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

66 Thoughts on “Emily Willingham: Forbes’ Formerly Contributing “Contributor”

  1. Rebecca Fisher on November 24, 2014 at 11:11 am said:

    As I understand it, the lawsuit against Ms Willingham has only been threatened, and the one against the BMJ has been thrown out. Both were brought by your erstwhile friend Andrew Wakefield, a man with a history of failed and vexatious libel actions. Or are you referring to some other libel suits?

    Kind regards,

    Becky

    • I’m just going by what it says on the Sense About Science website. It is also my understanding that he is trying to petition for more time to file an appeal, although I have no idea if it will be successful.

      • Lawrence on November 24, 2014 at 3:56 pm said:

        @Jake – I believe Rebecca is right. Wakefield only “threatened” to sue Emily, but never actually got around to it.

        Perhaps you need to print a correction to your piece above. It also seems that a bit of “professional jealousy” is showing….what exactly does your article above have to do with anything other than appear to be a personal attack on Emily?

        • “She is facing a lawsuit for an article about the purported link between vaccines and autism.” – See more at: http://www.senseaboutscience.org/pages/maddox-prize-2014.html#sthash.qo3RzO7M.dpuf

          I’ll post a correction when Sense About Science posts a correction. I’m not personally attacking Emily Willingham, just pointing out the ridiculousness of her calling herself a contributor when it’s clear she’s no longer contributing anything. That’s someone I’d be embarrassed for, not jealous of.

          • Lawrence on November 24, 2014 at 8:41 pm said:

            @Jake – could just be that she’s in the process of working on new material….real journalists take time to check sources (and double-check them) as well as do the initial research, so it takes time.

            Just like a real journalist would have reached out to confirm whether or not a suit had been filed, rather than just regurgitate what someone else has written.

            When was the last time you actual fact-checked one of our pieces, Jake?

            • She has written four blog posts on her personal website since last month, none of which have appeared on Forbes.

              Believe it or not, this latest piece is the last one I’ve fact-checked. Willingham’s reaction to her award announcement on Twitter has been nothing short of a full-fledged endorsement. Two days after her article about Wakefield, he wrote her an open letter saying his lawyers “will be turning their attention to you well within the statute of limitations for filing a case against you and Forbes.” So from what both concerned parties are saying, Sense About Science’s statement about her facing a lawsuit is accurate.

              • Rebecca Fisher on November 25, 2014 at 8:10 am said:

                But right now there is no “libel suit against her”. There is a threat of a libel suit. There will be a libel suit against her if Wakefield decides to bring the one he has threatened, so in that case she’s “facing” a libel suit. But there is currently no libel suit. She is not being sued by Wakefield.

                The suit against the BMJ has been thrown out as the state in which Wakefield decided to sue (Texas) has no juristiction. So there is currently no suit. Wakefield may appeal, but there is currently no suit.

                As for not contributing, the team for which I work hasn’t produced an edition of our magazine for nearly three months – but we’ve all been contributing. The magazine’s a quarterly.

                Your piece *does* read as a “Emily Willingham is being sued, and so Forbes have dropped her ha ha” attack. If it’s not meant to be, I think you should clarify.

                • Well Sense About Science says she is facing a lawsuit, not a threat of one.

                  It’s a pretty safe bet Wakefield will appeal since he has petitioned for more time to file one. That petition, according to Narad, was granted.

                  Willingham’s Forbes blog was not a quarterly. I don’t think the lawsuit is the reason she is no longer writing there, and I don’t think that’s what my piece conveys. It was most likely due to a history of embarrassing misrepresentations in her reporting that were glaringly obvious even by Forbes’ standards. The article causing her to face a lawsuit is just one example.

                  • It’s a pretty safe bet Wakefield will appeal since he has petitioned for more time to file one.

                    Wakefield’s intent is to file a petition for review with SCOTX. It is not a “safe bet” by any stretch of the imagination that this will turn into what most people consider to be an appeal. The case has none of the indicia that tend to lead to successful petitions.

          • “She is facing a lawsuit for an article about the purported link between vaccines and autism.”

