Did Andrew Wakefield Out The CDC Whistleblower For Money?

money

By Jake Crosby

Five months have elapsed since senior CDC scientist Dr. William Thompson – who spoke out about the suppression of research results linking autism to early measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine administration – was prematurely outed without his permission by de-licensed British doctor Andrew Wakefield. Yet one question still lingers: why did he do it?

The answer may lie in what Wakefield’s critics have accused him of being motivated by for the last decade: money.

Much of Wakefield’s personal income comes from his role as president of the Strategic Autism Initiative (SAI), a non-profit he runs for the purposes of funding autism research. However, only a small portion of SAI’s contributions actually went to autism research; the vast majority went into his pocket according to SAI’s latest available 990 form. He had also solicited donations for a libel suit he filed in Texas that was eventually dismissed on jurisdictional grounds where he was ordered to pay defendants’ legal costs.

Contributions for both Wakefield’s lawsuit and his non-profit came from the very community of parents of vaccine-injured children who Wakefield claims to be helping. His image and relevance to that community are what help him receive money from that community. As his lawsuit was winding down, his hijacking of the CDC whistleblower story gave Wakefield just what he would have needed to reinvigorate his hero role to the very people who had come to follow him so devoutly. It would also give him yet another reason to solicit money from his supporters.

What started as the release of online videos that mentioned the whistleblower by name and included surreptitious recordings of his voice became a two-month campaign to raise money for a documentary film Wakefield said he was making about the whistleblower saga. Yet only $2,325 – far below the lofty goal of $230,000 – was actually raised. And despite an ongoing campaign by Wakefield’s supporters to circulate the whistleblower story on Twitter and other social media sites, those efforts have had no appreciable impact on the story’s exposure. Nonetheless, Wakefield succeeded in galvanizing support for himself from his own community of followers even though his interference in the story likely eliminated any chance of widespread media coverage.

Now in 2015, prospects of the whistleblower William Thompson being able to testify about the CDC’s role in suppressing research associating autism with MMR vaccination before Congress appears to be supported by little else than rumors on blogs. A recent outbreak of measles in Disneyland has led to The Washington Post among other papers blaming the outbreak on Wakefield, dubbing him the “high priest” of the “anti-vaccine movement” despite never mentioning Thompson or any other examples of misconduct at CDC.

15 years after a researcher at CDC concluded a causal vaccine-autism association in email to colleagues while studying the mercury-based vaccine preservative thimerosal, media focus remains fixed on Wakefield thanks in no small part to his own actions. Not only does that benefit CDC, but Wakefield also stands to benefit by the reinforcement of his image as a “martyr” to his support base that still provides him with sympathy and financial backing.

Tragically, the people who do not benefit at all while suffering the most from this ongoing narrative are the very community of people that is still largely misguided enough to keep following him without examining his possible motives.

Addendum: See on The Epoch Times.

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on Google+Share on RedditPin on PinterestFlattr the authorDigg thisBuffer this pageShare on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon

Autism Investigated Announces Awards for 2014

Announcing Autism Investigated’s Awards for 2014, and the winners are…

Scientist of the Year: Dr. Boyd Haley

Dr. Boyd Haley is a chemist and international authority on mercury toxicity who has not been afraid to speak out against wrongdoing. Case-in-point: when Robert F. Kennedy Jr. chopped chapters on thimerosal’s role in causing autism out of his book hypocritically named, “Thimerosal: Let The Science Speak,” Dr. Haley pulled no punches. “Those were the most important chapters for the American people to see,” he said in an exclusive interview with Autism Investigated. Not surprisingly, much of Kennedy’s book drew from the work of Dr. Haley. Autism Investigated still values the totality of Dr. Haley’s scientific contributions and those of others like him, even though Kennedy no longer does.

Scoop of the Year: Kennedy’s Ghostwriter Defended Thimerosal

Freelance writer Adam Hadhazy (pictured above) was revealed as one of the ghostwriters of Robert F. Kennedy’s “Thimerosal: Let The Science Speak,” according to the file properties of an unpublished manuscript posted on Autism Investigated last summer. Hadhazy has a history of defending harmful vaccines and their ingredients – including the mercury-based preservative thimerosal – and of being an apologist for the CDC cover-up of those harms. Yet, he was hired to ghostwrite (write material for someone else who is the named author) Kennedy’s book that was intended to catalyze the complete removal of thimerosal from vaccines. The scoop on Hadhazy’s ghostwriting came shortly after The Washington Post reported that Kennedy removed chapters from his book for being “too combustible,” thereby not letting the science “speak” as his book title claims.

