Author Archives: Jake Crosby

INFOWARS, 2013: Bill Gates Skirts Question of Mass Vaccine Paralysis

Does anyone remember five years ago when Bill Gates came to University of Texas, Austin and skirted a question about his vaccines paralyzing 47,500 Indian children? Autism Investigated’s editor does! In stark contrast to Gates claiming to the president to have “looked at” vaccine poisoning issues, the five-year old video above proves otherwise.

According to InfoWars reporter Melissa Melton at the time:

When I called to inquire about press passes, I was promptly but apologetically informed that all media had already been “arranged in advance.”

Why would media need to be arranged in advance for a simple hour-long speaking engagement with some college kids?

Is it because Bill Gates does not want to have to answer questions about how over 50 Chadian children, some as young as seven years old, recently hallucinated, convulsed, and were ultimately paralyzed after receiving an Africa-specific meningitis vaccine linked to his Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation?

Perhaps he doesn’t want to be confronted on how this is becoming a pattern, considering 47,500 children were also paralyzed by Gates-linked vaccines in India in 2011.

As InfoWars summed up:

Bill Gates really didn’t want to be confronted on how a vaccine linked to the Gates Foundation paralyzed some 47,500 children in India, but Infowars reporter Melissa Melton asked him about it anyway.

Contrast that to last year, when Gates was quoted as saying about President Trump:

“I heard when he saw pharma guys he said he was still wondering about vaccines, but he did mention to them that I’d said to him that I’d looked at it and that they were completely safe and that we shouldn’t raise any doubts about that.”

As Infowars‘ video proves, Bill Gates never “looked at” the vaccine problem and doesn’t want anyone else to either. The reason, of course, is that he’s made himself part of the problem.

New CDC Director Misstates Influenza Vaccination Effectiveness

Robert Redfield INSTITUTE OF HUMAN VIROLOGY AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND SCHOOL OF MEDICINE

According to The Washington Post, the new CDC director reportedly told his new employees, “We have got to get the American public to understand that vaccination is important and needs to be fully utilized.” This was reportedly after he cited 130 child deaths from flu season, implying they all could have been saved by vaccination.

The reality is that a quarter of them were vaccinated. The majority of American children and adults were not vaccinated for the flu anyway. And those 130 children are almost certainly not representative of the overall population of children. But that doesn’t stop Redfield from misrepresenting flu vaccines like he did an experimental AIDS treatment a quarter-century ago. The difference there was that he at least provided data on most of the subjects who got the treatment. In the case of flu vaccines, he just implied 130 deaths could have all been prevented with vaccination without giving evidence that even one of those deaths could have been stopped.

Both the FDA and CDC chiefs have misstated the effectiveness or safety of vaccination. Yet both would not have been in their positions were it not for the president, who had claimed to have never gotten the flu or the flu shot.

TX OBSERVER: Anti-Vaxxers are Claiming Victory After Texas Primaries. Will Their Influence Grow?

Lisa Luby Ryan and State Representative Jason Villalba COURTESY FACEBOOK, JASON VILLALBA

At around midnight on primary night in Dallas, Lisa Luby Ryan was flanked by two leaders of Texans for Vaccine Choice, arms raised, cheering.

“We just got a call from Representative [Jason] Villalba, who conceded to us and wished us well,” said Ryan, the far-right challenger to the GOP incumbent. Jackie Schlegel, executive director of Texans for Vaccine Choice, and Rebecca Hardy, its state policy director, wore Ryan campaign shirts and huge grins. “Victory!” they shouted.

Schlegel’s feud with Villalba began in 2015, when the Dallas Republican led legislation, ultimately unsuccessful, to eliminate nonmedical “conscience exemptions” for vaccination in public schools. A mother who says one of her kids was injured by vaccines, Schlegel created the now-influential group, which she argues is not anti-vaccine but pro-parental rights. In the months before the primary, members of the group block-walked, raised funds and posted on social media in support of Ryan and other candidates.

“I am so proud of the work we have done here,” Schlegel said to Ryan, who noted that she couldn’t have won “without my amazing group of moms who believe in the power of family.”

Conscientious exemptions; Sophie Novack; vaccinations, mad moms in minivans
Data for school years beginning in 2004 and 2005 not available.  SOURCE: HTTPS://WWW.DSHS.TEXAS.GOV/IMMUNIZE/COVERAGE/SCHOOLS/

In February, the moderate-ish Villalba told the Observer the anti-vaxxers were “so insignificant to my campaign … they’re as important to me as the Flat Earth Society.” But he ended up losing his seat by about 6 percentage points — Texans for Vaccine Choice’s biggest win.

