especially if the story comes with a warning that you should not vaccinate your own child.

These are the questions I like to ask when presented with a vaccine injury story.

  1. May I ask why you are so sure it was the vaccine?
  2. Has it been medically confirmed?
  3. Was anything else going on at the time?
  4. Before the vaccine was invented, did this condition exist?
  5. What caused these conditions before the vaccine was invented?
  6. Could it be possible that these things are causing them now?
  7. What is the likelihood that the vaccine caused it vs something else?

In many cases it becomes immediately clear that something else could explain it.  When it comes to a complex medical situation, doctors and other experts are the ones to turn to for an explanation.  And when I’ve had an expert explain them to me, I can honestly say that I have not encountered more than a handful of stories that could not be explained by a far more likely condition or scenario.

So why would a parent still cling to a belief when the medical science concludes otherwise? Perhaps because the emotion surrounding the event cements the conviction firmly in their mind and it’s hard to undo a thought process where emotion overrules logic.

People who don’t have a real vaccine injury and spread myths about them do a great injustice to real vaccine safety advocates; the people who’ve had real vaccine reactions.  They undo the good work that people like David Salamone’s father John have done.

(John Salamone was instrumental in lobbying the US government to switch from oral to injectable polio vaccine.  He still recommends vaccines and recognizes that his son’s reaction is a very rare event.)

We cannot be expected to accept vaccine injury stories without a reasonable explanation of the mechanism of harm.  If you think we should accept all stories at face value, I’m afraid that you’re missing the mark as vaccine safety advocates.

Dear Pregnant Mums: the Whooping Cough vaccine is safe and effective for you to receive during pregnancy.

We are told to avoid many things during pregnancy: soft cheeses, raw fish and seafood, unprocessed dairy and most medications. But the whooping cough vaccine is safe during pregnancy.  And it could potentially save your newborn baby’s life.

Q. Why should you get a pertussis booster during pregnancy?
A. So you don’t catch the disease and pass it to your baby at birth.  So that your baby will be born with active immunity to whooping cough.

Pertussis during pregnancy is extremely inconvenient and risky.   A pregnancy booster will provide both mother and baby with antibody protection.

Whooping cough is rife in our communities, and newborn babies are most vulnerable, most at risk to fatal pertussis.  If you get the vaccine in the recommended time-frame; during the last trimester of your pregnancy, you will produce antibodies to pertussis which can cross the placenta to your unborn baby whilst they are still in the womb.  You will also ensure the early appearance of pertussis fighting antibodies in your breast milk.

The placentally transferred antibodies will remain active inside your newborn baby’s bloodstream until they are around 6 to 8 weeks old – providing them with a fighting chance against the disease until they are due for their very own first immunisation against pertussis.  The breastmilk antibodies will help top up the pertussis fighting immunity during this time.

Q.  I plan to breastfeed my baby.  If I have the whooping cough vaccine during pregnancy, will my baby still need their first vaccine?
A.  Yes.  Breastfeeding alone will not protect or prevent pertussis in your baby.  Also, breastfeeding does not increase the length of time that passive immunity (antibodies passed from mother to baby via the placenta) will protect the baby.  It won’t interfere with it either.

Vaccinating during pregnancy effectively closes the 6 week vulnerability window.  This is the time when babies can contract whooping cough and are most at risk of suffering, hospitalisation, complications and death.   Whooping cough deaths occur almost exclusively in babies under 3 months of age, with the majority of deaths in babies under 8 weeks old – babies  too young to be immunised.


Latest figures from the UK show that 2-4  out of 100 newborns under 3 months old who contract the disease will die.

Q. At what stage of pregnancy is recommended to receive the vaccine?
A. 27 to 36 weeks gestation. This is recommended by several countries across the world such as  Australia,  NZ, the US  and the UK.

Every state in Australia now recommends a whooping cough vaccine booster for pregnant women.  Previously, babies had been given the vaccine at six weeks, four months and six months, but research suggests that a booster given in the last ­trimester of pregnancy may offer the best protection for newborns.

Q. Is the shot safe?
A. Yes it is. Read more about that below.

Q. Is it effective?
A. Yes, it has been proven to produce antibodies during pregnancy which are directly transferred to your baby.  Read more below.

Q. Why not get it after pregnancy?
A. It may be too late.  If your baby contracts whooping cough in the first few weeks of life, they will be without protection.

Q. Why not get it before pregnancy?
A. It is a good idea to be boosted against pertussis before a pregnancy is planned. However, it is difficult to time pregnancy perfectly, and whooping cough antibodies only last so long. If you have not had a recent immunisation or illness, there may not be any immunity for you to transfer.  This is why it is advised during the last weeks of pregnancy – so that you pass a high level of active antibodies to your unborn child.

Pregnancy vaccination is the preferred alternative to postpartum vaccination for preventing infant pertussis.

It’s already recommended by the CDC in the USA and the NHS in the UK.

Its safety is proven here,  here and here.

The last link above is a very large and recent observational study from the UK.  It shows that women who have received pertussis vaccination in the third trimester are not at any increased risk of maternal or neonatal death, stillbirth, pre-eclampsia, eclampsia, haemorrhage, foetal distress, uterine rupture, placenta or vasa praevia, caesarean delivery, low birth rate, neonatal renal failure or any other serious event that can occur naturally during pregnancy.

The pertussis pregnancy booster is also very effective. It ensures that newborns are born with protective pertussis antibodies as shown here and here.

The Cocooning strategy, which involved vaccinating all of the household members around the pregnant mum (but not the pregnant mum) for the purpose of providing a ring of protection around a newborn too young to be immunised, was not entirely effective.

Transmission rates within the household are high, especially for mothers passing the illness on to their children. Therefore, making sure all pregnant women are vaccinated before their baby arrives would, according to calculations, cut the risk in half that a baby would contract pertussis.  70 to 100% of people living in the same house as a person with whooping cough are usually infected.  The evidence for sibling (and other household members) vaccination, though weaker, still points to the value of overall cocooning.

This study outlines the most important reason to get vaccinated from the perspective of preventing deaths.

Essentially, to prevent deaths we need to protect the babies who are too young for the vaccine but at risk of contracting the disease in the birth to 6 week old vulnerability period.

So, whilst cocooning is effective, nothing beats providing the newborn with direct immunity than vaccinating the mother antenatally.

I know what I would do. Get that pregnancy booster like my newborn’s life depended on it.

8 Reasons You Are Wrong About Not Vaccinating

When I recently came across an article listing 8 reasons the author had not vaccinated his daughter, it reminded me of my own search to find good information about vaccines when my first daughter was born. Years later, I fully understand how and why vaccines are safe, effective ways to protect children from many diseases. In this post, I respond to each of the points made in that misinformative article.