Quote of the Year: Whistleblower Confirms Wakefield Outed Him Without Permission

Whistleblower Betrayal

Shortly after he was outed without permission, whistleblower Dr. William Thompson released a statement confirming his allegations that CDC committed research misconduct in omitting associations of autism with early measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccination. But even more significantly, his statement confirmed that his identity was released online along with recordings of his voice without his permission by de-licensed British doctor Andrew Wakefield. Thompson’s voice was recorded without his knowledge by Wakefield’s colleague Dr. Brian Hooker. This too was confirmed in the following excerpt from the statement:

“I was not, however, aware that he was recording any of our conversations, nor was I given any choice regarding whether my name would be made public or my voice would be put on the Internet.”

More information about Wakefield’s betrayal of Dr. Thompson and its repercussions can be found below in the description of Autism Investigated’s “Event of the Year.”

Irony of the Year: Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Joins Thimerosal Cover-Up

As previously stated, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has essentially joined the thimerosal cover-up of harms from the substance by chopping out chapters on its toxicity from his own book, despite naming his book “Thimerosal: Let The Science Speak.” He had even enlisted the help of ghostwriter Adam Hadhazy, who had previously defended thimerosal as described in Autism Investigated’s “Scoop of the Year.” It had been reported over the summer that Kennedy may add the chapters back in, though that has yet to happen after many months since then. In taking the chapters out, Kennedy has broken his promise at an autism conference in 2013 that he will publish his book if HHS does not fully remove thimerosal from vaccines. Well, thimerosal is still in vaccines but the chapters on autism are still out of his book.

Event of the Year: Andrew Wakefield Betrays CDC Whistleblower

Autism Investigated’s event of the year is also the catastrophic blunder of the decade. Andrew Wakefield has released the identity of CDC whistleblower William Thompson along with snippets of his voice recordings without his permission. Wakefield then lied to Autism Investigated by claiming he had obtained permission from Thompson, which was then completely dispelled by Thompson’s statement. As a consequence of Wakefield’s actions, any chance of widespread media coverage was killed since the story was prematurely scooped and tainted with his name. This may subsequently jeopardize the success or even the possibility of a congressional investigation or hearing into the matter. To deny Wakefield betrayed Thompson, supporters of Wakefield point to a purported apology Thompson made to him via text messaging. But if real, the apology was made under heavily coerced circumstances since Thompson knew that anything he shared that was subsequently shared with Wakefield could be prematurely revealed by him at will without any outside input.

See on The Epoch Times.

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on Google+Share on RedditPin on PinterestFlattr the authorDigg thisBuffer this pageShare on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon

The CDC Whistleblower’s Coerced Apology To Andrew Wakefield

By Jake Crosby

Above is a purported text message exchange between CDC whistleblower Dr. William Thompson and de-licensed British doctor Andrew Wakefield. The conversation allegedly took place on the day Thompson released a public statement confirming his allegations that CDC committed research misconduct in omitting associations of autism with early measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccination. Also confirmed by Dr. Thompson’s press release was that Wakefield outed him without permission to do so, as first reported on Autism Investigated.

This supposed exchange between Thompson and Wakefield, along with another between Thompson and Wakefield’s wife, are often cited to wrongly deny Wakefield betrayed Thompson by outing him. Never considered is the circumstances under which Thompson presumably apologized to Wakefield, where Thompson likely felt heavily coerced into doing so.

By the time he supposedly issued that apology, Thompson learned the hard way that any information he disclosed which was subsequently shared with Wakefield could be publicly released by him anytime at will. Such information includes phone conversations Dr. Thompson had with autism parent and scientist Dr. Brian Hooker, who tape-recorded Thompson without his knowledge. Snippets of those recordings have been released in videos posted online by Wakefield’s Autism Media Channel which was how Thompson was outed in the first place.

Wakefield clearly has no shame in what he did, having previously lied to Autism Investigated that he had obtained permission to release Dr. Thompson’s identity when he had not prior to Thompson’s press release. This lack of permission from Thompson to out him would later be deemed “irrelevant” by Wakefield in an email response to journalist Celia Farber. She had been covering the whistleblower story for The Epoch Times and posted what were purported to be Wakefield’s and his wife’s text message exchanges with Thompson on her personal blog that included what is perhaps his coerced apology to Wakefield.

Apparently agreeing with what Wakefield wrote her, Farber issued the below challenge to Autism Investigated:

“In terms of timeline, Dr. Thompson was kindly inclined toward Dr. Wakefield on Aug 20, 2014 [Note: date is wrong, it was Aug 27, 2014], AFTER the events you describe as treacherous to Dr. Thompson. This is detailed in published texts between the two of them, as well as dr. Wakefield’s wife Carmel. Please square this with your thesis. I am curious. Confused.”

With Thompson now outed to the very people at CDC whom he is blowing the whistle on, among the last things he would want is yet more information he shared to be publicly released by Wakefield prematurely. That would surely be one of the last things Thompson’s lawyers would want as well.

