Category Archives: Fraud

Trump Imitates Autistic Self-Advocate Ari Ne’eman on Denying Autism is a Disability

The first autistic appointee to the National Council on Disability Ari Ne’eman has written that autism is not a disability:

We see the world in a different way than our neurotypical peers (neurotypical is a word in the autistic community meaning those of the majority neurology). This does not imply a defect, but merely a difference — one that we have just the same right to as those of a different race, nationality or religion.The belief was that anyone society labeled “disabled” could only go so far. Sadly, these misconceptions had the potential to become self-fulfilling prophecies. When the expectation is that people of a certain type can only reach so far, they are not provided with the same challenges and opportunities that educators give mainstreamed students….

We should recognize what diversity of neurology has contributed to the human race and what it can bring to the future. Difference is not disability and someday, I hope, the world will recognize that those who think in different ways should be welcomed.

Related:

Crooked Hillary Hijacks Autism to Smear Donald Trump

Neurodiversity is Social Justice Cancer

12-Year-Old Scientist Indicted for Vaccine-Autism Link Cover-Up

Obama appoints Ari Ne’eman to National Council on disabilities (Autism’s Gadfly blog)

American Thinker: Vaccines and Terrorism

at-logo

By Eileen F. Toplansky

What better way to conquer your enemy than through the use of vaccine terrorism?  Apparently the country of Denmark did not consider the ramifications of the aforementioned question because it “recently sold its state-owned vaccine manufacturing facility to a conglomerate owned by the Aljomaih Group, a Saudi family dynasty.”  This Group is led by Sheikh Abdul Aziz Hamad Aljomaih who is also the largest single stockholder and chairman of Arcapita Bank, which, as an Islamic bank is comprised of Islamic scholars, who make certain that the bank’s activities will comply with sharia or Islamic law.

Since those who sit on the bank’s Sharia Board promote aggressive jihad, would it be asking too much why a Western country would leave vaccine manufacturing to an avowed enemy that publicly states that the West must be destroyed? 

Some of the men who sit on the Sharia Board include Taqi Usmani who has said that

“[a]grressive Jihad is lawful even today . . . Its justification cannot be veiled.”  Yussuf al-Qaradawi, who is considered the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, used to sit on Arcapita’s sharia board.  His life’s work is to conquer Europe and America and establish a global caliphate.  In “an October 2010 interview with Al-Jazeera, Qaradawi was asked whether Muslims should try to acquire atomic weapons ‘to terrorize their enemies.’ He replied that such an objective was permissible, saying he was ‘happy’ that Pakistan already possessed such a weapon. According to Qaradawi, the procurement of such agents of mass destruction was in compliance with Koranic verses urging Muslims ‘to terrorize thereby the enemy of God and your enemy.'”

The means for establishing a global caliphate include incremental change in any infidel’s land. First aspects of sharia law are introduced; then the loss of free speech under the guise of blasphemy laws is demanded; there is also an increase in antisemitic acts; furthermore, the status of women is denigrated, with a concomitant acceptance of polygamy.  Even a cursory look at Europe shows that the jihadists’ success is astonishing as one after another European country accepts its dhimmi status under the guise of multicultural tolerance but, of course, springing from an abject fear of what the jihadists will do if they disobey. 

After the stealth introduction of the above, come the more pronounced acts of sharia law, i.e., the murder of apostates and gays and chopping off hands of thieves.

And yet, even with this backdrop, Denmark engages in this dangerous move despite the Danish government acknowledging in August 2016 that the Muslim Brotherhood was “deeply problematic.”  Judith Bergman writes

It takes a minimum of six months for an order of vaccines to be delivered, but, according to the World Health Organization, delivery can also easily take up to two years. Astonishingly, the Danish state has given the Aljomaih group an incredible start by promising to buy all its children’s vaccines from the sheikh for the first 30 months. Only after that will Danish authorities be able to buy their children’s vaccines elsewhere. The Danish government has also promised the Aljomaih group not to create new Danish state vaccine production for the first three years.

When asked whether Danes were in favor or against the sale, 95% were against it. 

Clearly their valid concerns were completely ignored.

And so, Danish consumers are now supposed to trust “a Saudi owned conglomerate, which employs jihadists such as Usmani, which donates heavily to jihadist organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood, which in turn wants to bring about a caliphate.”

And the Danish government cannot claim ignorance of the ties between the Muslim Brotherhood and Aljomaih since all relevant information is readily available on the internet.

A lame excuse given by the Danish Health Minister is that 600 Danish jobs have now been saved in light of this sale.

Bioterrorism in the form of vaccines has long been of concern to terrorist experts.  For example, “Hezbollah’s infiltration into the pharmaceutical industry illustrates the danger posed by the marriage of terrorism and crime, which arises both from enhanced resources for terrorism, and from the corruption of a legitimate and necessary industry.”