To vaccinate or not. That is the question.

Before I had my first daughter I was a vaccine “fence-sitter.” When I first came across pro- or anti-vaccine articles on social media and blogs, I was truly looking for information.

I questioned why the hepatitis B shot had to be given at birth and wondered why there were so many shots on the schedule. I was perplexed why whooping cough is so prevalent even though babies receive several shots in the vaccine series that are supposed to protect against it. I questioned why I still needed to vaccinate for many other diseases that didn’t seem to be around much anymore. I got called a concern troll and was attacked on “pro-vax” pages for admitting I’d used complementary medicine. Then I got called an uneducated “sheeple” and Big Pharma Shill on the “anti-vax” sites. I didn’t seem to fit in anywhere.

I was stunned by the passionate and rapid-fire judgmental comments from both camps and initially retreated from conversation as I became further alienated by both sides.

I realized it was my choice to take it to heart or continue to ask questions and learn. I realized that I couldn’t expect others to automatically know my intentions, so I decided to put on my objective glasses, see beyond the language and emotion and take on board the facts. Here’s what I have learned.

1 A. The risk of adverse events from vaccines are greatly outweighed by the risks of adverse events from the diseases. If you think it’s the other way round, either:

you’ve failed at risk/benefit analysis
• you don’t know what these diseases are capable of, or
• you are getting your information from dubious sources.

Hands down, the risks are greater with not vaccinating. Gaining ‘natural immunity’ means putting your child through unnecessary suffering and risk of a severe or even fatal outcome. You simply cannot obtain specific immunity to vaccine preventable diseases safely through any other method than vaccination. Natural births, exclusive breastfeeding, chiropractic visits and a well-nourished, healthy, outdoorsy lifestyle will not build specific antibodies to the diseases as vaccination can. Healthy, robust children get sick and die from these diseases. Ask any pediatric ICU doctor. We don’t vaccinate for trivial reasons.

For example, chickenpox is often thought of as a mild disease, even a ‘rite of passage’ in childhood, but it can actually be fatal. I’ve had chickenpox myself, and I was fine. The risk of dying from chickenpox is low, but the risk of severe effects from the chickenpox vaccine is magnitudes lower.

As I did, you may wonder why we need to keep vaccinating children against diseases like polio and diphtheria, which are rare in developed countries. It’s because many diseases we vaccinate against are still common in other areas of the world and can easily be spread by travellers. There have been recent outbreaks in developed countries – including the US – of whooping cough, measles, mumps and rubella. Diphtheria and tetanus are rare (thanks to vaccination) but they still occur and when they do, can be deadly or devastating. These diseases still exist, and without vaccines, they could re-emerge. With every disease on the immunization schedule, the risks from the disease outweigh the risks from the vaccine in gargantuan proportions.

1B. Your sources are key. A decision made from Natural News articles and other pseudo-medical blogs will be poorly informed because the science is dubious and the information is cherry picked, misconstrued or downright wrong.

Every health organization of every country around the world is supportive of vaccination. And so is the overwhelming majority of the medical profession. You can trust information from legitimate medical sites and government health agencies because they are evidence-based.

And please don’t claim that “Big Pharma” are behind every study and every decision these organizations make.
Look up research in the PubMed library, where you will find scientific studies from all over the world from independent scientists, universities and other organizations with zero financial interest in pharmaceutical companies. If you exclude the pharmaceutical company-funded studies, the medical and scientific consensus still concludes that vaccinating is the safer choice over not vaccinating.

1C. Vaccine critics may worry about the long-term effects of being injected with multiple vaccines. Do they build up to toxic levels? Do they lead to chronic disorders?

No. Here’s what happens when you’re vaccinated. You get injected with antigens (bits of the original disease that have been inactivated, killed or weakened) that stimulate your body to make specific antibodies (disease-fighting immune cells) to fight this disease. Developing a good level of immunity from a vaccine can take anywhere from a couple of weeks (the flu shot) to a couple of months (DTaP given at 2, 4 and 6 months). Once antibodies are made, the body disposes of the antigens.

Vaccines also contain inactive ingredients (the excipients), such as aluminum salts, formaldehyde and trace antibiotics. These don’t stay in the body long enough to build up and create long-term health effects. They leave your body within days or weeks. The excipients found in vaccines are also found in things we consume or are in our environment. When spaced out over months on the vaccination schedule, the amounts are diminishingly small compared to what we shovel into our mouths several times a day. And please don’t worry that ingestion differs from injection. We’re talking about infintisimally small amounts here and the calculations for safety limits on injected substances are already factored in. The only long-term effect from vaccines is the immunity to the disease our children develop from them.

There is nothing to suggest a “synergistic toxicity” either. The ingredients can’t build up and cause “multiplied” harm because we are talking about tiny, miniscule amounts of ingredients and many of them are inert. And again, they exit the body.

Critics might also point out that “artificial” stimulation of the immune system could lead to chronic disorders such as asthma, allergies, diabetes and autoimmune disease. But there is no evidence of this.

Children who receive vaccines on time do not have different neuropsychological outcomes to those who are unvaccinated or on a delayed schedule.

The incidence of allergies and chronic diseases in vaccinated versus unvaccinated children is the same.

1D. Side effects are real, but extremely rare. There is no evidence to suggest serious side effects are under-reported.

Conversely, there is evidence that serious adverse events are over-reported. Minimal side effects, such as swelling and a sore arm, do tend to be under-reported. Yet, most adverse events tend to be over-reported because of the perception that they are caused by the vaccine when the adverse event’s appearance is really just coincidental timing with the administration of the vaccines. For example, there are adverse reports in the US VAERS database which list motor vehicle accidents, accidental drownings, drug overdoses, suicides and teenage pregnancies as adverse events. Each of those is clearly an unfortunate incident that occurred around the same time as vaccination but could not have been caused by vaccines. Similarly, reports such as ovarian failure, autism and multiple sclerosis are not caused by vaccines because each has been studied and found through the scientific method not to be linked to vaccines. Some people might think they got the flu from the flu shot because it developed later on that same day. But the timing of the incubation period makes that implausible. And so on.

When side effects are reported to VAERS, experts evaluate them and many are found to not be causally related. For example, this study shows only 3% of adverse events reported to VAERS were determined to definitely have been caused by immunization. Further, those 3% and the 40% determined to be “probably” or “possibly” related to a vaccine “were dominated by local reactions, allergic reactions, or symptoms known to be associated with the vaccine administered.” In other words, they were the minor adverse events that we already know about and are provided on VIS sheets.