No wonder he may want to make nice with Wakefield. Not doing so could jeopardize Thompson’s position as a whistleblower all the more.

Addendum: See on The Epoch Times.

Correction: Dr. Thompson has never confirmed the alleged text message exchanges between him and the Wakefields. This article has since been altered slightly to reflect that fact.

Jake Crosby is editor of Autism Investigated and a blogger at The Epoch Times. He is a 2011 graduate of Brandeis University with a Bachelor of Arts in both History and Health: Science, Society and Policy and a 2013 graduate of The George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services with a Master of Public Health in Epidemiology. He currently attends the University of Texas School of Public Health where he is studying for a Ph.D. in Epidemiology.

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on Google+Share on RedditPin on PinterestFlattr the authorDigg thisBuffer this pageShare on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon

Emily Willingham: Forbes’ Formerly Contributing “Contributor”

By Jake Crosby

Since May, Emily Willingham has gone from a Forbes “Contributor,” to “Subscriber,” and back to “Contributor” again according to her bio on the Forbes website. The difference between the first and second time she was listed as “Contributor” is that during the first time, she was actually contributing – albeit with embarrassingly misleading stories. Since her demotion to “Subscriber,” Forbes has published nothing from her, and she began referring to herself as a “Former journalist” in her Twitter bio. She would then replace it with her current bio which says, “All sweetness and light wrapped in a glittery sugar-spun cloud of happiness. Plus unicorns! So many unicorns.” This Twitter update along with the reversion to her old “Contributor” status at Forbes happened shortly before her receipt of UK lobby group Sense About Science’s 2014 John Maddox Prize, apparently to minimize attention to the fact that she no longer contributes.

Named in honor of Nature’s late editor, the John Maddox Prize is given out each year to reward someone who “has promoted sound science and evidence on a matter of public interest” according to Sense About Science. Willingham was rewarded for writing a Forbes article that is now the basis of a libel suit against her. Sense About Science is funded by the BMJ Group, which the plaintiff suing Willingham is also suing for libel.

Despite the fact that Willingham is now listed as a Forbes “Contributor” again, she still has not actually contributed a single article since May – one month after she wrote the article she is being sued over. Even before that, she conflated the research results of an early CDC study of thimerosal with those of a later one to wrongly deny that CDC researchers ever found an association with autism when they actually had. When asked on Autism Investigated about this misrepresentation of Willingham’s, Forbes Senior Editor Matthew Herper had no comment. When she won the award, he inadvertently drew attention to her no longer contributing to Forbes by referring to her writing in the past tense: “I loved having her write for us. She’s awesome.”

Willingham’s award is more a curse than an honor for Forbes, bringing yet more attention to her embarrassing reporting and to the even more embarrassing fact that she is still not contributing there anymore. The only purpose the reversion of her status back to “Contributor” from “Subscriber” currently serves is to minimize attention to that fact. It appears just as unlikely that this “Contributor” will ever contribute anything to Forbes again.

Addendum: See on The Epoch Times.

Jake Crosby is editor of Autism Investigated and a blogger at The Epoch Times. He is a 2011 graduate of Brandeis University with a Bachelor of Arts in both History and Health: Science, Society and Policy and a 2013 graduate of The George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services with a Master of Public Health in Epidemiology. He currently attends the University of Texas School of Public Health where he is studying for a Ph.D. in Epidemiology.

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on Google+Share on RedditPin on PinterestFlattr the authorDigg thisBuffer this pageShare on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon

A New Epoch For Autism Investigated

the epoch times

By Jake Crosby

I am pleased to announce the expansion of Autism Investigated to The Epoch Times – an international news organization that already spans 35 countries and 21 languages. Notable coverage by The Epoch Times includes award-winning stories on topics such as SARS and organ harvesting, as well as extensive coverage of the CDC whistleblower. Autism Investigated is honored to be associated with such solid journalism.

Posts will continue to run at Autism Investigated, but they will also be hosted by The Epoch Times as well. The results will be greater exposure and a bigger audience for Autism Investigated. As you make your way over to Autism Investigated’s new home, please do not stop commenting and contributing to discussions on autisminvestigated.com. Your voice is still valued here.

Jake Crosby is editor of Autism Investigated. He is a 2011 graduate of Brandeis University with a Bachelor of Arts in both History and Health: Science, Society and Policy and a 2013 graduate of The George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services with a Master of Public Health in Epidemiology. He currently attends the University of Texas School of Public Health where he is studying for a Ph.D. in Epidemiology.

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on Google+Share on RedditPin on PinterestFlattr the authorDigg thisBuffer this pageShare on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon

Seth Mnookin No Longer Blogging At PLoS After Libelous Remarks

plosblogheader

By Jake Crosby

On July 21st, “Panic Virus” author and MIT assistant professor Seth Mnookin wrote on his personal website: “From mid-2011 through the end of 2013, I was blogging at the Public Library of Science; those archives can be found here. In the summer of 2014, I began blogging again on this site.”