Whether the group was responsible for defeating Villalba may be less relevant than whether lawmakers believe it was. Representative Sarah Davis, another target of anti-vaxxers, said Texans for Vaccine Choice has “bullied and intimidated” many of her colleagues. She said she couldn’t get hearings on her pro-vaccine bills last session.

Davis defeated her own far-right primary challenger, Susanna Dokupil, and anti-vaccine activists’ bid to take down Representative J.D. Sheffield, a Republican doctor, also failed. But Schlegel called Ryan’s win “just the beginning.”

Villalba declined to file his vaccine bill again in 2017 after Texans for Vaccine Choice campaigned against him in 2016, saying he wasn’t interested in a “suicide mission.” Asked what his loss may mean for future vaccine legislation, Villalba wrote in a text, “I suspect [Davis] remains dedicated to ensuring that all Texans continue to receive the benefit of modern medical science, including proper and necessary vaccinations.”

Meanwhile, the number of vaccine exemptions for reasons of conscience in Texas schools has skyrocketed from about 2,300 — when they were first allowed in 2003 — to nearly 53,000 last year. “I’m worried about the increasing erosion of the number of kids who are vaccinated, and I continue to be worried about a new disease outbreak,” said Peter Hotez, director of the Texas Children’s Hospital Center for Vaccine Development. Six people, all unvaccinated, were infected in a measles outbreak in Ellis County in January, and Hotez warns that a larger outbreak could be around the corner.

Sophie is the public health reporting fellow at the Observer. She previously covered health care policy and politics at National Journal in Washington, D.C. You can contact her at novack@texasobserver.org
Originally published on Texas Observer
Since Texans for Vaccine Choice is not truly anti-vaccine, the editor will happily take credit for Villalba’s demise.

Dear FDA Commissioner, Show Empathy and Acknowledge Vax-Autism Link

Scott-Gottlieb.com

According to the FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb in his Senate confirmation hearing:

As early as 2002, there was a study in Denmark that looked at 540,000 children and found no correlation.

And in his defense, the study itself does claim:

There was no association between the age at the time of vaccination, the time since vaccination, or the date of vaccination and the development of autistic disorder.

A Canadian statistician found otherwise. In his letter that was censored by the New England Journal of Medicine and subsequently published in an article that ran in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons:

Madsen et al. observed an adjusted rate ratio of autistic disorder after vaccination of 0.92 relative to no vaccination, when the crude rate ratio (my computation) was 1.45 (95% confidence interval 1.08-1.95). Moreover, the rate by time since vaccination increases to a high of 27.3 two years after vaccination (rate ratio 2.5) and decreases thereafter to 11.4 per 100,000 per year (Figure 1).

It is stated that adjustment for age eliminated these rate increases, but the corresponding data are unusual. Indeed, the rates of autistic disorder by age at vaccination, although not the age at follow-up, are 18.9, 14.8, 24.6, 26.9 and 12.0 per 100,000 per year respectively for ages <15, 15-19, 20-24, 25-35 and >35 months. These rates are all above the overall rate of 11.0 for the reference group of no vaccination, over all ages. It is then somewhat implausible for the adjusted rate ratio to fall below 1, unless the risk profile by age in the unvaccinated is vastly different than in the vaccinated (effect-modification). In this case, the adjustment for age could have been artificial. It would be useful then to present rates on subjects 24-29 months since vaccination and on the unvaccinated (crude rate ratio 2.5) stratified by age. Otherwise, one could be tempted to conclude that the figure is in fact suggestive of an association between MMR vaccination and the risk of autism.

Well Dr. Gottlieb, you did say you had empathy for autism families. Do you?

DEPT OF HHS: Robert Redfield Sworn In As CDC Director On Monday

HHS Secretary Azar to Name Robert R. Redfield, M.D., Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

On Wednesday, the Department of Health and Human Services announced that Secretary Alex Azar will name Robert R. Redfield, M.D., as the 18th Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Administrator of the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

Upon the announcement, Secretary Azar issued the following statement:

“Dr. Redfield has dedicated his entire life to promoting public health and providing compassionate care to his patients, and we are proud to welcome him as director of the world’s premier epidemiological agency. Dr. Redfield’s scientific and clinical background is peerless: As just one example, during his two-decade tenure at Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, he made pioneering contributions to advance our understanding of HIV/AIDS. His more recent work running a treatment network in Baltimore for HIV and Hepatitis C patients also prepares him to hit the ground running on one of HHS and CDC’s top priorities, combating the opioid epidemic.”

“Furthermore, all of us at HHS are grateful to Dr. Anne Schuchat for her service as Acting Director at CDC, especially during this year’s severe flu season. We look forward to CDC continuing its important work on the opioid epidemic and America’s many other pressing public health challenges.”

Biographical Background

Dr. Robert R. Redfield has been a public health leader actively engaged in clinical research and clinical care of chronic human viral infections and infectious diseases, especially HIV, for more than 30 years.

He served as the founding director of the Department of Retroviral Research within the U.S. Military’s HIV Research Program, and retired after 20 years of service in the U.S. Army Medical Corps. Following his military service, he co-founded the University of Maryland’s Institute of Human Virology with Dr. William Blattner and Dr. Robert C. Gallo and served as the Chief of Infectious Diseases and Vice Chair of Medicine at the University of Maryland School of Medicine.

Dr. Redfield made several important early contributions to the scientific understanding of HIV, including the demonstration of the importance of heterosexual transmission, the development of the Walter Reed staging system for HIV infection, and the demonstration of active HIV replication in all stages of HIV infection.

In addition to his research work, Dr. Redfield oversaw an extensive clinical program providing HIV care and treatment to more than 5,000 patients in the Baltimore/Washington, D.C. community.

Dr. Redfield served as a member of the President’s Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS from 2005 to 2009, and was appointed as Chair of the International Subcommittee from 2006 to 2009.

He is a past member of the Office of AIDS Research Advisory Council at the National Institutes of Health, the Fogarty International Center Advisory Board at the National Institutes of Health, and the Advisory Anti-Infective Agent Committee of the Food and Drug Administration.

Originally posted on HHS

Real Justice PAC Forced to Retract Lie Joe Gonzales Was “Elected” D.A.

Initial Facebook messages from the editor to Real Justice PAC

Real Justice PAC was forced to remove lies on its website that its endorsed candidate Joe Gonzales was “elected” San Antonio District Attorney. The misinformation was on the PAC’s website after he won the Democratic primary against incumbent Nico LaHood.

Autism Investigated first contacted the PAC with proof Sunday night, to which there was no response. Only after Autism Investigated threatened to complain to the Federal Election Commission the following afternoon were the lies finally removed. Even more bizarrely, the PAC responded “Thanks for catching that and all of your support!”

Apparently, the PAC is trying to pretend like Autism Investigated did not ruffle its feathers. It’s an unconvincing charade given that the PAC’s co-founder Shaun King already blocked Autism Investigated’s editor for writing about King’s hypocrisy and fake race claims.

Even more unconvincing is the PAC’s implication that it was a mistake. The sham claim had been on the website for weeks. Real Justice is entirely made up of seasoned political operatives from Bernie Sanders‘ campaign. Surely they all know the difference between winning a primary and actually being elected to public office. They just couldn’t continue conflating the two after being called out.

Whatever D.A. LaHood decides to do is up to him. Hopefully, he will endorse Gonzales’ Republican opponent Tylden Shaeffer. If LaHood endorses Shaeffer, Real Justice PAC’s lie that San Antonio’s D.A. race is already over should be one of the cited reasons.

Likely CDC Head Omitted HIV Research, Was Reprimanded By Army

Autism Investigated: Read the above Science Magazine article (click to enlarge, continued in embedded text below) and draw your own conclusion about the doctor President Trump will likely appoint to head  the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as Fitzgerald’s replacement.

The question of how Redfield had chosen his 15 patients for analysis came up again in August 1992, after the Amsterdam meeting, when researchers at WRAIR [Walter Reed Army Institute of Research] and the Henry M. Jackson Foundation for the advancement of Military Medicine-a private lab that has a multi-million-dollar contract to assist the military’s AIDS research program -analyzed data from all 26 patients and found no statistically significant effect on viral load. Indeed, at an AIDS vaccine meeting sponsored by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases from 31 August-3 September in Chantilly, Virginia, Redfield and Vahey both made presentations about the full data set of 26 patients; both presentations showed that the viral load data from all 26 patients indicated no statistically significant change with gp160 treatment.

In addition, viral load data from the first 15 patients “were similar to those of the entire 26 patients,” Col. Donald Burke, Redfield’s boss, explained to Army investigators.

How had Redfield found statistical significance where there apparently was none? That question was first addressed by Burke in an informal inquiry. According to Burke’s statement to Army investigators, he held a meeting with key Redfield collaborators on 28 August-just before Chantilly-and the attendees “all agreed that the data analysis [for Amsterdam] was done in haste, which resulted in some arbitrary criteria and methodological errors.” 

Burke concluded there had been no scientific misconduct, only scientific error. In his statement to the Army investigators, Burke said that after the Chantilly presentations, “I was satisfied that the data were presented openly and accurately and that the conundrum regarding the Amsterdam presentation had been put to rest and the case was closed.”

The case was not closed. On 20 October, two Air Force AIDS researchers filed a formal complaint against Redfield that became the basis for the investigation. At the end of that process, Army investigator Dangerfield found that no misconduct had occurred and that any errors in Redfield’s presentation were due to haste. Dangerfield’s report cites Burke’s 28 August meeting as one explanation for that conclusion. The meeting, wrote Dangerfield in his final report, “concluded that the disparities between the analyses of [Lt. Col.] Redfield at Amsterdam and that of others arose by presenting preliminary data from less than the full study … and data analysis done in haste.”

That interpretation isn’t likely to satisfy some of Redfield’s colleagues. Three of them told Science they don’t believe haste was the reason Redfield’s analysis went awry. “I don’t think it was a silly, sophomoric mistake be- cause someone was rushed,” contends statistician William McCarthy, who until 15 July was the chief of biostatistics at the Jackson Foundation-and has resigned in frustration because of what he calls “a lack of candor” about the gp160 data. “The way the data were presented [in Amsterdam] was not legitimate, and it made the data look better than it would have looked had there been an appropriate analysis,” says McCarthy.

Two Redfield collaborators, who insist on not being quoted by name, also reject the notion that the Amsterdam presentation contained errors made in haste. Says one investigator: “I don’t think it was a presentation made by a researcher in a hurry. The presentation was sloppy and irresponsible. You go out and make a statement as an authority, as a world-class scientist, and you’re not super sure? Come on.” Another collaborator says Redfield’s presentation “was very well thought out.”

The FOIA documents, however, also reveal that Redfield has supporters among his colleagues. One of the strongest statements of support came from Lt. Col. John Brundage, WRAIR’s chief epidemiologist. Brundage, who helped Redfield with his statistical analysis prior to Amsterdam, told Danger- field he had attended the presentation and “did not feel it was inappropriate.” Brundage’s statement also said he thought Redfield had benefited from Brundage’s statistical “tutoring several days previously.”

Although the Army’s investigation of the Amsterdam presentation may not have satisfied all those close to these events, by 20 February of this year that phase of the investigation was closed. But because of concerns about WRAIR’s relationship with Americans for a Sound AIDS/HIV Policy, the Army launched a second probe–of that organization and its ties to Army researchers.

ASAP, which educates religious groups and aims to speed development of treatments, became snared in the Redfield investigation because of concerns that Redfield supporter W. Shepherd Smith Jr., the group’s president, was improperly contacting WRAIR researchers to discuss unreleased gp160 data. Like Redfield, Smith has been a strong supporter of gp160 therapy, testifying before Congress and even staging an investment seminar in Los Angeles for potential MicroGeneSys investors. Redfield is chairman of ASAP’s advisory board, which his chief collaborator, Deborah Birx, also serves on.

Specifically taken up in the Army probe was a phone call ASAP’s Smith made to Vahey on 24 August, in which they discussed the gp160 study and interpretations of the early results. Vahey was concerned enough about “the command of the data that Mr. Smith exhibited” and his opinions about how the gp160 data should be presented that she wrote a memo for the record, which the Army supplied to Science.

Smith told Science any implication he was trying to influence the analysis of gp160 data was “absolutely false,” stressing that his reason for calling had “nothing to do with the Amsterdam presentation.” Smith said he believes ASAP was brought into the Army’s investigation because “nothing was found in the first report and that wasn’t satisfactory to people who had staked their careers on finding something wrong with Bob Redfield.”

The Army investigation concluded that WRAIR provided ASAP with “scientific information that was not widely disseminated” and recommended that ties between the two groups “be severed so there is not an appearance of endorsement or favoritism.”

Severing the tie between ASAP and Army researchers, however, won’t end the questions still swirling around Robert Redfield, the gp160 vaccine, and MicroGeneSys. Although Redfield’s supporters are pleased with the outcome of the investigation, many of Redfield’s colleagues and others close to the investigation are not fully satisfied. A new investigation could be launched by a joint Army-Navy-Air Force team. Congress might also hold hearings on the issue. On the scientific front, gp160 will also come up again soon, since the military is staging a trial of the MicroGeneSys vaccine in more than 600 infected people. The trial will compare treated patients to a randomized control group receiving a placebo. A first look at the blinded data is scheduled for the fall. But, like every other new piece of information about gp160, those preliminary results are far more likely to start debate than to end it. -Jon Cohen SCIENCE VOL. 261 13 AUGUST 1993

San Antonio D.A. Nico LaHood Should Endorse Republican D.A. Candidate

San Antonio District Attorney Nicholas LaHood, KSAT

You don’t need somebody that is spending time going off on his own crusade against vaccinations. -Democrat D.A. candidate Joe Gonzales speaking of D.A. Nico LaHood

Now we have someone who doesn’t even live in Texas fund what he thinks is best for us. -Republican D.A. candidate Tylden Shaeffer on George Soros’ contributions to the Gonzales campaign

The Democrat Party has been taken over by George Soros, his Antifa terrorists, his police-despising Black Lives Matter thugs, his fake news and his race hoaxers. In this new dystopian party, federal immigration law is disrespected but Islamic law cannot be criticized. Spreading lies to promote vaccination is encouraged, but criticizing vaccination is forbidden. Look no further than the primary defeat of San Antonio’s DA Nico LaHood, a defeat he correctly summed up in his concession as caused by “$1 million worth of lies.”

Such lies include those spread by fake African-American Shaun King and his Real Justice PAC, funded of course by Soros.

Retweeted by Gonzales:

Non-Texan Soros’ bought Texan friends clearly determined the outcome of the primary.

And look at what this slimy PAC is up to – portraying Gonzales as being “elected” to a public office that he has never earned the right to assume.

Somebody ought to inform the Bexar County Elections Department of what looks very much like electoral fraud, brought to you by Soros. Now after the primary, Gonzales is pining for his money more than ever.

In the meantime, D.A. LaHood should endorse the Republican candidate Tylden Shaeffer. LaHood has already said he won’t endorse his fellow Democrat, so he’s practically halfway there.

Tell Congresswoman Baloney She Deserves To Lose Her Seat

Office of Congresswoman Carolyn B. M(B)aloney

NY PostA campaign spokesman for Rep. Carolyn Maloney said the congresswoman now “does not believe there is a link between vaccinations and autism.”“Congresswoman Maloney believes in the efficacy and safety of vaccines. She was at the forefront of efforts to protect funding for vaccines in the Affordable Care Act,” the rep said.

And subsequent Post editorial:

It’s a small win for science that Maloney’s admitting the truth[AI note: as if!]. It’ll be a bigger one if she (and others who did the same) apologizes for promoting a deadly myth.

Will wonders never cease? Actually, it seems they just did. The mystery appears to have been solved by a NY Times reporter, of all people.

The last time Autism Investigated asked readers to contact her office years ago, you were all told to be polite. Don’t worry about politeness this time. Express yourself however you deem fit (no threats, of course).

Call Congresswoman Baloney’s DC office, mention the NY Post article and tell them she deserves to lose her seat in the Democrat primary: 202-225-7944

UK Gov’t Authority Fabricated “Duties” Against Early Vax-ASD Science

 

The UK government completely made up “duties” to disclose conflicts of interest to defame the lead author of early science linking vaccines to autism. It is perhaps the most clear-cut proof of the UK government’s conspiracy to cover up the vaccine autism link.

The vaccine people are quick to cite the UK General Medical Council (GMC’s) findings of “disclosable interests” against Dr. Andrew Wakefield. Meanwhile, the vaccine people completely ignore the GMC’s own Financial and commercial arrangements and conflicts of interest guidance. The guide tells doctors to “use your professional judgement to identify when conflicts of interest arise.” By second-guessing Dr. Wakefield’s professional judgement to punish him, the GMC completely fabricated the “duties” it said he violated according to its existing rules.

Though GMC’s findings of unethical research and dishonesty were overturned on appeal, vaccine people still use the red herring that Dr. Wakefield was not the one who appealed. However, the “disclosable interests” findings were only against Dr. Wakefield and were not grounded in findings against any other researcher.

But as the GMC’s guidance on its own website shows, those findings were not based on any existing rule either. One need only compare the GMC “findings” and the GMC’s actual position on conflicts of interest to see that they are a hoax. Nobody and certainly no government should recognize any findings or verdicts by the GMC panel that ruled against Dr. Andrew Wakefield.