Severe adverse events from vaccines occur less than 1% of the time. We know this from clinical trials, post marketing surveillance and clinical evaluation or reports.

2. It is very unlikely a vaccinated child will contract the disease. If they are unlucky enough to do so, the disease will, with minimal exceptions, be very mild.

With some vaccines, such as the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella), it’s extremely unlikely for a vaccinated person to catch the disease. With pertussis and flu vaccines, it is more likely that a person might catch the disease, but the course of the disease will not be as severe as if the person were unvaccinated. That this can occur has more to do with the kinds of vaccines and the nature of the organisms than vaccine failure.

3. You should not automatically dismiss vaccines because you don’t trust drug companies. Pharmaceutical companies’ vaccine manufacturing processes are heavily regulated and stringently tested. To reject vaccines on the basis that Big Pharma needs to make a profit is folly. All businesses need to make a profit, and yes, Big Pharma is heavily invested in the health sector.

However, profits from vaccines are not huge as with other drugs, such as statins, cholesterol or even Viagra. Yes, Vioxx took a long while to recall, but the system has many checks and balances in place in order to work. And work it did. And few pharmaceutical products have the broad evidence base that vaccines have, both in how long they’ve been studied and in how many different countries, institutions and foundations have studied them.

Vaccines have been around for more than a century. Yes, there may be corruption and greed within big corporations – but why is Pharma any different from any other big company? Do you distrust people who manufacture your baby’s car seats, food and clothing as well because they need to make a profit?

4. In the US, you can sue anybody, including the doctor, the nurse or the drug company, if there has been a breach of protocol. You can also seek compensation through the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP) if you experience a serious side effect.

In the US, you can seek compensation through a specific program called NVICP if you suspect an adverse reaction from a vaccine. You actually can sue the vaccine manufacturer through the civil court system for liability claims to do with manufacturing defects, such as a vaccine which is improperly made, or for warning defects, such as a vaccine which was incorrectly labeled.

In other countries, you can sue for vaccine injuries through the civil system. The US is lucky to have a specific system in place which actually tries to make it easier on people in the unlikely event they have an adverse reaction.

5. We know enough about the human microbiome to understand that it is implausible to be permanently affected by vaccines; actually the microbiome is probably not affected by vaccines at all.

The microbiota inside the walls of my gut is a separate and unique environment from what is within others’ guts, established from birth and genetic influences. It can be affected by things I consume. Vaccines, which are injected into muscle? Not so much.

The microbiota in my gut form part of my gut immune system, the mucosal immunity which makes IgA antibodies. Vaccines are injected into muscle, stimulating local immune cells to make IgM and IgG antibodies. This is occurring well away from your gut biota.

It is possible that a vaccine taken orally, such as the oral polio vaccine or rotavirus vaccine, may have a temporary effect on gut biota. But there’s no evidence these changes are significant, let alone permanent. Taking antibiotics is something that can change a person’s biota, yet even those courses do not have the power to make permanent, irrevocable changes. Eating a diet consisting primarily of heavily processed and readily absorbed food can adversely affect gut flora.

Research from Stanford University shows that we can develop immunity to microbes we’ve never encountered through exposure to gut pathogens. These findings lend credibility to the ‘hygiene hypothesis’, the idea that exposure to common, everyday germs, bugs and parasites strengthens our immune system. The study is not suggesting that we dismiss vaccines, but it’s suggesting we can make greater use of our oral immune system.

There are ways you can improve your oral immune system and develop a more diverse gut flora without probiotics or going to any great expense:
1. Avoid overuse of antibiotics (use when necessary)
2. Eat fermented foods and a wholesome, unprocessed diet with increased fiber intake
3. Get a pet
4. Relax the sanitary regime in your home by letting your children play in the dirt. Wash your hands when pathogens (eg, after visiting the toilet) or toxic chemicals (eg, after handling herbicides and pesticides) are likely to be present, but maybe not after patting the dog.

Meanwhile, injected vaccines target a completely different part of your immune system.

6. Herd immunity is a real thing. It is understood.

Herd immunity, also called community immunity, occurs when the vaccination of a large proportion of people in a community provides a chain of protection for those who cannot be vaccinated or have not developed immunity. When a certain percentage of the population has been immunized, the cycle of infection is interrupted because large numbers are immune or less susceptible to the disease and there are fewer infectious individuals. This means that any outbreak of the disease will be contained quickly. You can see a pictorial representation of herd immunity here. The CDC have even put out a chart of various herd immunity levels required for each disease (PDF, see Slide 17).

When herd immunity drops below a certain level, it fails. Vaccines aren’t 100% effective, and some aren’t as good as others. The MMR vaccine is around 99% effective at recommended doses. Pertussis vaccine is about 85% effective and flu vaccines range up to about 65% effectiveness. But vaccine effectiveness is all factored into the herd immunity percentages.

When herd immunity drops below the needed level and an infected person enters the population, disease outbreaks occur and can spread rapidly among the unvaccinated. Some who are vaccinated will get the illness as well (again, the vaccines are not 100% effective), but the incidence (the rate of infection, given in a ratio or percentage) in the unvaccinated will be far greater. For example, pertussis occurs at a rate 27 times greater in unvaccinated individuals than in vaccinated ones. Similarly, during the 2013 measles outbreak in the US, 82% were unvaccinated.

(Keep in mind: the number of vaccinated individuals who get sick in a disease outbreak may be higher than the number of unvaccinated individuals, but the percentage of vaccinated individuals who catch the disease will be lower than the percentage of unvaccinated individuals. This occurs because there is typically a far greater number of vaccinated individuals than unvaccinated individuals in a community: a small percentage of a big number (1% of 1 million people is 10,000 people) can be larger than a large percentage of a small number (25% of 1,000 people is 250 people).

Vaccinate first and foremost for your own child. And if those who can vaccinate do vaccinate, you get the bonus of herd immunity.

7. The ingredients in vaccines are not toxic in the tiny amounts they occur.

Some ingredients have scary chemical-sounding names that might concern those who don’t understand toxicology — that the dose makes the poison and it depends on the most harmful ways of exposure. For example, did you know that inhalation of formaldehyde is generally the most unsafe way for it to enter your body?

Aluminum, egg protein, antibiotics, formaldehyde, MSG and ethylmercury derived from thimerosal exist in some (but not all) vaccines in such tiny quantities that even people with allergies to these things do not usually react. (There are individuals with allergies that counter-indicate certain vaccines. These allergies are identified in the Vaccine Information Statements provided with each vaccine.) Whether a vaccine is injected or ingested does not matter when we are talking about such tiny amounts. Injection does not magnify the harm or the toxicity. The body has a way of dealing with substances that enter the skin and muscle just as it has a way of dealing with substances that enter the gut. You will consume far more of these substances in your daily diet.