He no longer links to his PLoS blog from his Twitter bio either. The announcement came only 10 days after I wrote the post PLoS Enables Seth Mnookin to Violate Community Guidelines Unchallenged, calling out PLoS for allowing him to blog there despite the fact that he wrote a libelous post about me one year prior.

The month after Mnookin’s last PLoS blog post, PLoS’s attorney received and acknowledged the evidence that was provided showing Mnookin fabricated the claim that I “crashed” his “invitation only event” at the Public Responsibility in Medicine and Resesarch (PRIMR) conference in December, 2011. In Mnookin’s same libelous blog post, he claimed I “jabbed” him “in the chest” even though I did no such thing. This accusation of jabbing him came two years after the event, and Mnookin provided zero evidence of it ever taking place. That, combined with his provably false allegation above likely led to his expulsion from PLoS.

Mnookin wasn’t nearly as excited about returning to his old blog as he was when he first joined PLoS blogs three years ago, having written:

“…this blog is being relocated to the PLoS Blog Network, which has been built up by the indefatigable Brian Mossop, another #SciO11′er. At  PLoS, I’ll be joining #SciO11 superstars Misha Angrist (Genomeboy), David Kroll (Take As Directed),  Hillary Rosner (Tooth and Claw) and the inimitable Steve Silberman (NeuroTribes), as well as Deborah Blum (Speakeasy Science)…

…so head on over, check out some of the other offerings, and enjoy!”

It is quite amusing to compare that to his terse, two-sentence departure announcement from PLoS. There is not even a farewell post to rave about what a supposedly great experience it was blogging alongside all those “indefatigable” and “inimitable” “superstars.”

Like Mnookin, I never wrote any farewell posts either when I was banished from contributing to Age of Autism. Unlike Mnookin, however, I was still up front about why I was no longer writing for AoA. That did not stop Mnookin from seizing on my ouster in his libelous post about me, concluding:

“Now he’s wandering in the wilderness, hoping that by including my name in the titles to his posts, someone will notice him throwing a tantrum in the corner.”

Looks like my “tantrum” was noticed by someone.

Welcome To The Jungle, Seth.

Jake Crosby is editor of Autism Investigated. He is a 2011 graduate of Brandeis University with a Bachelor of Arts in both History and Health: Science, Society and Policy and a 2013 graduate of The George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services with a Master of Public Health in Epidemiology. He currently attends the University of Texas School of Public Health where he is studying for a Ph.D. in Epidemiology.

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on Google+Share on RedditPin on PinterestFlattr the authorDigg thisBuffer this pageShare on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon

Brian Hooker Rewards Wakefield For Betraying Whistleblower

shinygoldstar

By Jake Crosby

Andrew Wakefield betrayed the trust of autism parent Dr. Brian Hooker and CDC whistleblower Dr. William Thompson by revealing his identity without his permission, eliminating any chance of widespread media coverage while giving his name away to CDC. Yet in spite of this, Dr. Hooker has apparently allowed Wakefield to be named with him in a formal complaint filed to CDC’s Office of Research Integrity. The complaint is based on the information Dr. Thompson disclosed.

Autism Investigated was first made aware of this debacle on Facebook, where a woman named Candyce Estave asked:

“I learned on Twitter that more news coming on Wednesday, this coming week, about ‪#‎CDCwhistleblower‬??? Anyone care to confirm? Brian Hooker?”

Sure enough, Brian Hooker confirmed in the comments:

“A complaint will be filed against the CDC in the Office of Research Integrity. The complaint is based on the whistleblower information”

Contributor and PR Coordinator for “Team TMR” Michelle Taff Schneider then elaborated:

“A formal complaint has been submitted to the Office of Research Integrity on behalf of Dr. Andrew Wakefield and Dr. Brian Hooker, detailing many of the events and evidence related to the fraudulent DeStefano paper. There is truly a mountain of disturbing, damning proof. The complaint will be made public on Age of Autism this week.”

Then confirming where she heard the news, Michelle Taff Schneider wrote: “Andy spoke of it publicly today at his Autism Education Summit lecture.”

Trying to get confirmation from Dr. Hooker, I wrote:

Brian, is it true you’re rewarding Wakefield for betraying the whistleblower? Please confirm.”

I called Brian Hooker and left a voice message, then got the following text from him about Wakefield:

“He has been cooperating recently regarding the media around the wb”

This is in spite of the fact that Wakefield has been continuously releasing videos with snippets of the whistleblower’s voice from when Brian Hooker recorded him without permission, including one most recently from a few days ago.