Melissa Hersh writes, “[t]errorists are increasingly exploiting vulnerabilities in our global vaccine systems and denying vaccines for preventable diseases. This terrorism-disease nexus has the potential to not only be a humanitarian crisis in places rife with radicalization, but also [to] serve as a potential source for radicalization to gain a stronger foothold in new recruits.”  Thus, “in violent extremist-occupied areas in Afghanistan, Nigeria, Pakistan, and Somalia, fatwas supporting vaccine bans have been instituted. Suspected bans also exist in parts of Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Equatorial Guinea, Cameroon and Ethiopia. In effect, violent extremists are using biological warfare against their own people. In some cases radicals have even suggested that children who die or become paralyzed from vaccine bans are to achieve the status of martyrs.” Moreover, “violent extremists, in addition to intentionally denying their populations access to vaccines for preventable diseases, also kill teams of health care workers dedicated to promoting community health.”  

Consequently, “this is not just a potential public health emergency; this is potentially a threat to global security.” As Hersh asserts, “[w]hile one suicide bomber can kill dozens, or even hundreds, of people, and 19 suicide attackers killed more than 3,000 in the 9/11 attacks, should public health and vaccine programs become ineffective due to denial, ignorance or degradation [then] millions may die. Those that live may suffer chronic illnesses, disability and infertility. Attempting to weaken the resolve of ‘the West’ and other alleged ‘apostates’ through the use of such asymmetric tactics, must not be allowed to continue.”

That Denmark should have made it so easy to harm its own citizens is unconscionable.  It is sheer madness whose effects will be easily traced to this dangerous decision on the part of the Danish government.  As Europe continues to acquiesce to jihadist terrorists, bioterrorism will certainly manifest itself in many different varieties.

Eileen can be reached at middlemarch18@gmail.com

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/02/vaccines_and_terrorism.html#ixzz4a8cUlmAK
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Originally posted on the American Thinker

H/t: Paul Nehlen

InfoWars Press Conference Coverage Round-Up

RFK JR: TRUMP SAYS HE WILL NOT BACK DOWN FROM PHARMA ON VACCINE SAFETY
Highlights from the Kennedy, DeNiro press conference on vaccine safety
2-22-17-kennedy

Autism Investigated Note: Alex Jones’ InfoWars has done excellent coverage of the vaccine safety issue, the election and President Trump, unlike fake news media. Below are some recent videos from their report on Robert De Niro and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s press conference in Washington D.C. Autism Investigated plans to publicize future reports from InfoWars and Alex Jones as they are released.

From the Q & A of the Kennedy, DeNiro press conference, Robert F Kennedy Jr. relays the meetings and phone calls he has had with president Donald Trump over creating a vaccine safety commission.

 

Full Press Conference: Robert De Niro & Robert F Kennedy Jr. Offer $100k Vaccine Challenge

Robert De Niro and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. held a press conference in Washington D.C. to offer $100k to anyone who can prove that mercury in vaccines is safe to administer to children.

Is Vaccine-Linked Autism About To Be Exposed?

 

Trump’s Position On Vaccination Is Spot On: Roger Stone

Subscribe to Trump Revolution TV on YouTube

Originally posted on InfoWars

Robert De Niro: “Anti-Vax” Attack is “Baloney”

Autism Investigated Note: Without the anti-vaccination movements of the 19th and early 20th centuries introducing such novelties as federal safety standards and recognition of basic human rights that health boards must respect, the later successes attributed to vaccination would have been impossible.

Sharyl: Environmental lawyer Robert F. Kennedy Jr. briefed members of Congress on Capitol Hill. Pushing them to investigate an untouchable subject: the safety of vaccines. Kennedy is going against the grain of the government and medical establishment, which have long insisted there’s no scientific reason to be concerned about vaccine side effects. Earlier, he held a news conference alongside a diverse group of vaccine safety advocates. He says the Trump transition team contacted him with the idea of forming an independent scientific commission on vaccine safety.

Sharyl: Kennedy personally met with Trump last month. But after Kennedy talked to the press about it he says the Trump administration walked back the plan.

Kennedy: I’ve been contacted three times by the administration since then. And they tell me that they’re still going forward with a commission. But all I can say is to tell you what the president told me. He specifically told me that he knew that the pharmaceutical industry was going to cause an uproar about this and was gonna try to make him back down and he said “I’m not gonna back down.” They tried during the campaign and I didn’t back down then, and I’m not gonna back down. But I can’t tell you what will happen.

Sharyl: After the news conference I spoke with Robert De Niro who has a teenage son with a neurodevelopmental disorder.

Sharyl: Can you review what got you interested in this issue?

Robert De Niro: Well, I mean I never was really that aware though other than my own son was in the spectrum and didn’t even really think much about even why he was that way. But as time went on I realized in talking to my wife she said “no, he was like this” and there was a period I wasn’t there when he was just born and she said he was very alert, and if I know anything I know her knowing our son. I know him so well myself but she knows certain other things that I felt she might be right.

Sharyl: Can you give me just a short paragraph or two on your son?

De Niro: He’s almost 19 and he’s a wonderful kid, got a great sense of humor. In many ways I feel very lucky that he is so articulate in certain ways but definitely he’s within the spectrum. And that’s just what it is. And so the only people who really understand are people who have children in that situation.

Sharyl: The position of the government and many scientists is that this is a settled issue it’s a disproved myth and there’s nothing to it. What would you say to that?

De Niro: Well I would say okay but then who settled it? How was it settled? Where is the science as Bobby Kennedy says? Where’s the science? Here’s what we have from all these studies and here’s what they have. So it seems that something is not right.

Sharyl: Are you behind the idea of forming some sort of scientific commission that would independently take a look at this?