8. I am a mum. Scientists can sometimes get it wrong. But so many scientists are pretty unlikely to be wrong.

The “tobacco science” analogy – that something once promoted as safe is now a lie – is a poor one. Tobacco is and always was a recreational drug. Vaccines aren’t here to help people have a good time or relax. They have a specific purpose for which they were developed and tested – to prevent diseases. And they work.

The system also works. RotaShield was recalled and examined for reported risks. Drugs are recalled for safety. Whistleblowers exist across all industries. There is also not much room for conspiracy when competitors are scrutinizing your actions. Science is a constant process of fact-checking and re-checking which involves scientists from around the world competing against one another to get the “big scoop.” They’re constantly checking out each other’s claims for accuracy and to see if they can be duplicated. Nothing should be taken at face value. But vaccine effectiveness and safety has been reliably and repeatedly replicated by scientists from all corners of the globe.

There are more shots on the schedule since than when I was a baby, this is true.  But there were considerably more antigens in vaccines back then (see page 7 of this link) and more antigens means more load on the immune system.  Tons more research,  scientific advancement and refinements have taken place since.  The fact that we now have more diseases covered for less load on the immune system should be viewed as a positive thing, not a negative.

less antigens

And this why we vaccinate newborns against Hepatitis B:

Hepatitis B why vaccinate newborns?






Is the aluminium in vaccines a dangerous amount? Is it toxic?

This post addresses common aluminium myths and questions:

MYTH 1: “The total aluminum exposure received from the entire recommended series of childhood vaccines over the first year of life is extremely worrisome”

Actually no, the risk is extremely low: http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/ScienceResearch/ucm284520.htm

MYTH 2: “There haven’t been any studies done to evaluate whether the amount of aluminium that an infant typically receives when completing the full AAP recommended vaccine regimen is actually safe.”

There have been, for example: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22001122

Also, the FDA conducted an updated analysis of many studies regarding the safety of aluminum adjuvants and found that the maximum amount of aluminum an infant could be exposed to over the first year of life via vaccines would be 4.225 milligrams (mg). They found that the body burden of aluminum from vaccines AND diet throughout an infant’s first year of life is significantly less than the corresponding safe body burden of aluminum, based on the minimal risk levels established by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mrls/mrllist.asphttp://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/ScienceResearch/ucm284520.htm

MYTH 3: “I just don’t like the sound of aluminium. Hasn’t it been linked to Alzheimers, breast cancer and brain damage? I can control the amount of aluminium I consume, so I want to limit the amount my baby receives from vaccines.”

You can control the amount of aluminium you consume or use in skin products to some extent, but it is everywhere in the environment – the air, soil and water – and is largely unavoidable. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxguides/toxguide-22.pdf

So, avoiding vaccines is really going to do diddly squat towards avoiding aluminium exposure.

Aluminium does not cause Alzheimers or breast cancer. 

To cause neurological damage, you would have to be exposed to enormous quantities. Vaccines just don’t qualify. The potentially toxic effects of very large quantities of aluminum are encephalopathy, osteomalacia and microcytic anemia. These can become apparent during the treatment of patients suffering from chronic renal failure. So what about in babies who receive vaccinations? No. Aluminium toxicity due to vaccination has never been seen in babies.

Aluminium toxicity is usually only found in patients with renal impairment. Acute aluminium toxicity is extremely rare, but it is possible in people with impaired kidney function. Damaged kidneys and PN – or parenteral (intravenous) nutrition products – are the risk factors for developing acute aluminium toxicity. Despite having those risk factors, most patients with acute kidney injury who require PN do not receive excessive exposure to aluminum from the PN formulation. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18728106

So, is acute aluminium toxicity likely in a normal, healthy baby receiving vaccinations? Really, it’s not even possible. What about in a premature baby with kidney dysfunction on parenteral nutrition receiving vaccinations? It’s not very likely, but if you are concerned, you should discuss it with your pediatrician. http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/165315-overview

MYTH 4: “Dr Sears says that the amount of aluminium in vaccines is more than injectable aluminium guidelines. He says the FDA advises that premature babies and any patient with impaired kidney function shouldn’t get more than 10 to 25 micrograms of injected aluminum at any one time, yet the total dose of aluminum can vary from 250 micrograms at birth (Hep B) to 295 – 1225 micrograms at 2, 4 and 6 months. He is a medical doctor, and he is worried that these aluminium levels far exceed what may be safe for young babies.”

There is a glaring error with Dr Sears aluminium information that would likely go over most people’s heads. Vaccines are what’s called a biological product. They have a different guideline to aluminium levels in food and a different guideline to aluminium levels in continuous nutritional intravenous products (parenteral nutrition).

Dietary aluminum is in such small quantities that it is not a significant source of concern in persons with normal elimination capacity. Premature babies do not have a normal elimination capacity, so the IV nutritional guideline needs to factor this in.

Dr Sears compares aluminium in intravenous nutrition products for preemie babies to aluminium in intramuscular vaccines. He is comparing the level of aluminium in vaccines to the wrong guideline.

Anti-vax sites are notorious for making this same error eg. they will compare environmental mercury from drinking water (a guideline determined by the EPA) to thimerosal in vaccines (a guideline determined by the FDA – for biological intramuscular injectables)

Here is the correct value:

Chapter 21 of the US Code of Federal Regulations [610.15(a)] limits the amount of aluminum in the recommended individual dose of biological products, including vaccines, to not more than 0.85-1.25 mg per dose.


MYTH 5: “But injected aluminium is different to ingesting it”.

Not really. With aluminium, absorption is extremely low from either route.

Ingestion via the gut IS different to 
Injection IM – into muscle (vaccines) is different to 
Injected IV – intravenously (directly into the bloodstream)

But you also have to consider how often you consume or inject these substances.

Water and food, which we ingest several times a day, every day of our lives will *always* have a lower safety limit simply because we use them so often. It’s really the aluminium from food and water that we need to watch. Even though very little is retained, it can accumulate because we consume them daily, several times a day, over our lifetime. Vaccines are spaced out over months, and years – so the aluminium contained within them do not have much of a chance to accumulate – the amounts are so small to begin with and the majority is excreted.