The attachment of Wakefield’s name to Dr. Thompson’s whistle-blowing will continue to be a major boost for those looking to discredit the story. A CDC-tied writer for ABC News has already lumped together Wakefield and Hooker by portraying them as dishonest researchers with retracted papers after the publisher BioMed Central and its journal Translational Neurodegeneration wrongly retracted Hooker’s reanalysis of CDC’s MMR study. TIME’s science editor and self-styled “Science Cop” Jeffrey Kluger – who has cozy vaccine ties to Salk’s son among others – posted a 2-minute video that “debunked” the whistleblower and ended with a photo-shopped mugshot of Wakefield.

Rather than enabling Wakefield to further mar the whistleblower story, Dr. Hooker should have condemned Wakefield for releasing the whistleblower’s identity months ago. A condemnation is all the more necessary now with Wakefield raising money for his own documentary to further hijack the whistleblower saga, but Dr. Hooker is now doing the polar opposite.

Should the whistleblower’s case against CDC fail, Brian Hooker’s latest fateful decision to include Wakefield’s name on his complaint may well be the cause.

Jake Crosby is editor of Autism Investigated. He is a 2011 graduate of Brandeis University with a Bachelor of Arts in both History and Health: Science, Society and Policy and a 2013 graduate of The George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services with a Master of Public Health in Epidemiology. He currently attends the University of Texas School of Public Health where he is studying for a Ph.D. in Epidemiology.

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on Google+Share on RedditPin on PinterestFlattr the authorDigg thisBuffer this pageShare on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon

Brian Hooker’s Findings Are Confirmed By CDC’s Results

ORtable

By Jake Crosby

Above is a table of omitted results from the original CDC study of age at MMR vaccination according to a video put out by the Autism Media Channel, and below is a table of results from Brian Hooker’s reanalysis of that study – since retracted by the publisher in breach of policies it claims to follow. In particular, note the boxed results of each showing risk from MMR vaccination before age 36 months in African-American children – both are significant, and the strength and precision of each are almost identical to one another.

hookerresults

This would eviscerate critics’ claims that Brian Hooker’s findings are invalid because his reanalysis did not employ the same statistical methods as the original CDC study. Within Dr. Hooker’s paper itself, it is also stated that his “results were also confirmed using a conditional logistic regression design similar to the DeStefano et al. [14] (CDC) study.” Another common criticism of Brian Hooker’s paper that it did not account for low birth weight children is easily refuted by another table of results showing a greater than two-fold risk for African-American boys even when low birth weight children are excluded.

Yet Dr. Hooker’s paper remains retracted in breach of the guidelines the publisher claims to follow when considering retractions. Even before the retraction, the publisher BioMed Central (BMC) had deleted the paper online in breach of its own policies on article removal. BMC has never offered any explanation concerning these issues in response to emails from Autism Investigated. Also yet to comment in response to Autism Investigated’s inquiries about the retraction is the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), whose guidelines BMC claims to follow when considering retractions and breached when it retracted Dr. Hooker’s study.

Meanwhile, CDC is pretending that its own study results were different from Dr. Hooker’s when they were clearly not. In a statement to ABC News insisting “There was no cover-up,” CDC said of Dr. Hooker’s findings, “it is hard to speculate why his results differed from CDC’s.”

Except they didn’t.

Jake Crosby is editor of Autism Investigated. He is a 2011 graduate of Brandeis University with a Bachelor of Arts in both History and Health: Science, Society and Policy and a 2013 graduate of The George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services with a Master of Public Health in Epidemiology. He currently attends the University of Texas School of Public Health where he is studying for a Ph.D. in Epidemiology.

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on Google+Share on RedditPin on PinterestFlattr the authorDigg thisBuffer this pageShare on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon

BioMed Central Breaks Policy by Retracting Brian Hooker’s Study

retraction guidelines

By Jake Crosby

Above is a summary of the reasons that justify a possible paper retraction, according to Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)’s retraction guidelines that are also used by BioMed Central (BMC). However, none of the above reasons were even mentioned in BMC journal Translational Neurodegeneration’s below justification for retracting Dr. Brian Hooker’s study, “Measles-mumps-rubella vaccination timing and autism among young african american boys: a reanalysis of CDC data”:hookerretraction

 

Clear evidence of unreliability, duplication, plagiarism and unethical research are all valid considerations for retracting a paper, but “concerns” are not according to the very retraction guidelines BMC says it follows. Such considerations do not include “undeclared competing interests” either. Although alerting readers to such non-disclosures may serve as a purpose of a retraction according to COPE, they are not justification for a retraction.

BMC’s retraction of Dr. Hooker’s paper is only the latest of policy breaches by the publisher after it deleted his article from its website in breach of policy on the permanency of articles. Citing a then-pending investigation, BMC refused to comment on that violation when contacted by Autism Investigated. Now with the paper retracted in breach of yet more policies supposedly followed by BMC, the publisher has even more explaining to do.