            This doesn’t mean there is a lawsuit, Jake. They’re easy enough to look up. There isn’t one. Recall Wakefield’s bumptious threat:

            “My lawyers are currently dealing with Deer and his co-defendants. They will be turning their attention to you well within the statute of limitations for filing a case against you and Forbes.”

            This is another one that would have zero chance of succeeding, although I’m sure that it would be hilarious once the Popehat signal went up.

            • Er, yeah it does. Otherwise, there would be nothing for her to face.

              • Er, yeah it does. Otherwise, there would be nothing for her to face.

                She is facing the threat of a lawsuit until the filing deadline expires. (And keep in mind that Wakefield pretty much always waits until the last minute.)

                Show me the lawsuit, Jake. It’s very easy: “Wakefield v. Forbes”? Nope, no search results. “Wakefield v. Willingham”? Nada. If you insist that, somehow, there must be an active lawsuit, where was it filed? There are only so many options, and all of them are searchable.

                • Then Sense About Science should say “threat of a lawsuit” instead of “a lawsuit” in its prize announcement, and she should make sure they get it right rather than circulate an erroneous statement about herself on Twitter. Other than Wakefield who told her she would be sued months ago, she should know better than anyone. If the statement about her is false and she is endorsing it anyway, then she really lacks basic standards of journalistic accuracy – especially for someone winning a prize for “standing up for science.”

                  I thought Wakefield’s lawsuit against BMJ was over because I couldn’t find any evidence he was trying to further appeal when I did a case search after the lower court’s dismissal was upheld. Turns out I was wrong, and now you tell me he was granted an extension to petition SCOTX to review his case. What the concerned parties say carries more weight with me than simply the lack of something turning up in a case search.

  2. Oh, and yes, the extension to file the petition was granted. It’s now due on December 3.

  3. jennifer on November 25, 2014 at 4:39 pm said:

    Andrew Wakefield has been threatening people with complaints and lawsuits since 1996 according to LBRB, and he has lost every single one of them.

  4. White Rose on November 25, 2014 at 5:20 pm said:

    Hey guys you must be so pleased about the business week revelation that 37% of indian married women have been sterilised ? And 29% of chinese married women ?
    and upset about the voluminous number of articles about the Kenya sterilisations ?

    BillyG & Melinda , you really need to put more money and resource into closing down the internet ,
    global internet censorship now – cant happen fast enough .

    How else are the Elite going to achieve their aim of a personal Global safari park !

    • justthestats on November 25, 2014 at 10:53 pm said:

      Hey guys you must be so pleased about the business week revelation that 37% of indian married women have been sterilised ? And 29% of chinese married women ?
      and upset about the voluminous number of articles about the Kenya sterilisations ?

      The Indian program has its problems, but is uncoerced. The Chinese one-child-per-couple policy is awful for numerous reasons. The alleged Kenyan involuntary program is based on a complete misunderstanding of test results. I’m not sure I see the connection between the three.

      The Kenyans based their allegations on the kooky idea that if a vial of vaccine comes up negative when you run a human pregnancy test on it then that means that it’s a sterilization vaccine. I imagine that if it came up pregnant they would have also alleged that it’s a sterilization vaccine, which means that they pretty much would have come up with the same conclusion regardless of what the evidence said.

      Oh wait, I do see the connection between the three. The Indian women generally choose to get sterilized so that they can take better care of their existing children. The Chinese one-child-per-couple policy is supposed to be so that those children have a better future. The Kenyan neonatal tetanus elimination program is to keep babies from dying an extremely painful death. People trying to improve the quality of life of children is the common thread.

      BillyG & Melinda , you really need to put more money and resource into closing down the internet ,

      You might not be aware of this, but closing the Internet down would probably lead to a big decrease in Bill and Melinda Gates’ personal wealth. They’re probably not too excited about trying that out.

      global internet censorship now – cant happen fast enough .
      How else are the Elite going to achieve their aim of a personal Global safari park !

      You might want to consider that the “Elite” realize that the source of their personal wealth is generally not other “Elite.”

    • Hey, can you post a link to that info? That’s terrible news.

  5. Doug Troutman on November 26, 2014 at 12:00 am said:

    Emily’s articles have reminded of Kathleen Siedel’s.

    • At least Emily Willingham has not tried to cause trouble for people she disagrees with the way Kathleen Seidel has, though they both lack basic standards of journalistic accuracy despite considering themselves “journalists.”

  6. Ew, the combination of that quote about unicorns, her picture and the fact of the kind of biased crap she writes just made me puke in my mouth a little.

  7. White Rose on November 26, 2014 at 9:38 am said:

    Roll on January is what I say .

    The cdc in their latest hoax said 1.5M ebola victims by January . Well we will see .

    1976 swine flue hoax = cdc
    1993 mass sterilisations in Mexico = World Hoax Organisation
    1993 mass sterilisations in Nicarague = World Hoax Organisation
    1994 mass sterilisations in Phillipiines = World Hoax Organisation
    2004 mass sterilisations in Sri Lanka = World Hoax Organisation
    2008 mass sterilisations in Brazil = World Hoax Organisation (speculation)
    2004 autism epidemic , very real , denied and covered up by the cdc , ongoing
    2008 swine flu hoax = cdc
    2014 ebola hoax = cdc
    2014 mass sterilisations in Kenya = World Hoax Organisation

    I am not even go to mention aids . Maurice Hilleman’s own recorded admission .

    Please feel free to add to the timelines , and fill out

    • justthestats on November 26, 2014 at 5:22 pm said:

      The cdc in their latest hoax said 1.5M ebola victims by January . Well we will see .

      Well, you might want to take into account that that is their worst-case scenario, not their prediction of what is most likely to happen. Their best-case scenario is that it will be almost completely contained by Jan 20. That’s a lot of spread there. I hope you won’t be disappointed if the worst-case scenario doesn’t happen.

      I asked you before for a little more documentation about these mass sterilizations you claim happened, since I couldn’t find anything substantial. It’s a little strange to me that all those people were sterilized and yet no one seems to have noticed. Do you think that they had hoax children born to those people? That hoax children were sent to the schools in the affected areas so that they wouldn’t get closed? It sounds like a very elaborate World Hoax to me indeed.

      • Lawrence on November 26, 2014 at 7:46 pm said:

        @JTS – know, with all of that “mass-sterilization” going on, it must be a real mystery why birth rates in almost all developing countries are still climbing……..

  8. White Rose on November 26, 2014 at 1:18 pm said:

    Somebody (see if you can guess who) over at AoA was talking about the Gaaarbage recently .
    He has just finished his latest collaboratively written book with Dan Olmsted (big clue) . Yes , great its all down on record for all to see where you stand but I still have some niggling doubts that I need to clear up .

    So presumably the Blaxman is not so busy now , and is free to answer some simple straightforward questions .
    Ideally I would like to do this interview on camera for immediate upload to YouTube .
    but the basic simple questions I want you to answer are these two .

    1. What was your role in the Omnibus legal proceedings by the 4500 parents ? tell us about your conduct
    2. What was your role in preventing a Phd Professor Brian Hooker from appearing at congress ?
    And we can build the interview from there .

  9. Thank you Jake for writing this piece. Ms. Willingham wrote articles based on speculation and only with headlines that would garner attention. She beat the Wakefield and McCarthy horse to death but never mentioned anything about the one research study that remains to be done. Even Colleen Boyle of the CDC admitted that there has been no study of vaccinated vs unvaccinated children with autism. Until then, no one can say there is not a connection.

    She became a liability for Forbes and hopefully they will see that likes and shares do not make a good journalist.

  10. White Rose on November 27, 2014 at 9:07 am said:

    @justthePits
    Have you been assigned to me ? Was it agreed in one of your Gorski team meetings ?

    So how about this one then , lets discuss this one .

    The cdc admitted on its very OWN website that via the Polio vaccine from the 60’s onwards to have INFECTED
    120M americans citizens with the CARCINOGEN SV40 , discuss please

    Would you describe the deliberate proliferation of CANCER by the government as a holocaust ?

    • justthestats on November 30, 2014 at 8:50 pm said:

      Have you been assigned to me ? Was it agreed in one of your Gorski team meetings ?

      You’ve addressed me by name half a dozen times, including including twice on that very topic, and then you’re surprised that I’m replying? I have to wonder what you were expecting.

      The only team meetings I’ve been to in recent memory have been about making small changes to one of our products in response to focus group feedback. I doubt the majority of the people there even knew what a Gorski is.

      The cdc admitted on its very OWN website that via the Polio vaccine from the 60’s onwards to have INFECTED
      120M americans citizens with the CARCINOGEN SV40 , discuss please

      Certainly. SV40 is a double-stranded DNA virus, which has several consequences, but the one most important for our discussion is that it’s similar enough to the way that our cells work genetically that it doesn’t need to carry its own mechanisms for decoding and copying its genes. Instead, to reproduce, it activates the infected cell’s division mechanism, then hijacks it and uses it to copy its own DNA instead.

      SV40 infections don’t show any symptoms in primates, but in hamsters they are able to trigger the cell division process, but are not nearly as successful at hijacking the DNA duplication process. That means that you can tell when a hamster is infected because they immediately start growing tumors.

      SV40 was discovered in 1960 independently by two teams. It turned out to be a very useful discovery. Observing how it induced tumors in hamsters was instrumental for us discovering what P53 does. SV40 induces the production of a protein called large T antigen that interferes with a gene present essential in all animals called P53. P53 controls many biological processes and is an important tumor suppressor. Large T antigen is used all over the place in cellular biology to keep cells growing and not dying of old age in vitro.

      Since SV40 is symptomless in humans, we don’t know too much about its prevalence or transmission rates. Another complicating factor is that since large T antigen is commonly used, there are definitely cases where tests for SV40 come back positive simply because of cross-contamination.

      We know now that SV40 was present in some polio vaccines produced before 1963. How many of them is unknown, since they didn’t have a nondestructive mans of testing for SV40 at the time and practically all doses were used for preventing a disease that at the time was killing thousands and permanently disabling tens of thousands a year. Procedures to prevent SV40 and other undesired viruses from appearing in polio vaccines were implemented by 1963.

      Even if we use the worst-case estimate you cite as the number of people exposed, it’s still way too high for the number of infected. That’s because SV40 has low oral transmission in humans, and the vaccines with SV40 present were oral vaccines.

      Is SV40 a carcinogen? No. By definition, a carcinogen has to induce tumors in humans, which it does not. There is some discussion in the literature about the possibility of a fragment of large T antigen DNA getting integrated into the host DNA, impairing P53, which would make it easier for actual carcinogens to cause cancer. That would make it what is called a co-carcinogen. The evidence on whether such a thing has actually ever happened is equivocal, but if it has, it’s not very common. The cancer rate of people who got the polio vaccine those years is indistinguishable from the following years, which either means there was no meaningful risk associated with SV40 exposure from the vaccines, or something else specific to that group exactly cancelled out the risk.

      So you got everything right except for “onwards” “INFECTED” “120M” and “CARCINOGEN.”

      Would you describe the deliberate proliferation of CANCER by the government as a holocaust ?

      If it was by SV40, I’d call it incompetent, especially by 1960s standard. They were aware of much more potent ways to proliferate cancer by then.

      It’s easy for you to Monday-morning quarterback the decision to keep on using the existing supply of vaccines after SV40 was discovered, with more than fifty years of hindsight and no one’s life at stake from your decision. All they knew about at that time was that the virus didn’t cause symptoms in the people who already were exposed by the vaccine, and that if they destroyed the existing stock it would set the vaccination program behind by months and result in thousands of preventable deaths.

      It shouldn’t be surprising to you that vaccines sometimes have bacteria and viruses other than the targeted ones — they are grown! Don’t you know how much harmful bacteria you come in contact with every day through your food? Even in the fifties vaccines were more tested

      • justthestats on November 30, 2014 at 9:01 pm said:

        for harmful microbes than food is today.

        Incidentally, there is a virus that interferes with the same P53 gene that SV40 interferes with, does cause tumors in humans, is quite common, and is implicated in a large number of cancers. You may have heard of it. It’s called HPV. Are you as concerned about HPV as you are about SV40?

  11. Lawrence on November 28, 2014 at 1:23 pm said:

    @WhiteRose – shifting goalposts (in this case, shifting the whole game) because you can’t provide any actual evidence of your “sterilization” claims?

    SV40 has been discussed to death & there hasn’t been any actual evidence that SV40 has done a damn thing….care to provide anything even remotely like actual scientific evidence, as opposed to tin-hat conspiracy theories?

  12. White Rose on November 28, 2014 at 3:24 pm said:

    answer the question Larry !

    Lets talk about the Maurice Hilleman recording (is he sciencey enough for you – the godfather of all things vaccine) .

  13. Doug Troutman on November 29, 2014 at 2:40 pm said:

    According to the CHOP website SV-40 virus is harmless. According to Dr. Offit Thimerasol is a gentle kind of mercury. As far as the major increases in Cancer and childhood chronic diseases, its probably better diagnoses. I am sure Dr. Offit would agree.

    • Also according to Dr. Offit, 10,000 vaccines are harmless but not 634 almonds. The millionaire vaccine industrialist is also an almond safety advocate.

    • justthestats on November 30, 2014 at 11:09 pm said:

      Would you have a preference between the gentle kind of chlorine and a less gentle kind? If you do, why don’t you think the same principle applies to mercury? It’s not like the toxicology of thimerosal is the kind of thing that is secret, and if you don’t believe the published literature on the topic, you could always run comparison studies yourself, such as between thimerosal and some methylmercury salt or mercury vapor. I would recommend collaborating with someone with experience in such things, observing proper safety procedures, and following all appropriate regulations.

      A hundred years ago, if your child had a chronic disease, you called your child a “sickly child,” and you were happy if they survived to adulthood but you knew they probably wouldn’t. No one would really have any idea why your child was the way he was. Nowadays we have names for the diseases, and usually treatments for them as well. We have good statistics on how many have many of those conditions now instead of each being a separate mystery.

      Why are you blaming the messenger?

      That’s not even counting diseases like PKU that we’ve managed to change from fatal at a very early age to annoying but quite survivable, which would raise the percentage of children with chronic disease somewhat, but feels like progress to me.

  14. White Rose on December 2, 2014 at 11:27 am said:

    @ JustThePits

    Yes Scarlet Fever was a massive killer .And thanks to the scarlet fever vaccine its all but eradicated !

    • justthestats on December 2, 2014 at 6:40 pm said:

      I’m having a hard time following you. As far as I can tell, Scarlet Fever isn’t ever caused by polio, or SV40 for that matter.

    • Lawrence on December 2, 2014 at 8:54 pm said:

      @WhiteRose – Scarlet Fever is no longer a threat due to the treatment of Strep with antibiotics. Before antibiotics, it was a very nasty disease.

  15. White Rose on December 2, 2014 at 11:30 am said:

    13 dead in Italy from Novartis’s Flu vaccine .
    Flumist in all sorts of trouble in Florida I understand . Many children maimed .

    • Lawrence on December 2, 2014 at 8:55 pm said:

      @WhiteRose – the Italy situation is under investigation. The only conclusive autopsy shows the victim died from a ruptured Aorta….not exactly something caused by a vaccine, wouldn’t you say?

  16. White Rose on December 2, 2014 at 12:24 pm said:

    According to the bishops, four separate laboratory tests of the actual vaccine found it contained a hormone (Beta-hCG) that prevents implantation, possibly leading to multiple miscarriages and even infertility. The bishops say they felt they must warn the public when the government failed to comply.

    • justthestats on December 2, 2014 at 8:16 pm said:

      Beta-hCG isn’t a hormone, but if you combine it with the appropriate alpha subunit you can build a hormone out of it. You used to do a lot of that when you were much, much smaller, but you haven’t completely grown out of the habit even as an adult. If you ever feel like you need to start making a lot of it again, I recommend you see a qualified oncologist.

      Given that hCG signals to the corpus luteum to keep on producing progesterone, which signals to the endometrium that it should prepare for implantation, I find it a little hard to believe that it would prevent implantation. I can’t seem to find any references that would validate that idea. It certainly is produced by the placenta in large amounts right after implantation, and its presence is so essential for pregnancy that it’s considered the definitive thing to test for to determine if a woman is in the early stages of pregnancy.

      The bishops did indeed say that four tests found hCG, but they were not correct in interpreting the results they got. They ordered a regular pregnancy blood test for the samples, which came back saying that the vaccines were not pregnant. Since a blood pregnancy test isn’t capable of distinguishing between the absence of hCG and there being an extremely low level of it, the tests did not explicitly say there was no detectable level of hCG, and the bishops decided that meant that there actually was. They also decided that meant that the vaccines would keep pregnancies from happening, even though if their assumption that the pregnancy test would be able to detect the related-to-but-not-actually hCG compound was correct, the amounts necessary to cause loss of fertility would be literally millions of times larger than the smallest detectable amounts.

      tl;dr The bishops did the wrong test, read the test wrong, and then didn’t realize that even if their wrong interpretation was correct it still wouldn’t be evidence that the vaccines could cause sterility.

      Unsurprisingly, the Kenyan government didn’t “comply.” More than one baby per day died of neonatal tetanus in Kenya before they started their vaccination program. If you were doing something that kept babies from dying, and then someone asked you not to because they decided that you were really doing something else, would you stop?

  17. White Rose on December 2, 2014 at 12:27 pm said:

    It isn’t the first time a UN or government-run program has been accused of sterilizing women without their consent. Similar allegations of a tetanus vaccine involving WHO were made in the Philippines and Peru in the 1990s. Both cases eventually led to inconclusive legal proceedings. Each time this happens, public trust in international institutions is shaken to its foundations.

    Peru now !

    • justthestats on December 2, 2014 at 8:23 pm said:

      You have to wonder why they lead to inconclusive legal proceedings. You would think that bringing even one percent of the millions you claim have been involuntarily sterilized into the courtroom would be enough for even the most clueless of juries to notice a pattern. it seems to me that the victims of mass atrocities sometimes have a hard time getting legal proceedings started, but they never seem to have a problem with proving to the legal system’s satisfaction that the injuries occurred.

  18. Sam Hall on December 4, 2014 at 9:32 am said:

    @Whiterose, I think you may find that in fact ‘just the pits’ and a few of her pals have been assigned to you . That makes about 3 or 4 to 1 or perhaps 3 or 4 aliases to 1 ….either way that’s a lot of resources on you. Are they getting bonused on this I do hope so as they are putting a bit of welly behind it.

    Thank you White rose – you are a regular Anne Dachel always bringing to the fore the most up to date global information on the vaccine holocaust. I really appreciate your effort in sharing the most important information. I also happen to read about he Flmuist in Florida, the Kenyan Sterilisations and one or two of the other facts you presented here. Its great to know we as a community are getting to the same information and are able to share it using a wide variety of social media, email and the written and spoken word.

    I have had great success in education many parents around me to make informed choices about vaccines. And now they know they actually have a choice, they too are educating other parents. Its really great to see people refusing to be part of this lie any longer.

    Keep up the great work White rose – the truth is all that counts.

    • justthestats on December 4, 2014 at 4:07 pm said:

      You’re right. I’ve been assigned to White Rose. And since I’m feeling generous today, I’ll even reveal who assigned me. The name of the person is . . .

      .

      .

      .

      White Rose

      You see, White Rose addresses practically comment to me, and out of politeness I’ve replied to everything that White Rose has said to me, even though most of the time they’re about things I otherwise wouldn’t have been very interested in. There have definitely been some benefits, though. For instance, I didn’t realize that p53 had so many functions other than tumor suppression before. But the biggest bonus for me was probably when White Rose wrote “answer the question Larry !” despite the fact that I can’t remember White Rose ever answering any of my questions.

  19. White Rose on December 4, 2014 at 12:33 pm said:

    Ahh great news Larry & Pits

    The BBC says the flu vaccine in Italy has been given the all clear . It was all just coincidental (again).
    When people get killed by lightning strikes , the actual cause of death is the pnemococyl virus . (cause and effect argument all over again

    • Lawrence on December 4, 2014 at 2:08 pm said:

      @WhiteRose – http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30316113

      And before you cry “conspiracy” remember Italy is also the same country that convicted Seismologists of not predicting an Earthquake, so they aren’t exactly “science-friendly.”

      At least one of those linked originally to the vaccine in fact died of a ruptured Aorta….again, not exactly something you could link to the vaccine, could you?

    • justthestats on December 4, 2014 at 6:44 pm said:

      It’s never great news when people die, White Rose. But I’m glad that the suspended lots tested clean for contamination. If there was an accident that caused a lot to be contaminated, that could be tragic.

      You seem surprised that it’s possible for several people to randomly die 48 hours after getting the same shot, but remember there are huge number of people involved here, and that clustering into clumps is an essential property of randomness. You also seem surprised that there are better tools nowadays for determining causality than post hoc ergo propter hoc. I suggest that you take a statistics class or two to learn more about how probability can be deceiving. I imagine you can probably find a good one on the web for free somewhere.

  20. White Rose on December 4, 2014 at 6:22 pm said:

    Do you know Larry . & I’m not making this up

    To this day the BBC has still not even recognised that anything happened with William Thompson
    (cdc whistleblower) . A Chief scientist who has admitted the cdc in 2003 had “doctored” away ground breaking figures that proved beyond a shadow of a doubt a direct assocation between vaccines & autism in a statistically significant cohort . & that very data is borne out in the real world (eg . the Somalian & Ugandan diasporo autism rates of 1 in 8 , and 1 in 6 respectively) . As far as the BBC is concerned William Thompson of the cdc does not even EXIST (total news blackout – total state censorship).

    So please NEVER EVER include a link back to those scoundrels to support any argument you may have , because you are making yourself look ridiculous . (or more ridiculous than usual)

    The BBC busies itself with trying to convince the United Kingdom that Autism is brought about by people watching too much televison (or some other such nonsence , misinformation) .

  21. Doug Troutman on December 6, 2014 at 3:41 am said:

    Comparing Salt to Thimerosal is really silly. Is Thimerosal Grae or Gras? I was referring Juvenile diabetes, arthritis, asthma, ect…. not just a sickly child.

    • Whoever makes that comparison neglects the AAP position statement that mercury is toxic in all forms and should be avoided, not that AAP practices what it preaches…

    • justthestats on December 18, 2014 at 10:47 pm said:

      I was referring to the fact that an atom behaves differently depending on its oxidation state and what it’s bonded with, which is why chlorine behaves differently in table salt than in mustard gas, and is why mercury behaves differently in thimerosal than in methylmercury salts, and different again to how it behaves in mercury vapor.

      But I’ll take you up on that challenge. Obviously table salt and thimerosal aren’t exactly the same. I wouldn’t recommend you use one as a substitute for the other by any means. But that doesn’t mean they are entirely different either.

      * They both are used as preservatives, although not as much as they used to.

      * Both will cause neurological problems that go away after a few days if you ingest far, far more than you’re likely to.

      * Both will kill you if you ingest even more than that.

      If you really don’t think that children with juvenile diabetes or asthma were just as likely to be diagnosed correctly back in the good old days when doctors didn’t get formal educations as they are today, I don’t know what to tell you. Both of those conditions seem exactly like the kind of thing that would get called “sickly.”

      But I’m not sure what you’re getting at either, since juvenile diabetes has been known about for thousands of years, and juvenile asthma is no spring chicken either. Furthermore, asthma has a strong environmental component — if it’s going up in your area, chances are very, very good that air quality is going down, and diabetes has major diet-related risk factors.

      Juvenile arthritis is a little different, in that I don’t think children with that diagnosis would have been called “sickly” before, but they wouldn’t have gotten a diagnosis at all either. It would go something like this: “Remember that time when Jimmy’s joints hurt real bad for a few months?” “Yeah, that was weird.”

      I’ll also note that both incidence and prevalence of juvenile diabetes vary widely over time and location, and that there isn’t any trend known.

  22. Pingback: Fight Crooked Media, Donate To The Donald Trump Campaign! - Autism Investigated

Leave a Reply

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

Post Navigation