With the food and drinks you ingest, your gut mucosa filters out a lot of harmful substances and prevents them going into the bloodstream. So most aluminium that you eat, you would excrete before it even enters the bloodstream. That which does enter the bloodstream can also be excreted via the kidneys–> urine and bile. Less than 1% of the aluminium that you eat is absorbed by the body. 

Even less is retained (in the tissues and skeleton)

Much of the injected aluminium from vaccines enters the bloodstream, but only a very, very small percentage of that will be “dissolved” in the blood – it’s in the form of precipitate and is bound to carrier proteins (transferrin). Approximately 98 % of aluminium in the blood is excreted in the urine, and to a lesser extent bile. The unabsorbed aluminum is excreted in the feces. A diminishingly small amount may be retained. 
We’re talking about a minute fraction of two hundredths of bugger all.

Aluminium given intravenously (via continuous nutritional products for premmie babies – which is the guideline Dr Sears uses – ) has a much higher retention and accumulation value. Of course it does, because it goes straight into the bloodstream and the IV line is continuously there, feeding them all day long. And these tiny preemie babies have underdeveloped kidneys.

When determine the safety of aluminium in vaccines, ingestion of aluminium from food PLUS injection from vaccines is all factored into the formulation and regulation of vaccines when determining safe body burdens.

The amounts in vaccines fall within recommended guidelines when you compare it to the *correct* value.

MYTH 6: “But what about macrophagic myofasciitis? That sounds like aluminium poisoning to me!”

Macrophagic myofasciitis is a very rare condition.  It is muscle fibre damage localised to the muscle of the injection site, likely caused by vaccines containing the adjuvant aluminium hydroxide  It is not due to an acute toxicity in terms of systemic poisoning. The aluminium in macrophagic myofasciitis has not even made it into the bloodstream. http://www.who.int/vaccine_safety/committee/topics/aluminium/questions/en/.



Vaccines don’t cause autism. Because science.

vaxnoautismNext time somebody says that vaccines cause autism, or that the link has not been studied extensively, hit them with this list of 99 scientific papers (including studies and reviews) showing no link between vaccines, vaccine ingredients and autism. Compiled by Nathan Boonstra, Allison Hagood, Luci Baldwin and myself.

  1. Albizzati, A., Moré, L., Di Candia, D., Saccani, M., Lenti, C. Normal concentrations of heavy metals in autistic spectrum disorders. Minerva Pediatrica. 2012.Feb;64(1):27-31 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22350041
  2. Abu Kuwaik, G., Roberts, W., Zwaigenbaum, L., Bryson, S., Smith, IM., Szatmari, P., Modi, BM., Tanel, N., Brian, J. Immunization uptake in younger siblings of children with autism spectrum disorder. Autism. 2014 Feb;18(2):148-55. doi: 10.1177/1362361312459111. Epub 2012 Oct 8. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23045216
  3. Afzal, MA., Ozoemena, LC., O’Hare, A., Kidger, KA., Bentley, ML., Minor, PD.Absence of detectable measles virus genome sequence in blood of autistic children who have had their MMR vaccination during the routine childhood immunization schedule of UK.   Journal Medical Virology. 2006 May;78(5):623-30. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16555271
  4. Andrews, N., Miller, E., Grant, A., Stowe, J., Osborn, V., & Taylor, B. (2004). Thimerosal exposure in infants and developmental disorders: a retrospective cohort study in the United Kingdom does not support a causal association. Pediatrics, 114, 584-591. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15342825
  5. Andrews, N., Miller, E., Taylor, B., Lingam, R., Simmons, A., Stowe, J., Waight, P. Dec 2002; 87(6): 493–494.  Recall bias, MMR and autism.  Archives of Disease in Childhood.  http://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1755823/pdf/v087p00493.pdf
  6. Baird, G., Pickles, A., Simonoff, E., Charman, T., Sullivan, P., Chandler, S., Loucas, T., Meldrum, D., Afzal, M., Thomas, B., Jin, L., Brown, D. Measles vaccination and antibody response in autism spectrum disorders. Archives of Disease in Childhood.2008 Oct;93(10):832-7. doi: 10.1136/adc.2007.122937. Epub 2008 Feb 5. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18252754
  7. Baron-Cohen, S. Autism and the technical mind: children of scientists and engineers may inherit genes that not only confer intellectual talents but also predispose them to autism. Scientific American. 2012 Nov;307(5):72-5. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23120898
  8. Berger, BE., Navar-Boggan, AM., Omer, SB. Congenital rubella syndrome and autism spectrum disorder prevented by rubella vaccination–United States, 2001-2010.   BMC Public Health.2011 May 19;11:340. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-11-340. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21592401
  9. Black, C., Kaye, JA. Relation of childhood gastrointestinal disorders to autism: nested case-control study using data from the UK General Practice Research Database. British Medical Journal. 2002;325(7361):419-21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.325.7361.419
  10. Chen, W., Landau, S., Sham, P., & Fombonne, E. (2004). No evidence for links between autism, MMR and measles virus. Psychological Medicine, 34(3), 543-553. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15259839
  11. Christie, B. Scottish expert group finds no link between MMR and autism.British Medical Journal, 2002. May 11;324(7346):1118. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2002/04/14619/3777
  12. Clements, CJ., McIntyre, PB. When science is not enough – a risk/benefit profile of thiomersal-containing vaccines.   Expert Drug Opinion Safety. 2006.Jan;5(1):17-29. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16370953
  13. Committee to Review Adverse Effects of Vaccines; Institute of Medicine. Stratton, K., Ford, A., Rusch, E., Wright Clayton, E. Adverse Effects of Vaccines: Evidence and Causality. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2012. (a review of more than ONE THOUSAND studies). http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13164
  14. Dales, L., Hammer, S. J., & Smith, N. J. (2001). Time trends in autism and in MMR immunization coverage in California.  JAMA, 285(9), 1183-1185. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11231748
  15. De Los Reyes, EC. Autism and immunizations: separating fact from fiction. JAMA Neurology. 2010;67(4):490-492. doi:10.1001/archneurol.2010.57. http://archneur.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=799645
  16. DeWilde, S., Carey, IM., Richards, N., Hilton, SR., Cook, DG. Do children who become autistic consult more often after MMR vaccination? British Journal of General Practice. 2001 Mar;51(464):226-7. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1313956/
  17. Demicheli, V., Jefferson, T., Rivetti, A., & Price, D. (2005). Vaccines for measles, mumps and rubella in children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 4. (a review of 31 studies) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22336803
  18. DeStefano, F. MMR vaccine and autism: a review of the evidence for a causal association. Molecular Psychiatry. 2002;7 Suppl 2:S512. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12142951
  19. DeStefano, F., Chen, RT. Autism and measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine: No epidemiological evidence for a causal association. The Journal of Pediatrics. 2000 Jan;136(1):125. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10681219
  20. DeStefano, F., Bhasin, T. K., Thompson, W. W., Yeargin-Allsopp, M., & Boyle, C. (2004). Age at first measles-mumps-rubella vaccination in children with autism and school-matched control subjects: a population-based study in metropolitan Atlanta. Pediatrics, 113(2), 259-266. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14754936
  21. DeStefano F., Price CS., Weintraub, ES. Increasing exposure to antibody-stimulating proteins and polysaccharides in vaccines is not associated with risk of autism.  Journal of Pediatrics. 2013 Aug;163(2):561-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2013.02.001. Epub 2013 Mar 30. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23545349
  22. DeStefano F., Thompson, WW.MMR vaccine and autism: an update of the scientific evidence.Expert Rev Vaccines.2004 Feb;3(1):19-22. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14761240
  23. DeStefano F., Thompson, WW. MMR vaccination and autism: is there a link? Expert Opinion on Drug Safety. 2002 Jul;1(2):115-20. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12904145
  24. DeStefano, F. Chen, RT. Negative association between MMR and autism. Lancet. 1999 Jun 12;353(9169):1987-8. http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(99)00160-9/fulltext
  25. DeStefano, F., Chen, RT. Autism and measles-mumps-rubella vaccination: controversy laid to rest? CNS Drugs. 2001. 2001;15(11):831-7. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11700148
  26. D’Souza J., Todd T. Measles-mumps-rubella vaccine and the development of autism or inflammatory bowel disease: the controversy should end. Journal of Pedatric Pharmacology and Therapeutics.  2003 Jul;8(3):187-99. doi: 10.5863/1551-6776-8.3.187. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3469143/
  27. D’Souza, Y., Fombonne, E., Ward, BJ. No evidence of persisting measles virus in peripheral blood mononuclear cells from children with autism spectrum disorder. Pediatrics. 2006 Oct;118(4):1664-75. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17015560
  28. Doja, A., & Roberts, W. (2006). Immunizations and autism: A review of the literature. The Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences, 33(4), 341-346. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17168158
  29. Elliman, D., Bedford, H.   MMR: where are we now?  Archives of Disease in Childhood.   2007 Dec;92(12):1055-7. Epub 2007 Jul 11.  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2066086/
  30. Farrington, C., Miller, E., & Taylor, B. (2001). MMR and autism: further evidence against a causal association. Vaccine, 19(27), 3632-3635. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11395196
  31. Fombonne, E., & Chakrabarti, S. (2001). No evidence for a new variant of measles-mumps-rubella–induced autism. Pediatrics, 108(4), e58-e58. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11581466
  32. Fombonne, E., Zakarian, R., Bennett, A., Meng, L., & McLean-Heywood, D. (2006). Pervasive developmental disorders in Montreal, Quebec, Canada: Prevalence and links with immunizations. Pediatrics 118(1) e139-e150; doi:10.1542/peds.2005-2993. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/118/1/e139
  33. García-Fernández, L., Hernández, AV., Suárez Moreno, V., Fiestas, F. Addressing the controversy regarding the association between thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism. Revista Peruana de Medicine Experimental Salud Publica. 2013 Apr;30(2):268-74. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23949514
  34. Gentile, I., Bravaccio, C., Bonavolta, R., Zappulo, E., Scarica, S., Riccio, MP., Settimi, A., Portella, G., Pascotta, A., Borgia, G. Response to measles-mumps-rubella vaccine in children with autism spectrum disorders. In Vivo 2013 May-Jun;27(3):377-82. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23606694
  35. Gerber, J. S., & Offit, P. A. (2009). Vaccines and autism: a tale of shifting hypotheses. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 48(4), 456-461. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2908388/
  36. Halsey, NA., Hyman, SL.  Measles-mumps-rubella vaccine and autistic spectrum disorder: report from the New Challenges in Childhood Immunizations Conference convened in Oak Brook, Illinois. June 12-13, 2000.   Pediatrics.  2001 May;107(5):E84.  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11331734
  37. Hertz-Picciotto, I., Green, P., Delwiche, L., Hansen, R., Walker, C., & Pessah, I. (2010). Blood mercury concentrations in CHARGE Study children with and without autism. Environmental Health Perspectives, 118(1), 161-166. doi:10.1289/ehp.0900736 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20056569
  38. Hensley, E. Briars, L. Closer look at autism and the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine. Journal of American Pharmacist’s Association. 2003. 2010 Nov-Dec;50(6):736-41. doi: 10.1331/JAPhA.2010.10004. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21071320
  39. Heron, J., Golding, J., ALSPAC Study Team.  Thimerosal exposure in infants and developmental disorders: a prospective cohort study in the United Kingdom does not support a causal association.  Pediatrics.  2004 Sep;114(3):577-83. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15342824
  40. Hessel, L. Mercury in vaccines. Bulletin of the National Academy of Medicine. 2003;187(8):1501-10. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15146581
  41. Honda, H., Shimizu, Y., & Rutter, M. (2005). No effect of MMR withdrawal on the incidence of autism: a total population study. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 46(6), doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2005.01425.x. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15877763
  42. Hornig, M., Briese, T., Bule, T., Bauman, M.L., Lauwers, G., Siemetzki, U., Hummel, K., Rota, PA., Bellini, WJ., O’Leary, JJ., Sheils, O., Alden, E., Pickering, L., Lipkin, W.I. Lack of association between measles virus vaccine and autism with enteropathy: a case-control study. 2008. PLoS One, 3(9), e3140. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0003140. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18769550
  43. Hurley, A., Tadrous, M., Miller, ES. Thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism: a review of recent epidemiological studies. Journal of Pediatric Pharmacology and Therapeutics. 2010 Jul-Sep; 15(3): 173-181. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3018252/
  44. Hviid A., Stellfeld, M., Wohlfahrt, J., Melbye, M.   Association between thimerosal-containing vaccine and autism – No causal relationship found.JAMA.2003 Oct 1;290(13):1763-6. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14519711
  45. Insitute of Medicine (US) Immunization Safety Review Committee. Immunization Safety Review: Vaccines and Autisms. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2004. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20669467
  46.  Ip, P., Wong, V., Ho, M., Lee, J., Wong, W.  Mercury exposure in children with autistic spectrum disorder: case-control study.  Journal of Child Neurology. 2004. Jun:19(6):431-4. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15446391

  47. Iqbal, S., Barile, JP., Thompson, WW., DeStefano, F. Number of antigens in early childhood vaccines and neuropsychological outcomes at age 7–10years. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety.2013 Dec;22(12):1263-70. doi: 10.1002/pds.3482. Epub 2013 Jul 12. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23847024

  48. Jefferson, T., Price, D., Demicheli, V., Bianco, E., European Research Program for Improved Safety Surveillance (EUSAFEVAC) Project. Unintended events following immunization with MMR: a systematic review.  Vaccine.  2003 Sep 8;21(25-26):3954-60. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12922131
  49. Jick, H., Kaye, JA. Epidemiology and possible causes of autism. Pharmacotherapy. 2003 Dec;23(12):1524-30. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14695031
  50. Kaye, J. A., del Mar Melero-Montes, M., & Jick, H. Mumps, measles, and rubella vaccine and the incidence of autism recorded by general practitioners: a time trend analysis. 2001. British Medical Journal, 322(7284), 460-463. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1071423/
  51. Klein, K. C., & Diehl, E. B. Relationship between MMR vaccine and autism. 2004. Annals of Pharmacotherapy, 38(7-8), 1297-1300. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15173555
  52. Lazoff, T., Zhong, L., Piperni, T., Fombonne, E. Prevalence of pervasive developmental disorders among children at the English Montreal School Board. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry.2010 Nov;55(11):715-20. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21070699
  53. Lingam, R., Simmons, A., Andrews, N., Miller, E., Stowe, J., & Taylor, B. (2003). Prevalence of autism and parentally reported triggers in a North-east London population. Archives of Disease in Childhood, 88(8), 666-670. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12876158
  54. Madsen, K.K., Hviid, A., Vestergaard, M., Schendel, D., Wohlfahrt, J., Thorsen, P., Olsen, J., Melbye, M. A population-based study of measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination and autism. 2002.The New England Journal of Medicine, 347(19), 1477-82.  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12421889
  55. Madsen, K.M., Lauritsen, M.B., Pedersen, C.B., Thorsen, P., Plesner, A.M., Andersen, P.H. & Mortensen, P.B. Thimerosal and the occurrence of autism: negative ecological evidence from Danish population-based data. 2003. Pediatrics, 112, 604-606. doi: 10.1542/peds.112.3.204 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12949291
  56. Madsen, KM. Vestergaard, M.   MMR and Autism: what is the evidence for a causal association? Drug Safety. 2004;27(12):831-40. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15366972
  57. Makela, A., Nuorti, J., & Peltola, H. (2002). Neurologic disorders after measles-mumps-rubella vaccination. Pediatrics, 110(5), 957-963. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12415036
  58. Marin, M., Broder, KR., Temte, JL., Snider, DE., Seward, JF., (CDC). Use of combination measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella vaccine: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).  MMWR Recommendations and Reports. 2010 May 7;59(RR-3):1-12. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20448530
  59. Marwick, C. US Report finds no link between MMR and autism. British Medical Journal.   May 5, 2001; 322(7294): 1083. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1120232/
  60. Meilleur, AA., Fombonne, E. Regression of language and non-language skills in pervasive development disorders. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research. 2009 Feb;53(2):115-24. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2788.2008.01134.x. Epub 2008 Nov 27. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19054269
  61. Miller, E. Measles-mumps-rubella vaccine and the development of autism – epidemiologic evidence against such an association is compelling. Seminars in Pediatric Infectious Diseases.2003 Jul;14(3):199-206. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12913832
  62. Miller, E., Andrews, N., Grant, A., Stowe, J., Taylor, B. No evidence of an association between MMR vaccine and gait disturbance.Archives of Disease in Childhood. 2005. Mar;90(3):292-6. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15723921
  63. Miller, L., Reynolds J. Autism and vaccination – the current evidence. Journals for Specialists in Pediatric Nursing. 2009 Jul;14(3):166-72. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6155.2009.00194.x. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19614825
  64. Mrozek-Budzyn, D., Kiełtyka, A. The relationship between MMR vaccination and the number of new cases of autism in children. Przeglad epidemiologiczny. 2008;62(3):597-604. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19108524
  65. Mrozek-Budzyn, D., Kiełtyka, A., Majewska, R. Lack of association between measles-mumps-rubella vaccination and autism in children: a case-control study. Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal. 2010 May;29(5):397-400. doi: 10.1097/INF.0b013e3181c40a8a.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19952979
  66. Mrozek-Budzyn, D., Majewska, R. Kiełtyka, A. & Augustyniak, M. Lack of association between thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism. Przeglad epidemiologiczny. 2011, 65(3), 491-495. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22184954
  67. Muhle, R., Trentacoste, SV., Rapin, I. The genetics of autism. Pediatrics. 2004 May;113(5):e472-86. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15121991
  68. Nelson, KB., Bauman, ML. Thimerosal and autism? Pediatrics. 2003. Mar;111(3):674-9. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/111/3/674.long
  69. Offit PA. Thimerosal and vaccines–a cautionary tale. New England Journal of Medicine. 2007. Sep 27;357(13):1278-9. PubMed PMID: 17898096. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17898096
  70. Offit, PA., Coffin, SE. Communicating science to the public: MMR vaccine and autism. Vaccine. 2003. Dec 8;22(1):1-6. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14604564
  71. Patja, A., Davidkin, I., Kurki, T., Marku, J., Kallio, T., Valle, M., Peltola, H. Serious adverse events after measles-mumps-rubella vaccination during a fourteen-year prospective follow-up. 2000. Pediatric Infectious Diseases Journal. 2000;19:1127-34. http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/MMR.pdf
  72. Parker, S.K., Schwartz, B., Todd, J., Pickering, L.K. Thimerosal-containing vaccines and autistic spectrum disorder: A critical review of published original data. 2004. Pediatrics, 114, 793-804. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15342856
  73. Pichichero, ME., Cernichiari, E., Lopreiato, J., Treanor, J. Mercury concentrations and metabolism in infants receiving vaccines containing thiomersal: a descriptive study. Lancet. 2002 Nov 30;360(9347):1737-41. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12480426
  74. Peltola, H., Patja, A., Leinikki, P., Valle, M., Davidkin, I., & Paunio, M. No evidence for measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine-associated inflammatory bowel disease or autism in a 14-year prospective study. 1998. Lancet, 351(9112), 1327. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9643797
  75. Price, C. S., Thompson, W. W., Goodson, B., Weintraub, E. S., Croen, L. A., Hinrichsen, V. L., DeStefano, F. Prenatal and infant exposure to thimerosal from vaccines and immunoglobulins and risk of autism. 2010. Pediatrics, 126(4), 656-664. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20837594