Jake Crosby is editor of Autism Investigated. He is a 2011 graduate of Brandeis University with a Bachelor of Arts in both History and Health: Science, Society and Policy and a 2013 graduate of The George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services with a Master of Public Health in Epidemiology. He currently attends the University of Texas School of Public Health where he is studying for a Ph.D. in Epidemiology.

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on Google+Share on RedditPin on PinterestFlattr the authorDigg thisBuffer this pageShare on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon

CDC Cover-up’s Ivan Oransky Conceals BMC Violation

ivan-oransky

By Jake Crosby

 

Some journalists are just ignorant; Ivan Oransky is not. He is Vice President of the “Association of Health Care Journalists” (AHCJ) – an organization of “journalists” funded by vaccine industry-tied groups dedicated to helping the CDC carry out its cover-up into the media. He also co-edits the blog “Retraction Watch,” which gleefully reported on the withdrawal of Dr. Brian Hooker’s paper that reported the very relationship between MMR and autism that CDC omitted from its original study. Oransky knows full well BioMed Central (BMC) breached policy when it pulled Dr. Hooker’s paper, but did Oransky report that, even though his blog reported on the removal of Dr. Hooker’s paper? Of course not, but he inadvertently revealed his knowledge of it in the email exchange I had with him after he vehemently defended the article’s deletion. Oransky also defended drastically altering my comment on his blog, grossly distorting what I said. (See full email exchange below)

After Oransky’s blog wrote about the pulling of Dr. Hooker’s paper without reporting about the BMC violation, CNN wrote an article from the same perspective as Oransky’s blog the very next day. CNN also added that Dr. Hooker’s paper was removed in a note above every relevant CNN iReport – without noting the BMC violation – disabled editing on the iReport CNN linked to from its article. What more can you expect when, as written elsewhere, Oransky’s wife is a writer/producer for none other than CNN?

Earlier this year, millionaire vaccine industrialist Paul Offit – who advised CDC’s immunization program while the fraud the whistleblower described was taking place – announced at AHCJ’s annual meeting that there should be “journalism jail” for journalists who write stories about debate on vaccines i.e. who try to report on the cover-up honestly. AHCJ gave pharma PR agent Trine Tsouderos an award for her hit pieces against notable scientists opposed to adverse vaccine side-effects like Dr. Boyd Haley. Over the years AHCJ has invited other co-conspirators such as Brian Deer, Walter Orenstein, Alison Singer, Diana SchendelArthur Allen and Seth Mnookin to its annual conference. Mnookin and Oransky were old college friends; they also have dishonesty in common. Additionally, AHCJ has even teamed up with CDC to train reporters to disseminate its propaganda – no doubt in line with former HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius’ statement about telling media outlets not to report on vaccine dangers.

As Congress investigates the CDC for fraud like that revealed by the whistleblower William Thompson, Congress should also investigate CDC’s collusion with “journalists” like Ivan Oransky, AHCJ and related people and groups who don’t abide by journalistic standards and therefore do not deserve any press freedom protections. Such people should be fully investigated as co-conspirators and any investigation that leaves them out or fails to recognize them as such will be wholly inadequate.

The below email exchange demonstrates that all the more:

On Monday, September 1, 2014, <info@autisminvestigated.com> wrote:

Hi,

The text of my comment was altered to make it look like I said something I didn’t:

“How come no one is reporting that I believe BioMed Central’s take-down of Dr. Hooker’s article is a violation of the publisher’s own policies on article removal?”

This is what I really said:

“How come no one is reporting that BioMed Central’s take-down of Dr. Hooker’s article is clearly a violation of the publisher’s own policies on article removal, which states such action is only done under the explicit avoidance of threatened legal claims”

I don’t want anyone to report what “I believe,” I want journalists to report what actually happened. It is clear from BioMed Central’s policies that the take-down of Dr. Hooker’s article was a violation of them. Reporting on the take-down without reporting on the violation lends undue legitimacy to the censorship of a scientific paper.

Sincerely,

Jake Crosby, MPH
Editor, Autism Investigated
www.autisminvestigated.com

 

——– Original Message ——–
Subject: Re: Mangled comment misquotes me.
From: Ivan Oransky ivan-oransky@erols.com
Date: Mon, September 01, 2014 7:29 pm
To: “info@autisminvestigated.com” info@autisminvestigated.com
Cc: “adam.marcus1@gmail.com” <adam.marcus1@gmail.com>

 

What you said left out most of BMC’s actual policy, and that leaves it as your belief that they violated said policy. Your choice is to have it as is, which conforms to our comment policy, particularly the part about unverified allegations, or have it deleted altogether. You’re welcome to post whatever version you want elsewhere.

 

On Monday, September 1, 2014, <info@autisminvestigated.com> wrote:

It’s not my “belief,” you can view the entire policy on BMC’s website and see for yourself that it contradicts the excuse for pulling the paper: http://www.biomedcentral.com/about/permanency 

I also said I wanted others to report on this – not on my opinion of it. So the wording still misrepresents what I said, even without taking verification into account.