De Niro: Sure, absolutely, an independent commission. There has to be.

Sharyl: And for clarity, a lot of people whether they are scientists or parents who question the safety of vaccines and what’s happened to their children, they’re called anti vaccine.

De Niro: Yes.

Sharyl: Are you anti vaccine?

De Niro: No I’m not anti vaccine, and as Bobby Kennedy said very eloquently, that’s that’s like a witch, you know You’re a witch! It’s like the Salem witch trials, all of a sudden you’re anti-vax. That’s a lot of baloney, a lot of malarkey. That’s ridiculous. I’m not anti-vax. I take vaccines all the time and my kids have gotten vaccinated. But there’s something wrong and it’s gotta be fixed.

Addendum: Originally posted on Full Measure.

AUTISTIC RIGHTS TOGETHER CASTRATES AUTISTS

fiona-o-leary

Fiona O’Leary, leader of Autistic Rights Together, which supports autistics going “trans” to mutilate their genitals and take dangerous levels of hormones

The neurodiverse front group Autistic Rights Together led by Irish nut Fiona O’Leary is trying to discredit the documentary Vaxxed: From Cover-up to Catastrophe by making tenuous associations with a water purifier given as a treatment to autistic kids with gastrointestinal illnesses. Yet these same people who claim to stand up for autistics by protecting them from “dangerous” medical practices support them mutilating their own genitals to undergo “sex-reassignment surgery”.

Last year, Emma Dalmayne – one of O’Leary’s close confidants – actually wrote a blog post for which she interviewed three “trans autistics” and introduced by writing:

You’re a transgender individual and coming out as such can prove just how little support is in place with the government failing consistently to provide services and GP’s failing to take you seriously.

Those “services” would be the genital mutilation and hormone injections that come with undergoing “sex-reassignment”. Then last month Dalmayne reiterated her position in a tweet to Fiona O’Leary:

Yet these same women who claim to be crusaders for autists by opposing what they call “dangerous” alternative treatments for autism support the mutilation of autists who clearly have more wrong with them than just their autism. Not surprisingly, O’Leary and Dalmayne did not take well to having their hypocrisy pointed out to them and were easily triggered:

No thank you, Emma.

Jason Chaffetz Triggers Liberal Snowflakes on Vaccine Dangers

chaffetz

Congressman Chaffetz reacts to snowflake audience getting triggered after he tried explaining to them the concerns raised about vaccine injuries. Other triggers for this audience include but are not limited to: being told the president will be held to the standard of the law and being reminded about where their electricity comes from.

You gotta hand it to Jason Chaffetz. Being a congressman is hard work, but not many things demonstrate that like the town hall full of whiny cry-babies he had to deal with on Thursday night. Among the things the audience gave him crap for: investigating the government cover-up of vaccine dangers.

But it was the entire hour-and-a-half town hall that was difficult to watch, not just the audience’s ignorance on vaccination harms. Chaffetz was shouted down throughout the entire event simply for stating his opinion on a number of issues when asked by the audience. They even shouted him down right after he told an emotional story about losing both parents to cancer. That’s how insufferable these people were.

One so-called teacher asked how she is supposed to “teach” her students about “safe spaces” when the nation isn’t a safe space. Lady, you shouldn’t “teach” students about safe spaces precisely because this nation is not a safe space. Your job is not to give students an earload of make-believe, your job is to teach them.

I was already itching to stop playing the YouTube when at the end, some overweight, neurodiverse autist who clearly couldn’t control his own hand-movements asked a question about the president’s “BS” opinion regarding vaccines. As soon as Chaffetz discussed how concerns were brought to his office, the audience got triggered once again: “Noooooooooooooo!!!! Science! Science! Science!!!!”

Although there is virtually nothing else that the audience full of dirty hippies, feminist harpies and neurodiverse nitwits said in response that is audible, one of those snowflakes alleged the following was asked:

Why yes, as a matter of fact – his name is William Thompson, and he still works as a senior scientist for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. What better way to shut these infantilized protesters down than to subpoena him and have him tell the truth under oath? Okay – maybe not shut down, just expose as being even thicker than they come across.

After all, they may never stop crying over this…

So pleased she is not the President. I thanked her for her service and wished her luck. The investigation continues.

A photo posted by Jason Chaffetz (@jasoninthehouse) on

#MAGA

Related:

My Final Exchange with Dan Olmsted: Leaving Progressivism

Vaccines – Tantrum-Based Medicine

Neurodiversity is Social Justice Cancer

Dan Olmsted Exposes Evil “Journalist” for What He Is

It is with great sadness that Autism Investigated relays the announcement that Dan Olmsted – Age of Autism’s founding editor – has passed away. While I have had my differences with him and the Age of Autism site, I will be forever grateful to him for his friendship, advice and platform for my views. I’ve always respected him as a journalist and have never forgotten the excellent work he has done over the years, and I just had a very friendly exchange with him on the day of the inauguration. I will never stop missing him and offer my sincere condolences to the entire Age of Autism team. Autism Investigated will devote the entire week to posts honoring Dan Olmsted, including a proper obituary. May we all honor Dan Olmsted’s life by ending the autism epidemic to make America great again! – Jake Crosby, MPH

“Who Can Say?” — Journalist Who Alleged Wakefield Committed Fraud Backs Off Key Claim

By Dan Olmsted

Brian Deer, the British journalist who claimed researcher Andrew Wakefield committed fraud by linking the MMR vaccine to autism, now admits one of his key allegations against Wakefield may be flat-out wrong. Yet he insists it’s no big deal — that it does nothing to undercut his claim that Wakefield is “an elaborate fraud.”

“Not one of the children were reported on truthfully. Wakefield lied again and again,” journalist Brian Deer said in his post on Saturday, referring to Wakefield 12-child case series published in the Lancet in 1998.  But in the same post, Deer acknowledged that, contrary to his previous reporting, he is now unsure whether Wakefield falsely changed the timing of the MMR shot to put it before the autism symptoms began in a key case.

“Who can say?” Deer wrote Saturday.

The allegation that Wakefield reversed the timing of the shot — clear evidence of fraud, if true — was  featured in detail as the shocking opening to Deer’s 2012 series in the British Medical Journal titled “How the Case Against the MMR Was Fixed.”

Child 11’s autism symptoms developed “two months earlier than reported in the Lancet, and a month before the boy had MMR,” Deer reported, “too soon” to be the cause. That “must have been a disappointment” to Wakefield, who proceeded to switch the sequence to suit his bias, Deer wrote. The father angrily “spotted the anomaly” after Deer identified and interviewed him, but  “needn’t have worried” that Wakefield would get away with it: “My investigation of the MMR issue exposed the frauds behind Wakefield’s research.”

But on Saturday, after I showed that Deer is the one who got the sequence wrong – that the shot indisputably did come first, followed by the development of regressive autism — Deer wrote: “Who can say, years later?” In fact, I can say: The father, whom I also identified and interviewed, wrote Wakefield as early as 1997, and contemporaneous medical records establish, that the child got the MMR at 15 months, became sick for several months, developed autism symptoms by 18 months, and was given a formal autism diagnosis at age 3. The father has always said he believes the shot caused all those consequences — none of which Deer managed to reflect in his own investigation despite interviewing and e-mailing with Father 11 over an extended period of time.

The fact that a core element of his claim of research fraud is now a matter of uncertainty to Deer, the only man who made it, is a remarkable development under any circumstance, but considering the impact the claim has had on the autism debate in subsequent years, it is extraordinary. The claim has been used by officials around the world to say concerns about autism and vaccines have been “debunked” because they originated from a fraudulent research report. A typical example: Senator Dianne Feinstein of California wrote a constituent last week: “I understand that many parents are also concerned that vaccines may cause autism. This claim was published in 1998, in an article in the Lancet, a British medical journal. The researcher who authored the article was later found to have deliberately falsified data to produce a fraudulent link …”

Equally striking is how little its accuracy seems to matter to Deer, convinced as he is that Wakefield’s status as a charlatan is beyond dispute, even if such a central “fact” no longer supports it.

Deer, a veteran newspaper correspondent who, as he frequently points out, has won numerous prestigious journalism awards including the British equivalent of the Pulitzer Prize for his Wakefield investigation, on Saturday offered no convincing reason for how he could have gotten something so central to his fraud claim against Wakefield so wrong. Instead he portrayed the father’s account as a “competing” explanation to the one Deer had independently settled on, based on a couple of unrelated court documents that led him to falsely infer that the autism symptoms preceded the shot in Child 11. Standard journalistic practice would be to check that assumption against the other, far more dispositive evidence that refuted it, and with the child’s father, who subsequently told me: “Mr. Deer’s article makes me appear irrational for continuing to believe that the MMR caused difficulties which predated its administration.”

Instead, on Saturday Deer sneered at the messenger – me – as he staged a full-scale retreat from the facts, using Father 11’s acknowledged but irrelevant antipathy toward Wakefield as cover. He called me “an undistinguished former journalist” who now runs a website “largely funded by anti-vaccine profiteers,” claiming that I had been “dumped some years ago from his post as a copy editor for a news agency owned by the Rev Sun Myung Moon – himself convicted of fraud … Olmsted has since sought a livelihood from his website, misleading vulnerable parents of children with autism. …  He sought to profit with his website by lying to parents whom he disgustingly purports to champion” and followed “British research cheat” Wakefield “into the toilet.”

Whatever. On Saturday Deer also tried to elevate a secondary issue – how long after the shot the autism symptoms occurred in Child 11 – into a replacement for his now-discredited claim that the entire sequence was reversed, an incomparably more serious and black-and-white issue. 

Ultimately, Deer suggested, the truth is unknowable.

“The father says one thing, the medical records another,” as Deer put it on Saturday. In fact, the father says one thing, and the medical records back him. (That does not mean the vaccine caused the autism, of course, but it does mean the father believed it did, and that Wakefield got the sequence right.) Only Deer’s idiosyncratic and journalistically unjustified misuse of a couple of stray medical records, unchecked by the reality described by everyone else, says another.

As I’ve shown in a 10-part series,  this tendentious approach applies to the entirety of Deer’s reporting on Wakefield, including Deer’s accusation that in five of the 12 children – Child 11 included – autism symptoms occurred before the shots were given. In fact, those cases are no more illustrative of Deer’s allegation of the shot-symptoms sequence than Child 11. Nonetheless, when one “fact” starts to wobble, Deer refers to all the other facts that have not been as closely scrutinized as if they offer some sort of collective support – “Of course, my reports did not hinge on child 11, or on any individual case,” he said Saturday. “As explained in the most detailed account of Wakefield’s grotesque misconduct, it rested on the findings (as the BMJ noted) that not one of the children were reported upon truthfully. Wakefield lied and lied again.”And if that’s not enough, well, Wakefield’s license to practice medicine was revoked and the Lancet paper was retracted (largely based on the “facts” Deer alleged).At some point, though, Deer’s claims – or anyone else’s – must hinge on the facts of individual cases if they are to add up to widely accepted evidence of “Wakefield’s grotesque misconduct.” Just saying so doesn’t make it so; referring to “lie after lie” doesn’t constitute “an elaborate fraud” unless each “lie” can be shown to be exactly that. (Deer’s piece on my own reporting was titled, “Dan Olmsted lies for research doctor.” One is tempted to rewrite the headline as “Lying Undistinguished Former Journalist Lies for Lying Research Fraud Wakefield.”)The timing of shots and symptoms in just 12 children more than a decade ago may seem trivial, but the issue is anything but arcane. Millions of cases of autism have occurred since 1998, when Wakefield sounded what he believed was an “early warning” of a possible link between vaccination and autism that required further research and led to his suggestion that until that was complete, the M, M, and R in the MMR should be given separately. Thousands of parents have subsequently described such an outcome, but because Wakefield has supposedly been “discredited” and his work “debunked” — by Brian Deer — that and other evidence have been dismissed.

I first wrote about Deer’s investigation in 2012. Let me again spell out what I learned from Father 11 and how it differed from Deer’s account.

I met Father 11, who like Deer I identified from my own independent reporting, at a Peet’s Coffee shop in an affluent, picture-perfect Southern California enclave, and we sat outside in the mid-60s sunshine he jokingly called “a little frosty.” A wealthy businessman who lives in a gated community nearby, he wore a light jacket emblazoned with “Cal,” for the University of California at Berkeley where he got an engineering degree. He carried a thin file folder and a spiral notebook.

In this laid-back setting, it was hard to grasp the role he and his family have played in one of the major medical controversies of our time, one that unfolded in a foggy city 6,000 miles to the east.

This father is Deer’s best witness among the parents of the 12 children described in the Lancet paper – in fact, his only one, the lone parent who is hostile to Wakefield, not just a little frosty, but coldly angry. His anonymous comments to Deer in the BMJ seemed to fully support the January 5, 2011, cover story: “Secrets of the MMR Scare: How the Case Against the MMR Was Fixed.”

“My investigation of the MMR issue exposed the frauds behind Wakefield’s research,” wrote the ludicrously self-aggrandizing correspondent.

Child 11, in fact, was Deer’s opening into fraud. He was among those “whose parents apparently blamed MMR,” but Deer commented acidly that “Child 11’s case must have been a disappointment. Records show his behavioural symptoms began too soon.” [Italics in original] Deer quoted from a Royal Free Hospital discharge summary: “His developmental milestones were normal until 13 months of age. In the period 13-18 months he developed slow speech patterns and repetitive hand movements. Over this period his parents remarked on his slow gradual deterioration.”

Deer summarized: “That put the symptom two months earlier than reported in the Lancet, and a month before the boy had MMR. And this was not the only anomaly to catch the father’s eye. …” (Note that it is Deer, not the discharge paper, saying the symptoms came “a month before the boy had MMR.”)

Well yes, if you’ve got a parent saying that a child developed autism before he got the MMR shot, and you’ve got a research paper saying the opposite and suggesting a link between the shot and the disorder, and pulling the same stunt with several other children, you’ve got your fraud right there.

The BMJ report was the coup de grace for serious consideration of a link between vaccines and autism. Wakefield was “convicted of fraud,” wrote Time magazine in an article titled “The Dangers of the Antivaccine Movement.” An editorial in The New York Times, titled Autism Fraud,noted Britain’s General Medical Council had already stripped Wakefield of his medical license, and the Lancet retracted the paper: “Now the British Medical Journal has taken the extraordinary step of publishing a lengthy report by Brian Deer, the British investigative journalist who first brought the paper’s flaws to light — and has put its own reputation on the line by endorsing his findings.”

Indeed it did.

“Clear evidence of falsification of data should now close the door on this damaging vaccine scare,” Editor in Chief Fiona Godlee wrote. She said “there is no doubt it was Wakefield” who was responsible for the “elaborate fraud,” despite having 12 co-authors.H

old the door, please. I was about to learn that Deer’s explosive claim about Child 11 – Exhibit A in this alleged hoax — was false. And that was just the first step of my journey into a world where things were not at all as they seemed.

The father opened the file folder – guarding the papers against a fickle coastal breeze — and showed me a letter he had written on January 1, 1997, to “Dr. Andrew Wakefield, Royal Free Hospital, London, England.”“My son [name deleted] at age 15 months, was immunized with the Merck MMR vaccine and became ill for the next several months,” the letter began.“As his pediatric records indicate he came down with a viral infection, and shortly thereafter viral pneumonia. His condition slowly deteriorated over time, and was diagnosed as being autistic on his birthday at age 3. The onset of his autistic behavior began around 18 months. … He was diagnosed as moderate to severe, with no speech, no eye contact, and cognitive function at 6 months overall.”