  76. Richler, J., Luyster, R., Risi, S., Hsu, W. L., Dawson, G., Bernier, R., … & Lord, C. (2006). Is there a ‘regressive phenotype’ of Autism Spectrum Disorder associated with the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine? A CPEA Study. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 36(3), 299-316. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16729252
  77. Rumke, HC., Visser, HK. Childhood vaccinations anno 2004. II. The real and presumed side effects of vaccination. Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde.2004 Feb 21;148(8):364-71. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15032089
  78. Schechter, R., Grether, JK. Continuing increases in autism reported to California’s developmental services system: mercury in retrograde. Archives of General Psychiatry. 2008 Jan;65(1):19-24. doi: 10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2007.1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18180424
  79. Schultz, ST. Does thimerosal or other mercury exposure increase the risk for autism? A review of the current literature. Acta Neurobiologiae Experimentalis. 2010;70(2):187-95.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20628442
  80. Seagroatt, V. MMR vaccine and Crohn’s disease: ecological study of hospital admissions in England, 1991 to 2002.  British Medical Journal.  2005.  May 14;330(7500):1120-1. Epub 2005 April 18.   http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15837703
  81. Shevell, M., Fombonne, E. Autism and MMR vaccination or thimerosal exposure: an urban legend? Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences.  2006 Nov;33(4):339-40. http://cjns.metapress.com/content/xqxx6ha3ufaeuunv/?genre=article&issn=0317-1671&volume=33&issue=4&spage=339
  82. Singh, VK. Rivas, WH. Detection of antinuclear and antilaminin antibodies in autistic children who received thimerosal-containing vaccines – mercury as in thimerosal-containing vaccines is likely not related to autoimmune phenomenon in autism.   Journal of Biomedical Science. 2004 Sep-Oct;11(5):607-10. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15316135
  83. Smeeth, L., Cook, C., Fombonne, E., Heavey, L., Rodrigues, L. C., Smith, P. G., & Hall, A. J. (2004). MMR vaccination and pervasive developmental disorders: a case-control study. The Lancet, 364(9438), 963-969. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15364187
  84. Smith, M. J., & Woods, C. R. On-time vaccine receipt in the first year does not adversely affect neuropsychological outcomes. Pediatrics. 2010. 125(6), 1134-1141. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20498176
  85. Solt, I., Bornstein, J. Childhood vaccines and autism – much ado about nothing? Harefuah. 2010 Apr;149(4):251-5, 260. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20812501
  86. Steffenburg, S., Steffenburg, U., Gillberg, C. Autism spectrum disorders in children with active epilepsy and learning disability: comorbidity, pre and perinatal backgound, and seizure characteristics.   Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology. 2003 Nov;45(11):724-30. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14580127
  87. Stehr-Green, P., Tull, P., Stellfeld, M., Mortenson, PB., Simpson, D. Autism and thimerosal-containing vaccines: lack of consistent evidence for an association.   American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2003 Aug;25(2):101-6. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12880876
  88. Takahashi, H., Suzumura, S., Shirakizawa, F., Wada, N., Tanaka-Taya, K., Arai, S., Okabe, N., Ichikawa, H., Sato, T. An epidemiological study on Japanese Autism concerning Routine Childhood Immunization History. Japanese Journal of Infectious Diseases. 56, 114-117, 2003. http://www0.nih.go.jp/JJID/56/114.pdf
  89. Taylor, B. Vaccines and the changing epidemiology of autism. Child: Care, Health and Development Journal. 2006 Sep;32(5):511-9. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16919130
  90. Taylor, B., Miller, E., Farrington, C., Petropoulos, M., Favot-Mayaud, I., Li, J., & Waight, P. A. (1999). Autism and measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine: no epidemiological evidence for a causal association. Lancet, 353(9169), 2026-20. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10376617
  91. Taylor, B., Miller, E., Lingam, R., Andrews, N., Simmons, A., & Stowe, J. Measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination and bowel problems or developmental regression in children with autism: population study. 2002. British Medical Journal, 324(7334), 393-396. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11850369
  92. Taylor, B., Lingam, R., Simmons, A., Stowe, J., Miller, E., Andrews, N. Autism and MMR vaccination in North London: no causal relationship. 2002. Molecular Psychiatry. 7 Suppl2:S7-8.    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12142932
  93. Thjodleifsson, B., Davidsdóttir, K., Agnarsson, U., Sigthórsson, G., Kjeld, M., Bjarnason, I. Effect of Pentavac and measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccination on the intestine. Gut.2002 Dec;51(6):816-7. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12427783
  94. Thompson, WW., Price, C., Goodson, B., Shay, DK., Benson, P., Hinrichsen, BL., Lewis, E., Eriksen, E., Ray, P., Marcy, SM., Dunn, J., Jackson, LA., Lieu, TA., Black, S., Stewart, G., Weintraub, ES., Davis, RL., DeStefano, F., Vaccine Data Link Safety Team. Early thimerosal exposure and neuropsychological outcomes at 7 to 10 years. New England Journal of Medicine. 2007 Sep 27;357(13):1281-92. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17898097
  95. Uchiyama, T., Kurosawa, M., & Inaba, Y. MMR-vaccine and regression in autism spectrum              disorders: negative results presented from Japan. 2007. Journal of Autism and Developmental       Disorders, 37(2), 210-217. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16865547
  96. Uno, Y., Uchiyama, T., Kurosawa, M., Aleksic, B., & Ozaki, N. The combined measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines and the total number of vaccines are not associated with development of autism spectrum disorder: first case–control study in Asia. 2012. Vaccine, 30(28), 4292-4298. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22521285
  97. Verstraeten T., Davis, RL., DeStefano, F., Lieu, TA., Rhodes, PH., Black, SB., Shinefield, H., Chen RT. Safety of thimerosal-containing vaccines: a two-phased study of computerized health maintenance organization databases.   Pediatrics.2003 Nov;112(5):1039-48. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14595043
  98. Whitehouse, AJ., Maybery, M., Wray, JA., Hickey, M. No association between early gastrointestinal problems and autistic-like traits in the general population. Developmental Medicine and Childhood Neurology. 2011. May;53(5):457-62. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8749.2011.03915.x. Epub 2011 Mar 21. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21418197
  99. MMR vaccine is not linked to Crohn’s disease or autism. Commun Dis Rep CDR Weekly. 1998 Mar 27;8(13):113. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9592960

Simplified searches:

The review papers (27 in total) can be found on this link:

111 papers which show vaccines, any vaccine ingredient and  the number of vaccines given do not cause autism can be found on this link: