Video: BMJ Editor Humiliated After Calling Autism-Vaccine Link a Fraud

At the NIH, the editor-in-chief of the BMJ Fiona Godlee gets stumped on video after calling the vaccine-autism link an “elaborate fraud.” BMJ Group was also sponsored by Merck and GlaxoSmithKline, pharmaceutical companies that made measles-mumps-rubella vaccines – a fact Godlee claimed she didn’t know. The university that initially launched an investigation based on her allegations has since dumped Godlee’s concerns:

“the net result [from an investigation] would likely be an incomplete set of evidence and an inconclusive process costing a substantial sum of money.”

Godlee has also tried to petition UK parliament, for which she was quickly rebuffed. But years later, a whistleblower from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention confirmed that it was the people who tried to dispute an association between autism and vaccinations who committed fraud. They threw evidence linking the two into a “huge garbage can.” Here is a larger excerpt of what the whistleblower said, read by Congressman Bill Posey:

“All the authors and I met and decided sometime between August and September ’02 not to report any race effects from the paper. Sometime soon after the meeting we decided to exclude reporting any race effects, the coauthors scheduled a meeting to destroy documents related to the study. The remaining four coauthors all met and brought a big garbage can into the meeting room and reviewed and went through all the hard-copy documents that we had thought we should discard and put them in a huge garbage can. However, because I assumed it was illegal and would violate both FOIA and DoJ requests, I kept hard copies of all documents in my office and I retained all associated computer files. I believe we intentionally withheld controversial findings from the final draft of the Pediatrics paper.”

See relevant outbound links below.

Article: Jake Crosby Challenges BMJ Editor-in-Chief Fiona Godlee

Full video of BMJ editor Fiona Godlee’s talk

Full video of congressional speech by Bill Posey reading whistleblower statement

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

29 Thoughts on “Video: BMJ Editor Humiliated After Calling Autism-Vaccine Link a Fraud

  1. Eddie Unwind on April 13, 2016 at 11:13 pm said:

    Nice work, Jake. Just saw De Niro’s recent interview whereupon he recommends people to see Vaxxed in spite of Tribeca having pulled the film. That book I joked about in the hypothetical at Resentful Idiots with De Niro accompanied by a syringe front cover seems a more than likely prospect now.

  2. Rebecca Fisher on April 14, 2016 at 9:10 am said:

    Jake,

    You know full well that the “huge garbage can” is a fiction. If the data was destroyed (apart from, allegedly, Thompson’s copies), how was it that Brian Hooker was able to get that data for his reimagining of the study via a legitimate request to the CDC? If the data had been destroyed, he wouldn’t have been able to get the data. He didn’t get the data direct from Thompson – no-one is claiming he did, he got it through the usual channels. So no data was destroyed. Hard copies may have been destroyed, as is usual, but the soft copies, on hard drives / servers etc weren’t.

    Please stop promoting this lie.

    Becky.

    • The hard copies were destroyed so that there would be nothing to give anyone a reason to look for the data on the hard drives in the first place. Hooker got that data via congressional pressure, which should not have even been necessary.

      • Rebecca Fisher on April 15, 2016 at 9:20 am said:

        No he didn’t. He applied to the CDC to get the data for research purposes. Anyone can do that. No need for congressional influence at all.

        • Obviously, the CDC knew Hooker was being supported by Posey.

        • Hannah Gale on April 17, 2016 at 11:43 am said:

          She’s right. In that Hooker was able to request the data and it was there. But I think the point was that Thompson told him where to look. As to the “garbage can”, Thompson said that that’s what they did. As to why, whenever you have a pile of data, you have notes that are summations and possible conclusions. If there was “a garbage can” (meaning stuff that was going to the shredder), then that’s what would have been in it. Whenever you are hiding something you think no one will no where to look. And no one did, until Thompson told Hooker.

      • Rebecca Fisher on April 15, 2016 at 9:25 am said:

        From Brian Hooker’s paper, available here http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4128611/:

        Cohort data were obtained directly as a “restricted access data set” from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) via a Data Use Agreement.

      • Rebecca Fisher on April 15, 2016 at 2:30 pm said:

        The data obviously existed, because it was there in the original study. Just shredding a hard copy of a document doesn’t hide its existence in this day and age. Who knew the hard copies had been shredded? No-one. Who cared? No-one. Who knew the data existed? Everyone who read the study. The data was always there, in plain view, and available to any genuine researcher.

        • They shredded the results that they kept out of the study so that no one would ever dig deep enough to find them.

        • Eddie Unwind on April 15, 2016 at 9:41 pm said:

          Rebecca, my neologism ‘contraspiracist’ doesn’t define the type of argument you’ve given, simply because yours is based upon purely conspiratorial pretences: do you honestly believe that Dr Thompson’s actions as whistleblower was a mere charade? That he had some alternate agenda beyond wanting to liberate his own conscience? If so, then I’d suggest to you that the truth element contained within the overwhelming majority of such events whereby a person literally risks their life through acting upon their conscience is pretty transparent, and may be taken at face value.

          Human decency is still possible, Rebecca.

    • Hans Litten on April 14, 2016 at 2:50 pm said:

      Is that picture there Becky , representative ?
      You like something off of Blade Runner .

  3. Eddie Unwind on April 15, 2016 at 6:59 am said:

    If you’ll permit me, Jake, perhaps we’re short of a term…

    Contraspiracist –

    1. A person who attributes a truth value to the rejection of a statement purely on grounds that its claims appear far-fetched, conspiratorial, exaggerated etc.

    2. A person who employs this reasoning as a tactic to reject, or divert attention from, an opposing opinion.

    3. A person who assumes that one who holds opinions contrary to theirs is necessarily a conspiracist, an extremist etc.

    The third type extends to those who automatically designate Vaxxed, Wakefield, De Niro etc as ‘necessarily’ anti-vaccination.

    In my opinion, the pro-vax extremists have been confusing what they’ve erroneously regarded as a controlled, Queen’s Gambit Accepted opening (i.e. immediately labelling so-and-so as anti-vax, conspiratorial etc), for what has been a succession of forced moves – herd-immunity theory, scare-campaigning, Offit’s threats to hand children of irresponsible parents over to the state, censorship of Vaxxed etc etc – ever since Wakefield’s retracted Lancet paper.

    Their initial mistake was in my opinion their worst; to brand Wakefield as anti-vax. As a result, his otherwise non-extreme position with regard to advocating a single measles vaccine has actually set the bar for anti-vax extremism. Consequently, no matter how moderate and reasonable a viewpoint may be that questions vaccine policy, it will always be regarded as extreme by those opposed since it is highly unlikely to be less confrontational than Wakefield’s (no matter how ‘big’ his ego may actually be).

    And so now we have De Niro asking pretty reasonable – if not always sufficiently informed – questions. It is the job of those opposing him to make him sound utterly unreasonable and deluded. If he manages to keep his cool and continue asking reasonable questions – such as wanting to have the issue properly debated etc – he should succeed well, and thereby continue the succession of forced moves.

  4. Eddie Unwind on April 16, 2016 at 12:53 am said:

    At Resentful Idiots we have an anti-semite – one of the respected ones at RI, incidentally – in comment #36, plain as day. As is typical, he assumes that others think just as he does.

    http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2016/04/15/raging-bullst-part-2-j-b-handley-enters-the-fray-to-defend-robert-de-niros-antivaccine-stylings/

  5. Eddie Unwind on April 16, 2016 at 12:56 am said:

    For quick reference, here is the passage…

    ‘So the whole narrative of poor Bobby De Niro, who just wants to raise questions, and gets beset by the Pharma Shills led by Judas-Jane Rosenthal [didn’t the Jews kill Christ?] takes our eyes off Wakefield and the lies and ASD-demeaning visual strategies of Vaxxed.’

  6. Eddie Unwind on April 16, 2016 at 8:27 am said:

    In retrospect my aforementioned allegation was probably a bit hasty. In consideration of the previously posted paragraph’s overall context, I’d say that the post at #36 involved a very naive piece of misjudgement on the part of its author (i.e. one that can too easily be misinterpreted). In relation to such a profoundly serious issue – intensified by my own Jewish heritage – I have no desire whatever to condemn anyone without entirely due cause.

  7. Hans Litten on April 18, 2016 at 9:09 am said:

    Jake , MAKE SURE TO READ THIS . You get mentioned

    http://www.naturalnews.com/053706_David_Gorski_autism_drug_Karmanos_Cancer_Center.html

    Dr. David Gorski is an established pro-vaccine internet troll with ties to the Barbara Anne Karmanos Cancer Institute, notorious for experimental cancer treatments and drugs that have been fast-tracked by the FDA.
    Karmanos is also where cancer fraudster Dr. Farid Fata had his clinic. Fata used aggressive chemotherapy treatments on cancer-free individuals, o

  8. Eddie Unwind on April 19, 2016 at 3:08 am said:

    Just to facilitate the aforementioned post, Orac writes,

    ‘Andrew Wakefield’s movie is a load of conspiracy lingering pseudoscientific-laden nonsense. I can be pretty sure of this without having seen it’ etc.

    A review based upon an assumption following a trailer. Now there’s a true, ultra-thorough skeptic for you!

    For reference, the blog is linked below.

    http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2016/04/08/in-which-antivaccine-activist-j-b-handley-thinks-attacking-andrew-wakefields-movie-backfired/

  9. Media Scholar on April 19, 2016 at 5:22 am said:

    I recall many articles about CDC whistle-blower William Thompson, M.D. did, in fact, display words arranged in such order as to complete a written narrative indicating a waste basket was brought in and documents were chucked.

    To refute this based upon nothing is fiction. It is shocking and revolting that Thompson’s testimony regarding the garbage can WHICH WAS DIRECTLY GIVEN TO A UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE is being CONTESTED by a person with absolutely NO KNOWLEDGE of this NON-ISSUE.

    To suggest that the CDC group which was censoring documentation likely to provide illicit linkage by chucking it in a huge garbage can then ignited it, stripped naked and performed satanic ritual goat sacrifice amid heavy smoke and a down-pour of fire sprinkler discharge is another consideration.

    Thank You

  10. Doug Troutman on April 21, 2016 at 12:23 am said:

    CDC science = junk science.

  11. Eddie Unwind on April 21, 2016 at 12:57 am said:

    Mike Adams is certainly going after Gorski. Not sure about this particular strategy, we’ll see.

    It is Gorski’s over-eagerness to humiliate that is his Achilles heel. Consequently, whatever strategy Gorski may have now and then is constantly offset by poor timing and rash judgements, such as not viewing Vaxxed before making a summation about it.

    It is this over-eagerness to humiliate that is likely already proving him to be a liability to those backing him, since by adopting and broadcasting his views publicly – such as recently in the LA Times – readers are becoming ever-alerted to contradictory messages (is Vaxxed anti-Vax? And so on), and so need to trace things back to a source of some sort. And eventually, somebody is going to have to be the fall guy for such conflicting information….

  12. Pingback: BMJ Editor Rattled By Pic of Andrew Wakefield with Trump

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post Navigation