Multiple specialists in the United States confirmed the autism diagnosis, the letter added, as well as their suspicions of the MMR vaccine as the cause. Further workups in California also revealed “indeterminant inflammatory bowel disease” — the dual syndrome Wakefield was then investigating at the Royal Free. That was why the father wanted the hospital’s pediatric gastroenterologists to evaluate his child.

So – first came the shot, then the symptoms. The father’s account, and medical records created before he got anywhere near Wakefield, could not be clearer. But didn’t he tell Brian Deer exactly the opposite, as recounted in the opening of the BMJ cover story? And didn’t a hospital record confirm that?

No. And no.

Though you’d never know it, the father was actually disputing how long after the shot specific symptoms occurred. In fact, the father did directly blame the MMR for causing his son’s illnesses and autistic regression – a fact that appears to have escaped Deer’s notice, or at least acknowledgement.

Yes, the father was angry at Wakefield. Yes, he disagreed with other points, some of them unrelated to the content of the Lancet article. But no – he did not say that the symptoms came before the shot. That was not an “anomaly” in the Lancet paper that caught his eye, as Deer wrote.

And the discharge document itself? It was simply wrong, one of thousands of pieces of paper generated by many medical personnel in a complicated medical case stretching over many years; perhaps the “13-18 months” was a typo for “15-18,” since that is what the father had reported all along. Regardless, the father says he never told Deer that the symptoms came first, and there is no evidence to the contrary. Deer apparently did not bother to check that one piece of paper against the large volume of other evidence, or to confirm it with the father, or to make sure that his own claim that symptoms began “a month before the boy had MMR” coincided with any actual chronology.

As far as I can tell, no one on the planet — no doctor, no parent, no document – has ever said Child 11 was anything but healthy and developing normally before the MMR. No one, that is, but Brian Deer in the BMJ. And here we see Deer at work: Because Wakefield was by definition a fraud – because Deer said so – any discrepancies between data in the Lancet paper and any other source was proof against Wakefield. One document says 13-18 months for the period of regression? That was evidence enough that Wakefield “used bogus data … to manufacture a link” between the MMR and autism.

To my surprise as we sat outside in Southern California, the father told me he hadn’t read the BMJ article, and he declined my offer to quote from it or have him read it during our visit. He would rather lay out the sequence in his own words, he told me.

That turned out to be a useful approach.

His son had been completely healthy and developing normally, he said, until the MMR shot at 15 months triggered a downhill progression.

“I very much believe it,” he said about the relationship of the shot to the symptoms: The measles component of the vaccine triggered an immune deficiency that produced the cascade of devastating physical and mental problems. This, in fact, was Wakefield’s provisional hypothesis.

How did Brian Deer miss all this? How did he misrepresent the core of the alleged fraud and claim the symptoms came before the shot? How did he rely on the father to rage against Wakefield but completely omit the fact he believed his child’s autism did not just come after the vaccine but was caused by it?

Who can say?

Dan Olmsted is Editor of Age of Autism.

Originally posted on Age of Autism

Dan Olmsted Rips Crooked Hillary Clinton

hillary-clinton-liar-1-e1466677185828

It is with great sadness that Autism Investigated relays the announcement that Dan Olmsted – Age of Autism’s founding editor – has passed away. While I have had my differences with him and the Age of Autism site, I will be forever grateful to him for his friendship, advice and platform for my views. I’ve always respected him as a journalist and have never forgotten the excellent work he has done over the years, and I just had a very friendly exchange with him on the day of the inauguration. I will never stop missing him and offer my sincere condolences to the entire Age of Autism team. Autism Investigated will devote the entire week to posts honoring Dan Olmsted, including a proper obituary. May we all honor Dan Olmsted’s life by ending the autism epidemic to make America great again! – Jake Crosby, MPH

Weekly Wrap: Bait and Switch

By Dan Olmsted

‘Bout spit up my ginger ale Monday night when I saw an ad from Hillary Clinton taking on Donald Trump for his arm-flapping imitation of a disabled reporter — Trump claims he didn’t remember the reporter and was just lampooning his excitedness, not his illness.

The Hillary ad’s mom said, “It’s not uncommon for autistic kids to flap their hands,” showing a teenage boy doing just that. “When I saw that [Trump], that was completely disqualifying. I’m a Republican, but this election is so much more than party. My son Max can’t live in Trump world, so I’m crossing Party Lines and voting for Hillary. I don’t always agree with her, but she’s reasonable, she’s smart, people can work with her to solve problems. I want to be able to tell kids that I did the right thing when it really mattered.”

Oh gosh, well, where to start. Many AOA readers will regard the idea that Hillary is looking out for autistic kids as a canard, to use one of my favorite words for a lie, a fable, a hoary bit of nonsense. Without her resolute “sky is blue” defense of vaccines and her government-heavy intervention in children’s health in the 1990s — progressives always know what’s best, and especially love hepping de chewdwen — we might not have an epidemic to begin with, or at least we might have stopped it earlier, which would have really helped kids. Right now about a trillion dollars would be a nice round figure for the kind of help that’s needed.

So yes, galling. But somehow I find even more annoying the elision of the reporter’s disability, a joint abnormality, with autism. I mean, the mom didn’t exactly say it was the same thing, and the point was kind of the same, but the idea was clearly left that Trump was mocking a child with autism. Which, again, is kind of maddening as his view that vaccines cause autism is exactly correct, and Hillary’s claim that they don’t is exactly wrong.

Is it any wonder we’re going half mad this election season, or half of us are going mad and the other half are just mad, or whatever? Don’t take advantage of autism, OK?

Dan Olmsted is Editor of Age of Autism.

Originally posted on Age of Autism

FAKE NEWS REVEALED, Part II: The Ghostwriter Behind The Kennedy Retraction

static2.politico

Scott Rosenberg, ghostwriter behind Kennedy retraction

With President-Elect Trump’s consideration of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as chair of a committee on vaccine safety and scientific integrity, the shills of fake news have been relentlessly trying to convince Trump’s team to reconsider. The most widely circulated argument has been Salon.com’s retraction of Kennedy’s article “Deadly Immunitywhere he wrote on the government cover-up of the dangers of the mercury-based vaccine preservative thimerosal. The retraction was based on a bogus rumor that Rolling Stone secretly retracted Kennedy’s article and was later condemned as editorial cowardice” by Salon.com’s founding editor-in-chief David Talbot. But now there is even more news that should bury the retraction of Kennedy’s work once and for all in this exclusive two-part series by Autism Investigated: the Salon.com editor-in-chief who took credit for the retraction of Deadly Immunity didn’t even read it, didn’t write its retraction statement and didn’t interview the person who started the rumor as portrayed on Salon.com. The first part of the series provided proof that he didn’t, this second part reveals who did.

That person is the MediaShift blogger whom the editor-in-chief misrepresented Kennedy’s article to in Part I: former Salon.com managing editor Scott Rosenberg. Rosenberg attended theScience Online 2011 annual conference with the Rolling Stone rumor-starter Seth Mnookin. The event ran from January 13-15 right before the article was retracted on the 16th. Both Mnookin and Rosenberg had books of theirs featured at the conference:

Scott Rosenberg – Not Kerry Lauerman – Interviewed Seth Mnookin

Rosenberg was also still contributing to Salon through 2011 when Kennedy’s piece was retracted. Yet Rosenberg would never disclose that in his MediaShift blog about Salon’s retraction of Kennedy’s article weeks later. Seth Mnookin’s first tweet about Salon’s interview used Science Online 2011 hashtag #scio11 – specifically for tweets Science Online meeting commentary and follow-up discussions – even though Lauerman was never at the conference while Rosenberg was:

 That was the first and last tweet by Mnookin about Salon’s coverage of his book and the removal of Kennedy’s article using the #scio11 hashtag. The purpose of the #scio11 hashtag according to a conference attendee was to denote tweets about Science Online 2011 “meeting commentary and follow-up discussions” by conference participants:”One goal of the conference was to be as inclusive as possible by livestreaming several of the sessions online and encouraging liberal use of the Twitter hashtag, #scio11, for meeting commentary and follow-up discussions.” Mnookin was also trying to score interviews at Science Online 2011 to pitch his book prior to the conference:

A Twitter search for both Mnookin and Rosenberg’s Twitter handles reveals substantial interaction between them at Science Online 2011, as well as Rosenberg tweeting about Salon’s retraction of his piece almost immediately after it happened. In contrast – Lauerman had no participation in Science Online 2011; a search with the #scio11 hashtag and his twitter handle yields nothing. Lauerman was not even in virtual attendance, despite it being an option for conference participants who could not physically be at the conference. He simply was not there at all.

Lauerman’s Motive For Retraction: Payback to Rosenberg in Exchange for Career Advancement

Kerry Lauerman had quite a rapport with Scott Rosenberg going back many years, specifically concerning the project Lauerman launched that was Rosenberg’s idea. This is what Rosenberg said about Lauerman in 2008:

“The Open Salon that opens its doors today — it’s been in private beta for a while — is an outgrowth of the work I did back then, but of course over the past year the project has evolved much further…It’s the work of Kerry Lauerman and his team — and, now that the participants are using it, it’s in the hands of Salon’s readers the people formerly known as Salon’s readers, to make of it something new and exciting.”

The implementation of Rosenberg’s idea by Lauerman was followed by his rapid accession to editor-in-chief just two years later. So naturally, Lauerman would feel indebted to Rosenberg which would in turn be a motive for Lauerman having Kennedy’s article retracted to please Rosenberg if Lauerman felt Rosenberg’s idea got him the highest editorial position. Lauerman not having personally interviewed Mnookin, read Kennedy’s piece or wrote Salon.com‘s retraction statement would also explain why Lauerman refused to even take Kennedy’s calls the night Lauerman told Kennedy via email that Salon.com would retract his piece on the night of the 15th – the last night of the conference attended by Mnookin and Rosenberg. 

Interestingly – following the retraction – Rosenberg went on to run the annual Science Online conferences regularly attended by Mnookin until the organization became insolvent and shut down in 2014. Lauerman did not read Kennedy’s article when it was pulled, did not interview Mnookin and likely yanked “Deadly Immunity” as a favor for a friend with strong Mnookin connections. Yet now years later, the result of this crooked behavior is used as justification to block Robert F. Kennedy Jr. from becoming chair of a badly needed commission to stop the ongoing harm being committed against innocent infants. Fortunately, the president-elect and the vice president-elect both seem pretty happy to have Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on their team.

TrumpKennedyPence-590x443

*Please send this article to the president-elect and vice president-elect*

FAKE NEWS REVEALED, Part I: Salon Editor Who “Retracted” Kennedy’s Article Didn’t Even Read It

KerryLauerman_writer

Kerry Lauerman, Salon.com editor-in-chief who deleted Robert F. Kennedy Jr. ‘s article without even reading it, is now executive “news” editor of Mic.

With President-Elect Trump’s consideration of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as chair of a committee on vaccine safety and scientific integrity, the shills of fake news have been relentlessly trying to convince Trump’s team to reconsider. The most widely circulated argument has been Salon.com’s retraction of Kennedy’s article “Deadly Immunity”where he wrote on the government cover-up of the dangers of the mercury-based vaccine preservative thimerosal. The retraction was based on a bogus rumor that Rolling Stone secretly retracted Kennedy’s article and was later condemned as editorial cowardice” by Salon.com’s founding editor-in-chief David Talbot. But now there is even more news that should bury the retraction of Kennedy’s work once and for all in this exclusive two-part series by Autism Investigated: the Salon.com editor-in-chief who took credit for the retraction of “Deadly Immunity” didn’t even read it, didn’t write its retraction statement and didn’t interview the person who started the rumor as portrayed on the site. This first part of the series provides proof that he didn’t, the second part will reveal who did.

That editor, Kerry Lauerman, has since made quite a career out of running outlets that delivered fake news. In 2014 he was hired by The Washington Post and in 2015 was made the newspaper’s National Projects Editor. Among Lauerman’s roles, according to the newspaper, would be “the planning, execution and coverage of some critically important events during the political year, such as the presidential debate and forum we’re co-sponsoring with Univision, and in guiding our preparations for the political conventions.” During that stint of Lauerman’s at WaPo, the now-president-elect stripped the newspaper of its press credentials because of its dishonest reporting.

Then the month before the election, Lauerman left the newspaper to become executive “news” editor of Mic – a creepy far-left site aimed at millennials that makes sensationalized stories out of the way men sit in subways. He still edits Micwhere he now pushes garbage rumors about the president-elect while he still attacks Kennedy.

Proof Lauerman Didn’t Read “Deadly Immunity”

A blog post for MediaShift dated January 24, 2011 provided a quote of Lauerman’s following the retraction. It proves Lauerman’s basic grasp of both the article and the context of the Kennedy quote he provided was so poor, Lauerman could not have read the article he censored:  

“It’s a seriously flawed story we feared could do real harm. People who have bought into the anti-vaccine panic have created a health crisis, and a flawed report that feeds that hysteria poses a real threat. With this particular story, the unproven logic that animates the piece — as when Kennedy says the link between thimerosal and the epidemic of childhood neurological disorders is real’ — is not easily excisable, and no matter how many editor’s notes or Drudge-like, red-flashing sirens you place on a story to warn readers, there will be those who will take a well-known, respected American at his word. We simply didn’t think it was worth that risk.” (boldface mine) 

How Lauerman quoted Kennedy’s article to justify its retraction completely contradicts how the retraction statement quoted that same sentence in his article on Salon.com:   

In 2005, Salon published online an exclusive story by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. that offered an explosive premise: that the mercury-based thimerosal compound present in vaccines until 2001 was dangerous, and that he was convinced that the link between thimerosal and the epidemic of childhood neurological disorders is real.” (boldface mine)

The intro to Salon.com’s interview with Seth Mnookin – news fabricator extraordinaire who started the rumor that Rolling Stone canned Kennedy’s article – also contradicts the context in which Lauerman quoted Kennedy:  

In 2005, we published a report, “Deadly Immunity,” by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. that appeared in Rolling Stone magazine (Salon had a co-publishing arrangement with the magazine at the time), in which Kennedy wrote that he became convinced that the link between thimerosal [a mercury-based compound once used in vaccines] and the epidemic of childhood neurological disorders is real” (boldface mine)

The only apparent place that misleadingly quoted Kennedy’s article the same way Lauerman did in 2011 was a CBS Moneywatch piece that also helped spread the false rumor that Rolling Stone pulled Kennedy’s article. That would mean Lauerman only read that piece instead of actually reading Deadly Immunity”.  And as one can see from a search result, there do not appear to be any other January 2011 sources that chopped the quote from Kennedy’s article to look like an absolute statement the way Lauerman did. The only way for Lauerman to have reasonably misrepresented Kennedy’s piece and quoted it out of context the way he did would have been for Lauerman not to have read his article and to have only read the CBS Moneywatch article with the chopped quote from Kennedy’s piece. Had Lauerman even bothered to read “Deadly Immunity”, he would know that his whole claimed pretense for retracting it was totally false. But the facts didn’t matter to him, as they continue to not matter to Salon.com. 

Since his reasoning is contradicted by both the retraction statement and the Salon.com interview as well, that would mean Lauerman did not write or conduct them either. But if he didn’t do either for Salon.com, who did? That will be revealed in Part II of this series, where the ghostwriter will be outed.

TrumpKennedyPence-590x443

*Please send this article to the president-elect and vice president-elect*