 

Subject: Re: Mangled comment misquotes me.
From: Ivan Oransky ivan-oransky@erols.com
Date: Mon, September 01, 2014 8:18 pm
To: “info@autisminvestigated.com” info@autisminvestigated.com
Cc: “adam.marcus1@gmail.com” adam.marcus1@gmail.com
We included the entire policy, which you neglected to do and which contradicts what you wrote, along with both statements about why the paper was removed, which you also neglected to do. Your choice is still to have it as is, or simply deleted. Just let us know which you would like.

 

On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 12:46 AM, <info@autisminvestigated.com> wrote:

No, it backs up what I wrote, and I explain that fully. You neglect to explain how it’s contradicted at all. I included the entire policy in a screenshot on the webpage I linked to along with the statement that was more specific, contrary to your claim that I didn’t. You chopped the second half of my first sentence, making it less immediately clear how the policy was violated. It’s also misleading to portray me as asking why nobody is reporting that I believe a certain way about this issue, as opposed to simply asking why nobody is reporting on the issue itself.

By mangling my comment this way, are you trying to make me want you to delete my comment?

 

——– Original Message ——–
Subject: Re: Mangled comment misquotes me.
From: Ivan Oransky ivan-oransky@erols.com
Date: Tue, September 02, 2014 3:56 am
To: “info@autisminvestigated.com” <info@autisminvestigated.com>, Adam
Marcus <>

The second half of that sentence, “which states such action is only done under the explicit avoidance of “threatened legal claims,” is incorrect and misrepresents BMC’s policy. The part of the policy in question: “…in the exceptional event that material is considered to infringe certain rights or is defamatory we may have no option but to remove that material from our site and those sites on which we have deposited the material in question.

BioMed Central therefore reserves the right to cease to make available articles that it has been advised are potentially defamatory or that infringe any intellectual property right, or are otherwise unlawful.”

The two relevant notices also make it clear that your original comment’s claim that “However, Dr. Hooker’s paper was only taken down on the excuse of ‘possible undeclared competing interests'” is also incorrect.

You continue to have two choices: Leaving the comment as is, or have it deleted.

Ivan Oransky, MD
Vice President and Global Editorial Director, MedPage Today http://medpagetoday.com
Co-Founder, Retraction Watch http://retractionwatch.com
Founder, Embargo Watch http://embargowatch.wordpress.com
Adjunct Associate Professor, New York University’s Science, Health, and Environmental Reporting Program
Vice President, Association of Health Care Journalists
Clinical Assistant Professor of Medicine, New York University School of Medicine
http://twitter.com/ivanoransky
917-359-2113

 

On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 9:52 PM, <info@autisminvestigated.com> wrote:

Actually, it is correct and is an accurate representation. The reason of “threatened legal claims” is the reason BioMed Central gives for striking articles, that was not the reason it gave for striking Dr. Hooker’s article. That’s clear in this “open access” publisher’s policy you partially quoted.

The more specific notice made it clear that “undeclared possible competing interests” was the reason for the paper’s removal and that “validity” and “public interest” were concerns supposedly stemming from that. Regardless, none of these are “threatened legal claims” – the actual reason BioMed Central gives for striking articles according to policy. Since this was not the reason given for striking Dr. Hooker’s article, his article was therefore deleted in violation of that policy.

One of my readers – ironically the one who told me to contact you – said your misrepresentation of my comment as asking why no one is reporting “that I believe” a certain way about an issue makes me look “unhinged.”

Is that your intent? Either censoring me or making me look unhinged, but giving me a choice between the two so you can then claim you did one or the other with my approval? Sure looks like it.

Jake Crosby, MPH
Editor, Autism Investigated
www.autisminvestigated.com

 

——– Original Message ——–
Subject: Re: Mangled comment misquotes me.
From: Ivan Oransky ivan-oransky@erols.com
Date: Tue, September 02, 2014 7:22 pm
To: “info@autisminvestigated.com” info@autisminvestigated.com
Cc: Adam Marcus <adam.marcus1@gmail.com>

You wrote that removal “is only done under the explicit avoidance of ‘threatened legal claims.'” The policy actually gives two other reasons for removal: “that material is considered to infringe certain rights or is defamatory.” That makes “only” incorrect, and a misrepresentation of the policy.

Our only intent is to verify claims in our comments, and the claim your comment made is incorrect. You continue to have two choices: Leave the comment as it is now, or delete it.

Ivan Oransky, MD
Vice President and Global Editorial Director, MedPage Today http://medpagetoday.com
Co-Founder, Retraction Watch http://retractionwatch.com
Founder, Embargo Watch http://embargowatch.wordpress.com
Adjunct Associate Professor, New York University’s Science, Health, and Environmental Reporting Program
Vice President, Association of Health Care Journalists
Clinical Assistant Professor of Medicine, New York University School of Medicine
http://twitter.com/ivanoransky
917-359-2113

 

On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 1:41 PM, <info@autisminvestigated.com> wrote:

Well given that “threatened legal claims” are what the publisher says it hopes to avoid when taking down articles for either of those reasons, “threatened legal claims” are essentially the publisher’s only reason for taking down articles. Since none of what you quote was given in the publisher’s excuse for pulling Dr. Hooker’s article, will you at least finally acknowledge its deletion was in violation of the publisher’s policy for article removal?

Well you’re not acting like that’s your intent by treating verified facts as unverified claims. Nor are you acting like that’s your intent by giving me this ultimatum of either allowing you to keep my butchered comment up as is or having it deleted altogether without replacing it with a corrected version. As you can see from my comment submission (attached), your representation me as asking why others aren’t reporting “that I believe” a certain way is not only “unverified,” but plainly false.

commenttoretractionwatch 

 

——– Original Message ——–
Subject: Re: Mangled comment misquotes me.
From: Ivan Oransky ivan-oransky@erols.com
Date: Thu, September 04, 2014 10:51 am
To: “info@autisminvestigated.com” info@autisminvestigated.com
Cc: Adam Marcus <adam.marcus1@gmail.com>

Your two choices for this comment remain: Leave the comment as it is now, or delete it. If you want to submit future comments, you’re more than welcome to do so, but they too will be subject to our comments policy.

Ivan Oransky, MD
Vice President and Global Editorial Director, MedPage Today http://medpagetoday.com
Co-Founder, Retraction Watch http://retractionwatch.com
Founder, Embargo Watch http://embargowatch.wordpress.com
Adjunct Associate Professor, New York University’s Science, Health, and Environmental Reporting Program
Vice President, Association of Health Care Journalists
Clinical Assistant Professor of Medicine, New York University School of Medicine
http://twitter.com/ivanoransky
917-359-2113

On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 8:38 PM, <info@autisminvestigated.com> wrote:

Why the silence on BMC’s violation of its own policy?

You clearly did not follow your own comments policy in the way you edited my comment, which I do not approve of. That said, I won’t approve of you deleting it without putting up a corrected version either.

Looks like you and BMC both have trouble following your own rules.

——– Original Message ——–
Subject: Re: Mangled comment misquotes me.
From: Ivan Oransky ivan-oransky@erols.com
Date: Thu, September 04, 2014 5:55 pm
To: “info@autisminvestigated.com” info@autisminvestigated.com
Cc: Adam Marcus <adam.marcus1@gmail.com>

To repeat: You misrepresented BMC’s policy, and you misrepresented the reasons they stated for the removal. You then based the “violation” allegation on your misrepresentations, which made the allegations inaccurate. We then edited your comment so that it no longer included those misrepresentations and inaccuracies.

You are free to post a new comment, as has also been mentioned in this thread, that will also be subject to our comments policy. If that is what you mean by “corrected version,” you’re welcome to submit one. Your choices for the already-posted comment, however, remain the same as they’ve been throughout this exchange.

Ivan Oransky, MD
Vice President and Global Editorial Director, MedPage Today http://medpagetoday.com
Co-Founder, Retraction Watch http://retractionwatch.com
Founder, Embargo Watch http://embargowatch.wordpress.com
Adjunct Associate Professor, New York University’s Science, Health, and Environmental Reporting Program
Vice President, Association of Health Care Journalists
Clinical Assistant Professor of Medicine, New York University School of Medicine
http://twitter.com/ivanoransky
917-359-2113

 

Finally, I responded:

Here’s what you said:

“You wrote that removal ‘is only done under the explicit avoidance of ‘threatened legal claims.'” The policy actually gives two other reasons for removal: ‘that material is considered to infringe certain rights or is defamatory.'”

In your priggish and failed attempt to correct me on BMC’s policy for removing articles, you inadvertently showed that the take-down of Dr. Hooker’s article did violate BMC’s policy. BMC provided no such reasons for deleting Dr. Hooker’s article in either statement, even if you count whatever possible concerns that were raised from the reason of “possible undeclared competing interests” as reasons as well.

Don’t expect any more comment submissions from me.

 

I’ve never heard anything back since.

 

Jake Crosby is editor of Autism Investigated. He is a 2011 graduate of Brandeis University with a Bachelor of Arts in both History and Health: Science, Society and Policy and a 2013 graduate of The George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services with a Master of Public Health in Epidemiology. He currently attends the University of Texas School of Public Health where he is studying for a Ph.D. in Epidemiology

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on Google+Share on RedditPin on PinterestFlattr the authorDigg thisBuffer this pageShare on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon